Patient-reported quality of care for osteoarthritis: development and testing of the osteoarthritis quality indicator questionnaire

Patient-Reported Quality of Care for Osteoarthritis in General Practice in South Tyrol, Italy: Protocol for Translation, Validation and Assessment of the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator Questionnaire (OA-QI)

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis are similar internationally. Nevertheless, clinical practice varies across countries. Instruments for measuring quality have been developed to improve health care through targeted interventions. Studies on health service quality must consider the structural and cultural characteristics of countries, because each of their strengths and weaknesses differ. However, such instruments for health-related patient-reported outcomes for osteoarthritis have not yet been validated in German and Italian languages.

OBJECTIVES

In order to be able to set targeted measures for the improvement of prevention and non-surgical treatment of osteoarthritis in South Tyrol, Italy, the quality of care must be recorded. Therefore, the aim of the project is to update, translate, and validate the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire version 2, an established and validated questionnaire in Norwegian and English, for Germany and Italy. The second aim is to determine the quality of care for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee in a sample of patients who consult general practice in South Tyrol, and for comparison with patients who are admitted to rehabilitative spa-treatments for osteoarthritis in the state of Salzburg, Austria.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will enable the identification and closure of gaps in osteoarthritis care. Although it is expected that body weight and exercise will play special roles, other areas of nonsurgical care might also be involved.

Singapore KneE osTeoarthritis CoHort (SKETCH): protocol for a multi-centre prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of global disability. The understanding of the role of psychosocial factors in knee OA outcomes is still evolving particularly in an Asian context. The primary aim of this study is to explore psychosocial factors that prognosticate short and long-term clinical outcomes, productivity, and healthcare utilization in patients with knee OA. Secondary aims are to explore the mediation and directional relationships and the role it plays in predicting the discordance between self-reported measures (SRM), physical-performance measures (PPMs) and objective clinical parameters.

METHODS

A multi-centre prospective cohort study of community ambulant knee OA patients seeking treatment in the tertiary healthcare institutions in Singapore will be conducted. Patients with secondary arthritis, significant cognitive impairment, severe medical comorbidities or previous knee arthroplasty will be excluded. Primary clinical outcome measure is the Knee injury and OA Outcome Score-12 (KOOS-12). Baseline characteristics include sociodemographic status, arthritis status including symptom duration and radiographic severity, comorbidities and functional status through Charlson Comorbidities Index (CCI), Barthel Index (BI) and Parker Mobility Score (PMS). Psychosocial variables include social support, kinesiophobia, negative affect, self-efficacy, injustice, chronic illness shame and the built environment. Clinical outcomes include quality of life, physical performance, global assessment, satisfaction and physical activity levels. Productivity and healthcare utilization will be assessed by a modified OA Cost and Consequences Questionnaire (OCC-Q) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Variables will be collected at baseline, 4, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Regression, mediation and structural equation modelling will be used for analysis.

DISCUSSION

Results will allow contextualization, identification, and phenotyping of the critical (and potentially modifiable) psychosocial parameters that predict positive clinical outcomes in the OA population to guide optimization and refinement of healthcare and community. This will facilitate: 1. identification of high-risk knee OA subpopulations that will likely experience poor outcomes and 2. formulation of targeted multidisciplinary comprehensive approaches to address these psychosocial factors to optimize non-surgical treatment care, maximize functional outcomes and create more value-based care model for knee OA.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been registered under clinicaltrials.gov registry (Identifier: NCT04942236).

Quality of knee osteoarthritis care in the Netherlands: a survey on the perspective of people with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators (QIs) are used to monitor quality of care and adherence to osteoarthritis (OA) standards of care. Patient reported QIs can identify the most important gaps in quality of care and the most vulnerable patient groups. The aim of this study was to capture the perspective of people with knee OA (KOA) in the Netherlands on the quality of care received, and explore determinants related to lower achievement rates.

METHODS

We sent an online survey to all members of The Dutch Knee Panel (n = 622) of the Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, the Netherlands between September and October 2019. The survey consisted of a slightly adapted version of the "OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator" (OA-QI) questionnaire (18 items; yes, no, N/A); a rating of quality of KOA care on a 10-point scale; a question on whether or not one wanted to see change in the care for KOA; and an open-ended question asking recommendations for improvement of OA care. Furthermore, sociodemographic and disease related characteristics were collected. Pass rates for separate QIs and pass rates on patient level were calculated by dividing the number of times the indicator was achieved by the number of eligible persons for that particular indicator.

RESULTS

A total of 434 participants (70%) completed the survey. The mean (SD) pass rate (those answering "Yes") for separate QIs was 49% (20%); ranging from 15% for receiving referral for weight reduction to 75% for patient education on how to manage knee OA. The mean (SD) pass rate on patient level was 52% (23%). Presence of OA in other joints, comorbidities, and having a knee replacement were associated with higher pass rates. On average, a score of 6.5 (1.6) was given for the quality of care received, and the majority of respondents (59%) wanted change in the care for KOA. Of 231 recommendations made, most often mentioned were the need for tailoring of care (14%), more education (13%), and more empathy and support from healthcare providers (12%).

CONCLUSION

This study found patients are only moderately satisfied with the OA care received, and showed substantial gaps between perceived quality of care for OA and internationally accepted standards. Future research should focus on the underlying reasons and provide strategies to bridge these gaps.

