High Adherence to System-Level Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis in a National Early Arthritis Cohort Over Eight Years

Having More Tender Than Swollen Joints Is Associated With Worse Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Early RA

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), high tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) have been associated with worse outcomes. A better understanding of the phenotype and impact of high TSJD on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early RA may lead to earlier personalized treatment targeting domains that are important to patients today. Our objectives were to evaluate the impact of TSJD on updated PROs in patients with early RA over 1 year and to determine differences in associations by joint size.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study followed patients with active, early RA enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort between 2016 and 2022, who completed clinical assessments and PROMIS-29 measures over 1 year. Twenty-eight joint counts were performed and TSJDs calculated. Adjusted associations between TSJD and PROMIS-29 scores were estimated using separate linear-mixed models. Separate analyses of large versus small-joint TJSDs were performed.

RESULTS

Patients with early RA (n = 547; 70% female; mean [SD] age, 56 [15] years; mean [SD] symptom duration, 5.3 [2.9] months) were evaluated. A 1-point increase in TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in all domains: physical function (adjusted regression coefficient, -0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.39, -0.15), social participation (adjusted regression coefficient, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.50, -0.19), pain interference (adjusted regression coefficient, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35, 0.64), sleep problems (adjusted regression coefficient, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.43), fatigue (adjusted regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18, 0.50), anxiety (adjusted regression coefficient, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08, 0.38), and depression (adjusted regression coefficient, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06, 0.35). Large-joint TSJD was associated with markedly worse PROs compared with small-joint TSJD.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated TSJD is associated with worse PROs particularly pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Patients with more tender than swollen joints, especially large joints, may benefit from earlier, targeted therapeutic interventions.

Identification of Gaps in Quality of Care and Good Practice Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Insights From a Literature Review and Qualitative Study of Nine Centers in North America

OBJECTIVE

Quality of care (QoC) delivery in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to suffer from various challenges (eg, delay in diagnosis and referral) that can lead to poor patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions that address these challenges in RA care in North America.

METHODS

The study was conducted in three steps: (1) literature review of existing publications and guidelines (April 2005 to April 2021) on QoC in RA; (2) in-person visits to >50 individual specialists and health care professionals across nine rheumatology centers in the United States and Canada to identify challenges in RA care and any corresponding good practice interventions; and (3) collation and organization of findings of the two previous methods by commonalities to identify key good practice interventions, followed by further review by RA experts to ensure key challenges and gaps in RA care were captured.

RESULTS

Several challenges and eight good practice interventions were identified in RA care. The interventions were prioritized based on the perceived positive impact on the challenges in care and ease of implementation. High-priority interventions included the use of technology to improve care, streamlining specialist treatment, and facilitating comorbidity assessment and care. Other interventions included enabling patient access to optimal medication regimens and improving patient self-management strategies.

CONCLUSION

Learnings from the study can be implemented in other rheumatology centers throughout North America to improve RA care. Although the study was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings remain relevant.

A Population-Based Study Evaluating Retention in Rheumatology Care Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

The study objective was to assess adherence to system‐level performance measures measuring retention in rheumatology care and disease modifying anti‐rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We used a validated health administrative data case definition to identify individuals with RA in Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014 who had at least 5 years of potential follow‐up prior to 2019. During the first 5 years following diagnosis, we assessed whether patients were seen by a rheumatologist yearly and the proportion dispensed a DMARD yearly (in those aged ≥66 for whom medication data were available). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the odds of remaining under rheumatologist care.

Results

The cohort included 50,883 patients with RA (26.1% aged 66 years and older). Over half (57.7%) saw a rheumatologist yearly in all 5 years of follow‐up. Sharp declines in the percentage of patients with an annual visit were observed in each subsequent year after diagnosis, although a linear trend to improved retention in rheumatology care was seen over the study period (P < 0.0001). For individuals aged 66 years or older (n = 13,293), 82.1% under rheumatologist care during all 5 years after diagnosis were dispensed a DMARD annually compared with 31.0% of those not retained under rheumatology care. Older age, male sex, lower socioeconomic status, higher comorbidity score, and having an older rheumatologist decreased the odds of remaining under rheumatology care.

Conclusion

System‐level improvement initiatives should focus on maintaining ongoing access to rheumatology specialty care. Further investigation into causes of loss to rheumatology follow‐up is needed.

A Population-Based Approach to Reporting System-Level Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Care

OBJECTIVE

To operationalize and report on nationally endorsed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PMs) using health administrative data for British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

All patients with RA in BC ages ≥18 years were identified between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2009 using health administrative data and followed until December 2014. PMs tested include: the percentage of incident patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit within 365 days; the percentage of prevalent patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit per year; the percentage of prevalent patients dispensed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy; and time from RA diagnosis to DMARD therapy. Measures were reported on patients seen by rheumatologists, and in the total population.