Changes in received quality of care for knee osteoarthritis after a multicomponent intervention in a general practice in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

First-line treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis should ideally prescribe patient education, exercise, and if needed, weight loss. In practice, however, adjunctive treatments, including painkillers and referrals to specialists, are typically introduced before these measures. This study evaluated interventions to sustainably improve general practitioner delivered care for patients with knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Comparison of impacts of knee osteoarthritis care during four half-year periods: before, 6, 12, and 18 months after primary intervention based on electronic medical records (EMR) and patient questionnaires.

SETTING

Danish general practitioners (GPs) treating 6240 patients.

PARTICIPANTS

Four GPs, two GP trainees, and six staff members.

INTERVENTIONS

Six pre-planned primary interventions: patient leaflet, GP and staff educational session, knee osteoarthritis consultation, two functional tests monitoring patient function, EMR phrase aiding consultation, and waiting room advertisement and three supportive follow-up interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Usage of first-line and adjunctive treatment elements, the functional tests, and the EMR phrase.

RESULTS

Approximately 50 knee osteoarthritis cases participated in each of the four half-year periods. Primary interventions had only transient effects lasting <12 months on the knee osteoarthritis care. Functional tests and EMR phrases were used predominantly during the first 6 months, where a transient drop in the referral rate to orthopedics was observed. Use of educational elements was moderate and without significant change during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

More routine use of the primary or inclusion of novel increased-adherence interventions is needed to sustainably improve care for knee osteoarthritis patients in Danish general practice.

Quality indicators for knee and hip osteoarthritis care: a systematic review

To provide an overview of quality indicators (QIs) for knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) care and to highlight differences in healthcare settings. A database search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar, OpenGrey and Prospective Trial Register, up to March 2020. Studies developing or adapting existing QI(s) for patients with osteoarthritis were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were categorised into healthcare settings. QIs from included studies were categorised into structure, process and outcome of care. Within these categories, QIs were grouped into themes (eg, physical therapy). A narrative synthesis was used to describe differences and similarities between healthcare settings. We included 20 studies with a total of 196 QIs mostly related to the process of care in different healthcare settings. Few studies included patients’ perspectives. Rigorous methods for evidence synthesis to develop QIs were rarely used. Narrative analysis showed differences in QIs between healthcare settings with regard to exercise therapy, weight counselling, referral to laboratory tests and ‘do not do’ QIs. Differences within the same healthcare setting were identified on radiographic assessment. The heterogeneity in QIs emphasise the necessity to carefully select QIs for KHOA depending on the healthcare setting. This review provides an overview of QIs outlined to their healthcare settings to support healthcare providers and policy makers in selecting the contextually appropriate QIs to validly monitor the quality of KHOA care. We strongly recommend to review QIs against the most recent guidelines before implementing them into practice.

Association between received treatment elements and satisfaction with care for patients with knee osteoarthritis seen in general practice in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

While education, exercise, and weight reduction when indicated, are recommended first-line treatments for knee osteoarthritis patients, they remain poorly implemented in favour of pain killer treatment, imaging and referral to surgery. A reason could be that patients are more satisfied with receiving these adjunctive treatment elements. This study aimed to investigate the associations between the received elements of care and the patient's satisfaction with the care for knee osteoarthritis in general practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A Danish general practice.

SUBJECTS

All consecutive patients ≥30 years of age who consulted the general practitioner (GP) with chronic knee complaints during 18 months and who replied to a mailed questionnaire (n = 136).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The questionnaire addressed patient's knee-related quality of life, and overall satisfaction with care, as well as reception of seven types of information, which are known quality indicators. Information on reception of adjunctive treatment elements was obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction (versus neutrality/dissatisfaction) was positively associated with reception of information on: physical activity and exercise (relative risks [RR] 1.38, 95% bootstrap percentile interval [BPI] 1.02-4.33), and the relationship between weight and osteoarthritis (1.38, 1.01-4.41). No significant associations were found for the five remaining types of information and all the adjunctive treatment elements.

CONCLUSION

Providing information as education to patients with knee osteoarthritis as part of the treatment is positively associated with satisfaction with care.KEY POINTSGeneral practitioners worry about the doctor-patient relationship when addressing recommended lifestyle changes. However, this study revealed:•Patients in general practice with knee osteoarthritis are satisfied with care after having received information on lifestyle changes, such as exercise and the relationship between weight and osteoarthritis.•Patient satisfaction was not associated with the reception of adjunctive treatment elements for osteoarthritis.

Improving osteoarthritis management in primary healthcare: results from a quasi-experimental study

Background

To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in a Norwegian municipality initiated an intervention. The intervention aimed to increase provision of core OA treatment (information, exercise, and weight control) prior to referral for surgery, rational use of imaging for assessing OA and improve communication between healthcare professionals. This study assessed the effectiveness of this intervention.

Methods

Forty-eight PTs and one hundred one GPs were invited to the intervention that included two interactive workshops outlining best practice and an accompanying template for PT discharge reports. Using interrupted time series research design, the study period was divided into three: pre-implementation, transition (implementation) and post-implementation. Comparing the change between pre- and post-implementation, the primary outcome was patient-reported quality of OA care measured with the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of PT discharge reports, information included in GP referral letters to orthopaedic surgeon, the proportion of GP referral letters indicating use of core treatment, and the use of imaging within OA assessment. Analyses involved linear mixed and logistic regression models.

Results

The PT workshop had 30 attendees, and 31 PTs and 33 GPs attended the multidisciplinary workshop. Two hundred eight and one hundred twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire during pre- and post-implementation, respectively. The adjusted model showed a small, statistically non-significant, increase in mean total score for quality of OA care (mean change = 4.96, 95% CI -0.18, 10.12, p:0.057), which was mainly related to items on OA core treatment. Patients had higher odds of reporting receipt of information on treatment alternatives (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% CI 1.08, 3.24) and on self-management (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.33, 4.32) in the post-implementation phase. There was a small, statistically non-significant, increase in the proportion of GP referral letters indicating prior use of core treatment modalities. There were negligible changes in the number of PT discharge reports, in the information included in the GP referral letters, and in the use of imaging for OA assessment.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a primary care intervention including two inter-active workshops can shift the quality of care towards best practice recommendations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02876120.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-03959-6.

The Active with OsteoArthritis (AktivA) Physiotherapy Implementation Model: A Patient Education, Supervised Exercise and Self-Management Program for Patients with Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritis of the Knee or Hip Joint. A National Register Study with a Two-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Recent systematic reviews and international guidelines recommend patient education, exercises, and weight control (if overweight) as first-line treatment for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). The Active with osteoArthritis (AktivA) program is a physiotherapy model for the implementation of these guidelines into clinical primary care practice. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term effects of and adherence to the AktivA program for patients with mild to moderate knee or hip OA.

METHODS

The AktivA program includes three modules: a physiotherapy certification course, a patient education and exercise program and an electronic quality register. An electronic questionnaire including questions about, pain, quality of life, physical activity, self-efficacy and satisfaction with the AktivA program are sent to the participants at inclusion and after 3, 12 and 24 months. A linear mixed model for repeated measurements was used to assess the difference between the follow-up times.

RESULTS

Until January 2020, 6245 patients were included in the register. The response rates were 98%, 86% and 63% at 3, 12 and 24 months, respectively. After participating in the AktivA program, the patients reported decreased pain and increased health-related and disease-specific quality of life at three months and the positive effect was maintained up to two years after inclusion. The proportion of patients reporting to be inactive or having a low physical activity level was reduced from 43% to 22%. After two years, more than 80% of the participants reported to use what they have learned from the AktivA program at least once a week.

CONCLUSIONS

Two years after inclusion in the AktivA physiotherapy program, the patients still report reduced pain, increased quality of life and higher activity levels.

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool

BACKGROUND

There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity.

METHODS

To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n = 9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one.

RESULTS

A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen's Kappa estimates ranged from - 0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (- 0.14, 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.

Rehabilitation needs in individuals with knee OA in rural Western Cape, South Africa: an exploratory qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Current clinical practice guidelines have suggested that each individual with knee osteoarthritis (OA) should receive three core treatments from their health care provider. These core treatments comprise of exercise, education and weight loss. Identification of the health care and rehabilitation needs of individuals with knee OA in rural areas are imperative for focusing service delivery in a specific context in order to empower the individual. The aim of this study was to explore the rehabilitation needs of individuals with knee OA living in rural Western Cape in order to identify the gaps in services offered and inform rehabilitation programmes in these settings.

METHODS

Semi-structured in-depth individual interviews were performed on 16 individuals with knee OA living in rural settings of the Western Cape, South Africa. A deductive data analysis approach was used and the needs of the individuals were identified and categorised for interpretation and comparison with the reported services received.

FINDINGS

The three major themes identified were 'I would like to know more', 'There's not much support from the clinic' and 'I don't feel myself anymore'. These themes relate to the lack of disease-specific education, barriers in the health systems and service delivery resulting in individuals lack of self-worth and poor mental wellbeing. The results revealed the integral relationship between health care systems, service delivery and the effect on patient wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

The rehabilitation needs of individuals with knee OA in rural areas advocates for addressing barriers in rural primary health care system such as adequate human resources, referral systems and continuity of care. This will allow for a comprehensive, person-centred and context-specific multidisciplinary approach focused on empowering individuals with knee OA through disease-specific education, improving functional participation and symptom management strategies. This could improve the social inclusion and mental wellbeing of individuals living with knee OA.

My joint pain, a web-based resource, effects on education and quality of care at 24 months

Objective

To evaluate the effects of the updated version of an evidence-based osteoarthritis (OA) resource and consumer hub, ‘My Joint Pain’ website, on health education and quality of care over 12 months.

Methods

Using a classic quasi-experimental design, participants with symptomatic hip or knee OA were recruited across Australia to evaluate the ‘My Joint Pain’ website, compared to a control group of non-users from 12 to 24 months. Outcome measures included the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (HEIQ) and the OA Quality Indicator (OAQI) questionnaire. The changes from 12 to 24 months in the HEIQ were evaluated using a generalised linear model. The differences between users and non-users in the OAQI were evaluated using a chi-square test.

Results

A total of 277 eligible participants with symptomatic hip or knee OA were recruited at baseline, and 122 participants completed the 24-month surveys (users: n = 35, non-users: n = 87). There was no significant difference between users and non-users for the HEIQ scores at 24 months after adjustments for age, sex and body mass index (BMI). Users had higher emotional distress scores than non-users in univariable analysis. When compared with non-users in the OAQI, users showed favourable changes in receiving information about “self-management” and “acetaminophen” and “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)” from 12 to 24 months.

Conclusion

The evaluation of the updated ‘My Joint Pain’ website didn’t find significant improvements in terms of health education, but it may help delivering useful information about self-management and appropriate use of pharmacological treatments. More strategies are needed to facilitate the uptake of evidence-based self-management and education online resources for OA consumers.