RESULTS

The cohort included 38,673 incident and 57,922 prevalent RA cases. The percentage of patients seen by a rheumatologist within 365 days increased over time (35% in 2000 to 65% in 2009), while the percentage of RA patients under the care of a rheumatologist seen yearly declined (79% in 2001 to 39% in 2014). The decline was due to decreasing visit rates with increasing follow-up time rather than calendar effect. The percentage of RA patients dispensed a DMARD was suboptimal over follow-up (37% in 2014) in the total population but higher (87%) in those under current rheumatologist care. The median time to DMARD in those seen by a rheumatologist improved from 49 days in 2000 to 23 days in 2009, with 34% receiving treatment within the 14-day benchmark.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the operationalization and reporting of national PMs using administrative data and identifies gaps in care to further examine and address.

Priorities for High-quality Care in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of Patient, Health Professional, and Policy Maker Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the essential elements of high-quality rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care in order to develop a vision statement and a set of strategic objectives for a national RA quality framework.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers using a semistructured interview or focus group guide with healthcare professionals, patients, clinic managers, healthcare leaders, and policy makers to obtain their perspectives on elements essential to RA care. Purposive sampling provided representation of stakeholder types and regions. Recorded data was transcribed verbatim. Two teams of 2 coders independently analyzed the deidentified transcripts using thematic analysis. Strategic objectives and the vision statement were drafted based on the overarching themes from the qualitative analysis and finalized by a working group.

RESULTS

A total of 54 stakeholders from 9 Canadian provinces participated in the project (3 focus groups and 19 interviews). Seven strategic objectives were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the following themes: (1) early access and timeliness of care; (2) evidence-informed, high-quality care for the ongoing management of RA and comorbidities; (3) availability of patient self-management tools and educational materials for shared decision making; (4) multidisciplinary care; (5) patient outcomes; (6) patient experience and satisfaction with care; and (7) equity, the last of which emerged as an overarching theme. The ultimate vision obtained was "ensuring patient-centered, high-quality care for people living with rheumatoid arthritis."

CONCLUSION

The 7 strategic objectives that were identified highlight priorities for RA quality of care to be used in developing the National RA Quality Measurement Framework.

Evaluating Quality of Care for Rheumatoid Arthritis for the Population of Alberta Using System-level Performance Measures

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated 4 national rheumatoid arthritis (RA) system-level performance measures (PM) in Alberta, Canada.

METHODS

Incident and prevalent RA cases ≥ 16 years of age since 2002 were identified using a validated case definition applied in provincial administrative data. Performance was ascertained through analysis of health data between fiscal years 2012/13-2015/16. Measures evaluated were as follows: proportion of incident RA cases with a rheumatologist visit within 1 year of first RA diagnosis code (PM1); proportion of prevalent RA patients who were dispensed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) annually (PM2); time from first visit with an RA code to DMARD dispensation and proportion of incident cases where the 14-day benchmark for dispensation was met (PM3); and proportion of patients seen in annual follow-up (PM4).

RESULTS

There were 31,566 prevalent and 2730 incident RA cases (2012/13). Over the analysis period, the proportion of patients seen by a rheumatologist within 1 year of onset (PM1) increased from 55% to 63%; however, the proportion of RA patients dispensed DMARD annually (PM2) remained low at 43%. While the median time to DMARD from first visit date in people who received DMARD improved over time from 39 days to 28 days, only 38-41% of patients received treatment within the 14-day benchmark (PM3). The percentage of patients seen in yearly follow-up (PM4) varied between 73-80%.

CONCLUSION

The existing Alberta healthcare system for RA is suboptimal, indicating barriers to accessing specialty care and treatment. Our results inform quality improvement initiatives required within the province to meet national standards of care.

Development of a Patient-centered Quality Measurement Framework for Measuring, Monitoring, and Optimizing Rheumatoid Arthritis Care in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered quality measurement framework to address a predefined vision statement and 7 strategic objectives for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care that was developed in prior qualitative work with arthritis stakeholders.

METHODS

One hundred forty-seven RA-related performance measures (PMs) were identified from a systematic review. A candidate list of 26 PMs meeting predefined criteria and addressing the strategic objectives previously defined was then assessed during a 3-round (R) modified Delphi. Seventeen panelists with expertise in RA, quality measurement, and/or lived experience with RA rated each PM on a 1-9 scale based on the items of importance, feasibility, and priority for inclusion in the framework during R1 and R3, with a moderated discussion in R2. PMs with median scores ≥ 7 on all 3 items without disagreement were included in the final set, which then underwent public comment.