Patients report inferior quality of care for knee osteoarthritis prior to assessment for knee replacement surgery - a cross-sectional study of 517 patients in Denmark

Background and purpose - Clinical care pathways for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are not always in line with clinical guidelines. We investigated (1) the patient-perceived quality of OA management, (2) which physiotherapist-delivered treatments patients with knee OA have attempted, and (3) patients' expected subsequent treatment, at the time of referral to an orthopedic surgeon.Patients and methods - This cross-sectional study included all patients with scheduled first-time appointments for knee OA at an orthopedic outpatient clinic from April 2017 to February 2018. Postal questionnaires included the 16-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire and questions about physiotherapist-delivered treatment for knee OA.Results - 517 of 627 (82%) eligible patients responded. Responders' (63% female) mean age was 67 years. The mean pass rate for the 16 independent quality indicators was 32% (8-74%). Sub-grouped into 4 categories, pass rates for independent quality indicators ranged from 16-52% regarding information, 9-50% regarding pain and functional assessment, 8-35% regarding referrals, and 16-74% regarding pharmacological treatment. While half of responders felt informed of physical activity benefits, only one-third had consulted a physiotherapist during the past year. Commonest physiotherapist-delivered treatments were exercise therapy for 22% and participation in the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) program for12% of responding patients. 65% expected surgery as subsequent treatment.Interpretation - Patients with knee OA are undertreated in primary care in Denmark; however, our findings may only reflect healthcare settings that are comparably organized. Our results call for better structure and uniform pathways for primary care knee OA treatment before referral to an orthopedic surgeon.

Implementing a structured model for osteoarthritis care in primary healthcare: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international recommendations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this model in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial with stepped-wedge cohort design in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) between January 2015 and October 2017. The randomised order was concealed to the clusters until the time of crossover from the control to the intervention phase. The intervention was implementation of the SAMBA model, facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners and physiotherapists with an update on OA treatment recommendations. Patients in the intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education and individually tailored exercise programme for 8-12 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0-100, 100 = optimal quality) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported referrals to physiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity level; and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). In all, 40 of 80 general practitioners (mean age [SD] 50 [12] years, 42% females) and 37 of 64 physiotherapists (mean age [SD] 42 [8] years, 65% females) participated. They identified 531 patients, of which 393 patients (mean age [SD] 64 [10] years, 71% females) with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included. Among these, 109 patients were recruited during the control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). The patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score of 60 versus 41, mean difference 18.9; 95% CI 12.7, 25.1; p < 0.001) and higher satisfaction with OA care (odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% CI 6.44, 22.72; p < 0.001) compared to patients in the control group. The increase in quality of care was close to, but below, the pre-specified minimal important change. In the intervention group, a higher proportion was referred to physiotherapy (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.08, 5.73; p = 0.03), a higher proportion fulfilled physical activity recommendations (OR 9.3; 95% CI 2.87, 30.37; p < 0.001), and a lower proportion was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08, 0.80; p = 0.02), as compared to the control group. There were no significant group differences regarding referral to MRI (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.13, 2.38; p = 0.42) and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.70, 2.51; p = 0.34). Study limitations include the imbalance in patient group size, which may have been due to an increased attention to OA patients among the health professionals during the intervention phase, and a potential recruitment bias as the patient participants were identified by their health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a structured model in primary care resulted in higher quality of OA care as compared to usual care. Future studies should explore ways to implement the structured model for integrated OA care on a larger scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Measurement properties for the revised patient-reported OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

To assess validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the revised OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire version 2 (v2) assessing patient-reported quality of osteoarthritis care.

METHODS

The OA-QI v2 (16 items, score range 0-100 (100 = best score)) was included in a longitudinal cohort study. Attendees of a 4.5 h osteoarthritis patient education programme at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway, completed the OA-QI at four time points: 2 weeks before, immediately before, immediately after, and 3 months after the programme. Test-retest reliability and measurement error over a 2-week time period were assessed in those that had not seen health professionals in the interim. Construct validity and responsiveness were assessed with predefined hypotheses. Floor and ceiling effects, smallest detectable change (SDC_95%) and minimal important change (MIC) were assessed to evaluate interpretability.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient for all 16 items was 0.89. For single items the test-retest kappa estimates ranged 0.38-0.85 and percent agreement 69-92%. Construct validity was acceptable with all six predefined hypotheses confirmed. Responsiveness was acceptable with 33 of 48 and three of four predefined hypotheses confirmed for single items and all items, respectively. There were no floor or ceiling effects. The SDC_95% was 29.1 and 3.0 at the individual and group levels, respectively. MIC was 20.4.

CONCLUSIONS

The OA-QI v2 had higher reliability estimates compared to v1, showed acceptable validity, and is the recommended version for future use. The results of responsiveness testing further support the use of the OA-QI v2 as an outcome measure in studies aiming to improve osteoarthritis care.

Optimal primary care management of clinical osteoarthritis and joint pain in older people: a mixed-methods programme of systematic reviews, observational and qualitative studies, and randomised controlled trials

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common long-term condition managed in UK general practice. However, care is suboptimal despite evidence that primary care and community-based interventions can reduce OA pain and disability.

Objectives

The overall aim was to improve primary care management of OA and the health of patients with OA. Four parallel linked workstreams aimed to (1) develop a health economic decision model for estimating the potential for cost-effective delivery of primary care OA interventions to improve population health, (2) develop and evaluate new health-care models for delivery of core treatments and support for self-management among primary care consulters with OA, and to investigate prioritisation and implementation of OA care among the public, patients, doctors, health-care professionals and NHS trusts, (3) determine the effectiveness of strategies to optimise specific components of core OA treatment using the example of exercise and (4) investigate the effect of interventions to tackle barriers to core OA treatment, using the example of comorbid anxiety and depression in persons with OA.

Data sources

The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project database, held by Keele University, was the source of data for secondary analyses in workstream 1.

Methods

Workstream 1 used meta-analysis and synthesis of published evidence about effectiveness of primary care treatments, combined with secondary analysis of existing longitudinal population-based cohort data, to identify predictors of poor long-term outcome (prognostic factors) and design a health economic decision model to estimate cost-effectiveness of different hypothetical strategies for implementing optimal primary care for patients with OA. Workstream 2 used mixed methods to (1) develop and test a ‘model OA consultation’ for primary care health-care professionals (qualitative interviews, consensus, training and evaluation) and (2) evaluate the combined effect of a computerised ‘pop-up’ guideline for general practitioners (GPs) in the consultation and implementing the model OA consultation on practice and patient outcomes (parallel group intervention study). Workstream 3 developed and investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) how to optimise the effect of exercise in persons with knee OA by tailoring it to the individual and improving adherence. Workstream 4 developed and investigated in a cluster RCT the extent to which screening patients for comorbid anxiety and depression can improve OA outcomes. Public and patient involvement included proposal development, project steering and analysis. An OA forum involved public, patient, health professional, social care and researcher representatives to debate the results and formulate proposals for wider implementation and dissemination.

Results

This programme provides evidence (1) that economic modelling can be used in OA to extrapolate findings of cost-effectiveness beyond the short-term outcomes of clinical trials, (2) about ways of implementing support for self-management and models of optimal primary care informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, including the beneficial effects of training in a model OA consultation on GP behaviour and of pop-up screens in GP consultations on the quality of prescribing, (3) against adding enhanced interventions to current effective physiotherapy-led exercise for knee OA and (4) against screening for anxiety and depression in patients with musculoskeletal pain as an addition to current best practice for OA.

Conclusions

Implementation of evidence-based care for patients with OA is feasible in general practice and has an immediate impact on improving the quality of care delivered to patients. However, improved levels of quality of care, changes to current best practice physiotherapy and successful introduction of psychological screening, as achieved by this programme, did not substantially reduce patients’ pain and disability. This poses important challenges for clinical practice and OA research.

Limitations

The key limitation in this work is the lack of improvement in patient-reported pain and disability despite clear evidence of enhanced delivery of evidence-based care.

Future work recommendations

(1) New thinking and research is needed into the achievable and desirable long-term goals of care for people with OA, (2) continuing investigation into the resources needed to properly implement clinical guidelines for management of OA as a long-term condition, such as regular monitoring to maintain exercise and physical activity and (3) new research to identify subgroups of patients with OA as a basis for stratified primary care including (i) those with good prognosis who can self-manage with minimal investigation or specialist treatment, (ii) those who will respond to, and benefit from, specific interventions in primary care, such as physiotherapy-led exercise, and (iii) develop research into effective identification and treatment of clinically important anxiety and depression in patients with OA and into the effects of pain management on psychological outcomes in patients with OA.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06984617, ISRCTN93634563 and ISRCTN40721988.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research Programme; Vol. 6, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Challenges and controversies of complex interventions in osteoarthritis management: recognizing inappropriate and discordant care

A number of controversies and challenges exist for the management of OA in health care. This paper describes the challenges and gaps in OA care, particularly in relation to population health management, complex interventions and outcomes. It sets this in the context of competing health priorities and multimorbidity, access to high quality conservative care, non-pharmacological therapies, resource limitations and models of care. The overuse of some therapies and neglect of others are discussed, as well as the potential for self-management. The roles of patient and public involvement and the healthcare team are highlighted in enhancing best care for OA and providing solutions for closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Implementation of models of care offer one solution to the challenges and progress of such implementation is described. Areas for further research are highlighted.

Quality indicators for care of osteoarthritis in primary care settings: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Despite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.

RESULTS

The search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.

Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice.

DESIGN

Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA.

INTERVENTION

Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators.

OUTCOMES

Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record.

RESULTS

1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN06984617.

Does occupational therapy reduce the need for surgery in carpometacarpal osteoarthritis? Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the absence of disease-modifying interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA), occupational therapy (OT) comprising patient education, hand exercises, assistive devices and orthoses are considered as core treatments, whereas surgery are recommended for those with severe carpometacarpal (CMC1) OA. However, even though CMC1 surgery may reduce pain and improve function, the risk of adverse effects is high, and randomized controlled trials comparing surgery with non-surgical interventions are warranted. This multicentre randomized controlled trial aims to address the following questions: Does OT in the period before surgical consultation reduce the need for surgery in CMC1-OA? What are patients' motivation and reasons for wanting CMC1-surgery? Are there differences between departments of rheumatology concerning the degree of CMC1-OA, pain and functional limitations in patients who are referred for surgical consultation for CMC1 surgery? Is the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand a reliable measure in patients with CMC1-OA? Do patients with CMC1-OA with and without affection of the distal and proximal interphalangeal finger joints differ with regard to symptoms and function? Do the degree of CMC1-OA, symptoms and functional limitations significantly predict improvement after 2 years following OT or CMC1-surgery? Is OT more cost-effective than surgery in the management of CMC1-OA?

METHODS/DESIGN

All persons referred for surgical consultation due to their CMC1-OA at one of three Norwegian departments of rheumatology are invited to participate. Those who agree attend a clinical assessment and report their symptoms, function and motivation for surgery in validated outcome measures, before they are randomly selected to receive OT in the period before surgical consultation (estimated n = 180). The primary outcome will be the number of participants in each group who have received surgical treatment after 2 years. Secondary and tertiary outcomes are pain, function and satisfaction with care over the 2-year trial period. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4, 18 and 24 months. The main analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis, using logistic regression, comparing the number of participants in each group who have received surgical treatment after 2 years.