RESULTS

Twenty-one measures were included in the final framework (15 PMs from the Delphi and 6 published system-level measures on access to care and treatment). The measures included 4 addressing early access to care and timely diagnosis, 12 evidence-based care for RA and related comorbidities, 1 addressing patient participation as an informed partner in care, and 4 on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The proposed framework builds upon existing measures capturing early access to care and treatment in RA and adds important PMs to promote high-quality RA care and outcome measurement. In the next phase, the authors will test the framework in clinical practice in addition to addressing certain areas where no suitable PMs were identified.

A Canadian evaluation framework for quality improvement in childhood arthritis: key performance indicators of the process of care

Background

The evaluation of quality of care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is critical for advancing patient outcomes but is not currently part of routine care across all centers in Canada. The study objective is to review the current landscape of JIA quality measures and use expert panel consensus to define key performance indicators (KPIs) that are important and feasible to collect for routine monitoring in JIA care in Canada.

Methods

Thirty-seven candidate KPIs identified from a systematic review were reviewed for inclusion by a working group including 3 pediatric rheumatologists. A shortlist of 14 KPIs was then assessed using a 3-round modified Delphi panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ten panelists across Canada participated based on their expertise in JIA, quality measurement, or lived experience as a parent of a child with JIA. During rounds 1 and 3, panelists rated each KPI on a 1–9 Likert scale on themes of importance, feasibility, and priority. In round 2, panelists participated in a moderated in-person discussion that resulted in minor modifications to some KPIs. KPIs with median scores of ≥ 7 on all 3 questions without disagreement were included in the framework.

Results

Ten KPIs met the criteria for inclusion after round 3. Five KPIs addressed patient assessments: pain, joint count, functional status, global assessment of disease activity, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS). Three KPIs examined access to care: wait times for consultation, access to pediatric rheumatologists within 1 year of diagnosis, and frequency of clinical follow-up. Safety was addressed through KPIs on tuberculous screening and laboratory monitoring. KPIs examining functional status using the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), quality of life, uveitis, and patient satisfaction were excluded due to concerns about feasibility of measurement.

Conclusions

The proposed KPIs build upon existing KPIs and address important processes of care that should be measured to improve the quality of JIA care. The feasibility of capturing these measures will be tested in various data sources including the Understanding Childhood Arthritis Network (UCAN) studies. Subsequent work should focus on development of meaningful outcome KPIs to drive JIA quality improvement in Canada and beyond.

Testing population-based performance measures identifies gaps in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) care

BACKGROUND

The study evaluates Performance Measures (PMs) for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA): The percentage of patients with new onset JIA with at least one visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year of diagnosis (PM1); and the percentage of patients with JIA under rheumatology care seen in follow-up at least once per year (PM2).

METHODS

Validated JIA case ascertainment algorithms were used to identify cases from provincial health administrative databases in Manitoba, Canada in patients < 16 years between 01/04/2005 and 31/03/2015. PM1: Using a 3-year washout period, the percentage of incident JIA patients with ≥1 visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year was calculated. For each fiscal year, the proportion of patients expected to be seen in follow-up who had a visit were calculated (PM2). The proportion of patients with gaps in care of > 12 and > 14 months between consecutive visits were also calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four incident JIA cases were diagnosed between 01/04/2008 and 03/31/2015. The median age at diagnosis was 9.1 years and 71% were female. PM1: Across the years, 51-81% of JIA cases saw a pediatric rheumatologist within 1 year. PM2: Between 58 and 78% of patients were seen in yearly follow-up. Gaps > 12, and > 14, months were observed once during follow-up in 52, and 34%, of cases, and ≥ twice in 11, and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal access to pediatric rheumatologist care was observed which could lead to diagnostic and treatment delays and lack of consistent follow-up, potentially negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Feasibility of Measurement and Adherence to System Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis in 5 Models of Care

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of reporting on 4 national performance measures for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 5 different models of care.

METHODS

The following performance measures were evaluated in 5 models of care: waiting time (WT) to rheumatologist consultation, percentage of patients seen in yearly followup (FU), percentage taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), and time to starting DMARD. All models aimed to improve early access and care for patients with RA.

RESULTS

A number of feasibility issues were encountered in performance measure evaluation because of differences in site data collection and/or the duration of the model of care. For example, while 4/5 programs maintained clinical or research databases, chart reviews were still required to report on WT. Median WT for care in 2015 varied by site between 21 and 75 days. Yearly FU rates could only be calculated in 2 sites (combined owing to small numbers) and varied between 83% and 100%. Percentage of patients taking a DMARD and time to DMARD could be calculated in 3 models, and rates of DMARD use were between 90% and 100%, with median time to DMARD of 0 days in each.

CONCLUSION

Our review has shown that even in models of care designed to improve access to care and early treatment, data to document improvements are often lacking. Where data were available for measuring, deficits in WT performance were noted for some centers. Our results highlight a need to improve reporting processes to drive quality improvement.