DISCUSSION

The findings will improve the evidence-based management of HOA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER

NCT01794754 . First registrated February 15^th 2013.

Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

People with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective. The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA. This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway. This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient's perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries.

ABSTRACT

Background People with osteoarthritis (OA) desire high quality care, support and information about OA. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators (QI) can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care (e.g. NICE quality standards) are being met from a patient perspective. A Research User Group (RUG) worked with researchers to co-produce a set of self-report, patient-generated QIs for OA. The QIs were intended for use in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE guidelines. We report on 1) the co-development of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire for primary care; and 2) the comparison of the content of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire with a parallel questionnaire developed in Norway for the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker (MUST) study. Methods Researchers were invited to OA RUG meetings. Firstly, RUG members were asked to consider factors important to patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for OA and then each person rated their five most important. RUG members then discussed these in relation to a systematic review of OA QIs in order to form a list of OA QIs from a patient perspective. RUG members suggested wording and response options for a draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire to assess the QIs. Finally RUG members commented on draft and final versions of the questionnaire and how it compared with a translated Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire. Results RUG members (5 males, 5 females; aged 52-80 years) attended up to four meetings. RUG members ranked 20 factors considered most important to patients consulting their GP for joint pain. Following discussion, a list of eleven patient-reported QIs for OA consultations were formed. RUG members then suggested the wording and response options of 16 draft items - four QIs were split into two or more questionnaire items to avoid multiple dimensions of care quality within a single item. On comparison of this to the Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire, RUG members commented that both questionnaires contained seven similar QIs. The RUG members and researchers agreed to adopt the Norwegian OA-QI wording for four of these items. RUG members also recommended adopting an additional seven items from the Norwegian OA-QI with some minor word changes to improve their suitability for patients in the UK. One other item from the draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire was retained and eight items were excluded, resulting in a 15-item final version. Conclusions This study describes the development of patient-reported quality indicators for OA primary care derived by members of a RUG group, working in partnership with the research team throughout the study. The OA QI (UK) supports the NICE quality standards for OA and they have been successfully used to assess the quality of OA consultations in primary care in the MOSAICS study. The OA QI (UK) has the potential for routine use in primary care to assess the quality of OA care provided to patients. Ongoing research using both the UK and Norwegian OA-QI questionnaires is assessing the self-reported quality of OA care in different European populations.

Healthcare Quality Indicators for Physiotherapy Management in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Delphi Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to develop healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for the physiotherapy (PT) management of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (HKOA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Two multidisciplinary expert panels, including patients, were instituted. A draft HCQI set was derived from recommendations included in two existing Dutch PT guidelines for HKOA and RA. The panels suggested additional topics, after which a Delphi procedure was performed. All propositions were scored for their potential to represent good-quality PT care (score range 0-9). Based on predefined rules, the Delphi panel HCQIs were discussed and selected. Lastly, every indicator was rephrased, resulting in its output consisting of a numerator and denominator, to facilitate comparisons within and among practices.

RESULTS

After two Delphi rounds, two final sets of 17 HCQI - one for HKOA and one for RA - were composed, both containing 16 process indicators (regarding initial assessment, treatment and evaluation) and one outcome indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

Two sets of HCQIs for PT management in HKOA and RA were developed for measuring the quality of PT care in daily clinical practice. Each indicator was formulated in a measurable way. Future research should focus on the feasibility of both indicator sets for daily clinical practice.

Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n =33,919)

Objective:

Self-reported information from questionnaires is frequently used in epidemiological studies, but few of these studies provide information on the reproducibility of individual items contained in the questionnaire. We studied the test–retest reliability of self-reported diabetes among 33,919 participants in Norwegian Women and Cancer Study.

Methods:

The test–retest reliability of self-reported type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was evaluated between three self-administered questionnaires (completed in 1991, 1998, and 2005 by Norwegian Women and Cancer participants) by kappa agreement. The time interval between the test–retest studies was ~7 and ~14 years. Sensitivity of the kappa agreement for type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether test–retest reliability varies with age, body mass index, physical activity, education, and smoking status.

Results:

The kappa agreement for both types of self-reported diabetes diagnoses combined was good (⩾0.65) for all three test–retest studies (1991–1998, 1991–2005, and 1998–2005). The kappa agreement for type 1 diabetes was good (⩾0.73) in the 1991–2005 and the 1998–2005 test–retest studies, and very good (0.83) in the 1991–1998 test–retest study. The kappa agreement for type 2 diabetes was moderate (0.57) in the 1991–2005 test–retest study and good (⩾0.66) in the 1991–1998 and 1998–2005 test–retest studies. The overall kappa agreement in the 1991–1998 test–retest study was stronger than in the 1991–2005 test–retest study and the 1998–2005 test–retest study. There was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreements within different strata of age, BMI, physical activity, and smoking. The kappa agreement was strongest among the respondents with 17 or more years of education, while generally it was weaker among the least educated group.

Conclusion:

The test–retest reliability of the diabetes was acceptable and there was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreement stratified by age, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking. The study suggests that self-reported diabetes diagnosis from middle-aged women enrolled in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study is reliable.

Implementing international osteoarthritis treatment guidelines in primary health care: study protocol for the SAMBA stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous research indicates that people with osteoarthritis (OA) are not receiving the recommended and optimal treatment. Based on international treatment recommendations for hip and knee OA and previous research, the SAMBA model for integrated OA care in Norwegian primary health care has been developed. The model includes physiotherapist (PT) led patient OA education sessions and an exercise programme lasting 8-12 weeks. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, feasibility, and costs of a tailored strategy to implement the SAMBA model.

METHODS/DESIGN

A cluster randomized controlled trial with stepped wedge design including an effect, process, and cost evaluation will be conducted in six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The municipalities will be randomized for time of crossover from current usual care to the implementation of the SAMBA model by a tailored strategy. The tailored strategy includes interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and PTs in primary care covering the SAMBA model for integrated OA care, educational material, educational outreach visits, feedback, and reminder material. Outcomes will be measured at the patient, GP, and PT levels using self-report, semi-structured interviews, and register based data. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include referrals to PT, imaging, and referrals to the orthopaedic surgeon as well as participants' treatment satisfaction, symptoms, physical activity level, body weight, and self-reported and measured lower limb function. The actual exposure to the tailor made implementation strategy and user experiences will be measured in a process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the difference in costs of usual OA care and the SAMBA model for integrated OA care will be compared with the difference in health outcomes and reported by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

DISCUSSION

The results from the present study will add to the current knowledge on tailored strategies, which aims to improve the uptake of evidence-based OA care recommendations and improve the quality of OA care in primary health care. The new knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives designed to improve the quality of OA care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Self-reported quality care for knee osteoarthritis: comparisons across Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK

Objectives

To assess and compare patient perceived quality of osteoarthritis (OA) management in primary healthcare in Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the UK.

Methods

Participants consulting with clinical signs and symptoms of knee OA were identified in 30 general practices and invited to complete a cross-sectional survey including quality indicators (QI) for OA care. A QI was considered as eligible if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and as achieved if the participant had checked ‘Yes’ to the indicator. The median percentage (with IQR and range) of eligible QIs achieved by country was determined and compared in negative binominal regression analysis. Achievement of individual QIs by country was determined and compared using logistic regression analyses.

Results

A total of 354 participants self-reported QI achievement. The median percentage of eligible QIs achieved (checked ‘Yes’) was 48% (IQR 28%, 64%; range 0–100%) for the total sample with relatively similar medians across three of four countries. Achievement rates on individual QIs showed a large variation ranging from 11% (referral to services for losing weight) to 67% (information about the importance of exercise) with significant differences in achievement rates between the countries.

Conclusions

The results indicated a potential for improvement in OA care in all four countries, but for somewhat different aspects of OA care. By exploring these differences and comparing healthcare services, ideas may be generated on how the quality might be improved across nations. Larger studies are needed to confirm and further explore the findings.

Assessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Quality indicators (QIs) derived from the review of medical records, administrative databases, and patient questionnaires and interviews have been frequently used to assess the quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care. The purpose of this review is to summarize studies that have assessed the quality of OA care using QIs.

METHOD

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for English-language studies indexed by October 2014. Articles were included if they used any QIs for assessing the quality of OA care. We summarized the results of these studies, and with meta-analysis, generated an overall conclusion about the quality of care as measured by QIs for each treatment domain for OA care.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies assessed as being of high-quality were included in the review, with the number of QIs ranging from 1 to 21. Four of the 14 studies solely assessed the quality of OA care, while the other studies assessed health care quality for a range of conditions that included OA. The quality of OA care as assessed by a meta-analysis of QI pass rates across studies was suboptimal for all treatment domains (pass rates: pain and functional status assessment – 48.5%, 95% CI 32.6-64.6%; non-drug treatment – 36.1%, 95% CI 27.8-44.7%; drug treatment – 37.5%, 95% CI 30.8-44.5%; surgical referral – 78.9%, 95% CI 57.4-94.2%).

CONCLUSION

Despite efforts made at improving care for patients with OA, the wide divergence between evidence and consensus-based recommended care and practice has been reaffirmed.

The Web-Based Osteoarthritis Management Resource My Joint Pain Improves Quality of Care: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Background

Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for conservative treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), management is often confined to the use of analgesics and waiting for eventual total joint replacement. This suggests a gap in knowledge for persons with OA regarding the many different treatments available to them.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate outcomes after usage of a Web-based resource called My Joint Pain that contains tailored, evidence-based information and tools aimed to improve self-management of OA on self-management and change in knowledge.

Methods

A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the My Joint Pain website intervention over a 12-month period. The intervention provided participants with general and user-specific information, monthly assessments with validated instruments, and progress-tracking tools. A nationwide convenience sample of 195 participants with self-assessed hip and/or knee OA completed both baseline and 12-month questionnaires (users: n=104; nonusers: n=91). The primary outcome measure was the Health Evaluation Impact Questionnaire (heiQ) to evaluate 8 different domains (health-directed activity, positive and active engagement in life, emotional distress, self-monitoring and insight, constructive attitudes and approaches, skill and technique acquisition, social integration and support, health service navigation) and the secondary outcome measure was the 17-item Osteoarthritis Quality Indicator (OAQI) questionnaire to evaluate the change in appropriateness of care received by participants. Independent t tests were used to compare changes between groups for the heiQ and chi-square tests to identify changes within and between groups from baseline to 12 months for each OAQI item.

Results

Baseline demographics between groups were similar for gender (152/195, 77.9% female), age (mean 60, SD 9 years) and body mass index (mean 31.1, SD 6.8 kg/m²). With the exception of health service navigation, mean effect sizes from all other heiQ domains showed a positive trend for My Joint Pain users compared to the nonusers, although the differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Within-group changes also showed improvements among the users of the My Joint Pain website for self-management (absolute change score=15%, P=.03), lifestyle (absolute change score=16%, P=.02), and physical activity (absolute change score=11%, P=.04), with no significant improvements for the nonusers. Following 12 months of exposure to the website, there were significant improvements for users compared to nonusers in self-management (absolute change score 15% vs 2%, P=.001) and weight reduction (absolute change scores 3% vs –6%, P=.03) measured on the OAQI.

Conclusions

The My Joint Pain Web resource does not significantly improve overall heiQ, but does improve other important aspects of quality of care in people with hip and/or knee OA. Further work is required to improve engagement with the website and the quality of information delivered in order to provide a greater impact.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes.

RESULTS

10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Perceived quality of health care services among people with osteoarthritis - results from a nationwide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perceived quality of care received by people with osteoarthritis (OA) in Norway and explore factors associated with the quality of care.

METHODS

A national survey in which members of the Norwegian Rheumatism Association with OA registered as their main diagnosis completed a questionnaire. The perceived quality of care was reported on a 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire, covering both pharmacological and non-pharmacological aspects of OA care. In addition, the four-page questionnaire covered areas related to demographic characteristics, the location and impact of the OA, and utilization and satisfaction with health care services. The quality of care is calculated as pass rates, where the numerator represents the number of indicators passed and the denominator represents the number of eligible persons.

RESULTS

In total, 1,247 participants (response rate 57%) completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 68 years (standard deviation 32) and 1,142 (92%) were women. Respondents reported OA in hand only (12.4%), hip only (7.3%), knee only (10.4%), in two locations (42%) or all three locations (27%). The overall OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator pass rate was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46%-48%), and it was higher for pharmacological aspects (53% [51%-54%]) than for non-pharmacological aspects of care (44% [43%-46%]). The pass rate for the individual quality indicators ranged from 8% for "referral for weight reduction" to 81% for "receiving advice about exercises". Satisfaction with care was strongly associated with perceived quality. The pass rate for those who were "very satisfied" was 33% (25%-40%) higher than those who were "very unsatisfied" with care.

CONCLUSION

While the OA patient seems to be rather satisfied with the perceived OA care, there is still room for improvement in the quality of care. Although the quality of care in the present study is somewhat higher than in other studies, less than 50% of the recommended care has been provided.

Quality of hip and knee osteoarthritis management in primary health care in a Norwegian county: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Several studies have documented discordance between general practioners (GP) practice and management recommendations, but there is limited published information about patient reported experience of quality of care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the patient perceived quality of OA management in primary health care. Secondly, we wanted to explore the factors associated with the perceived quality of OA care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey in six general practices in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in Norway, patients with radiologically diagnosed OA, according to ICPC codes L89, L90 or L91 or clinical signs and symptoms corresponding to OA in the hip or knee and patient-reported quality of OA care on the 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (OA-QI). OA-QI summary pass rates were calculated, in which the numerator represents the number with indicators passed and the denominator represents the total number of eligible persons. Associations with summary pass rates were explored with demographic, disease related and health care related factors as independent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were included (response rate 42%). The median summary QI pass rate for all 17 QIs was 47% (Inter Quartile Range 33-65%), but there were large variation between the different items. The referral for weight reduction had the lowest pass rate (8%), whereas the highest pass rate was having received information about the importance of physical activity and exercise (84%). The median summary QI pass rates for both non-pharmacological- (QIs 1-11) and pharmacological (QIs 13-16) treatments were 50% (IQR 25-75). In bivariate regression analyses, only overall treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with QI pass rate (p = 0.001), with unstandardized beta = 6.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 9.5), i.e. a one-point increase on the five-point satisfaction scale was associated with a 6% increase in pass rate.

CONCLUSION

Considering that the median summary QI pass rate was 47%, there might be room for improvement in OA care. Advice and the referral of OA patients in need of weight reduction seem to have the greatest potential for improvement.

Implementing the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines: a mixed methods study and cluster randomised trial of a model osteoarthritis consultation in primary care--the Management of OsteoArthritis In Consultations (MOSAICS) study protocol

BACKGROUND

There is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving 'quality markers' of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain.

DESIGN

A mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial.

METHOD

This study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive 'whole-system' evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations.

DISCUSSION

The main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617.

Hand, hip and knee osteoarthritis in a Norwegian population-based study--the MUST protocol

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about the prevalence and consequences of osteoarthritis (OA) in the Norwegian population is limited. This study has been designed to gain a greater understanding of musculoskeletal pain in the general population with a focus on clinically and radiologically confirmed OA, as well as risk factors, consequences, and management of OA.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker STudy (MUST) has been designed as an observational study comprising a population-based postal survey and a comprehensive clinical examination of a sub-sample with self-reported OA (MUST OA cohort). All inhabitants in Ullensaker municipality, Norway, aged 40 to 79 years receive the initial population-based postal survey questionnaire with questions about life style, general health, musculoskeletal pain, self-reported OA, comorbidities, health care utilisation, medication use, and functional ability. Participants who self-report OA in their hip, knee and/or hand joints are asked to attend a comprehensive clinical examination at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, including a comprehensive medical examination, performance-based functional tests, different imaging modalities, cardiovascular assessment, blood and urine samples, and a number of patient-reported questionnaires including five OA disease specific instruments. Data will be merged with six national data registries. A subsample of those who receive the questionnaire has previously participated in postal surveys conducted in 1990, 1994, and 2004 with data on musculoskeletal pain and functional ability in addition to demographic characteristics and a number of health related factors. This subsample constitutes a population based cohort with 20 years follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This protocol describes the design of an observational population-based study that will involve the collection of data from a postal survey on musculoskeletal pain, and a comprehensive clinical examination on those with self-reported hand, hip and/or knee OA. These data, in addition to data from national registries, will provide unique insights into clinically and radiologically confirmed OA with respect to risk factors, consequences, and management.