Quality measurement and improvement in rheumatology: rheumatoid arthritis as a case study

Using the technology acceptance model to assess clinician perceptions and experiences with a rheumatoid arthritis outcomes dashboard: qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Improving shared decision-making using a treat-to-target approach, including the use of clinical outcome measures, is important to providing high quality care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We developed an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated, patient-facing sidecar dashboard application that displays RA outcomes, medications, and lab results for use during clinical visits ("RA PRO dashboard"). The purpose of this study was to assess clinician perceptions and experiences using the dashboard in a university rheumatology clinic.

METHODS

We conducted focus group (FG) discussions with clinicians who had access to the dashboard as part of a randomized, stepped-wedge pragmatic trial. FGs explored clinician perceptions towards the usability, acceptability, and usefulness of the dashboard. FG data were analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive techniques; generated themes were categorized into the domains of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

RESULTS

3 FG discussions were conducted with a total of 13 clinicians. Overall, clinicians were enthusiastic about the dashboard and expressed the usefulness of visualizing RA outcome trajectories in a graphical format for motivating patients, enhancing patient understanding of their RA outcomes, and improving communication about medications. Major themes that emerged from the FG analysis as barriers to using the dashboard included inconsistent collection of RA outcomes leading to sparse data in the dashboard and concerns about explaining RA outcomes, especially to patients with fibromyalgia. Other challenges included time constraints and technical difficulties refreshing the dashboard to display real-time data. Methods for integrating the dashboard into the visit varied: some clinicians used the dashboard at the beginning of the visit as they documented RA outcomes; others used it at the end to justify changes to therapy; and a few shared it only with stable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides valuable insights into clinicians' perceptions and experiences with the RA PRO dashboard. The dashboard showed promise in enhancing patient-clinician communication, shared decision-making, and overall acceptance among clinicians. Addressing challenges related to data collection, education, and tailoring dashboard use to specific patient populations will be crucial for maximizing its potential impact on RA care. Further research and ongoing improvements in dashboard design and implementation are warranted to ensure its successful integration into routine clinical practice.

Factors Associated With Quality Care Among Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis

IMPORTANCE

Although quality care markers exist for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the predictors of meeting these markers are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors associated with quality care among patients with RA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study using insurance claims from 2009 to 2017 was conducted, and 6 sequential logistic regression models were built to evaluate quality care markers. Quality care markers were measured at 1 year post-RA diagnosis for each patient. The MarketScan Research Database, which contains commercial and Medicare Advantage administrative claims data from more than 100 million individuals in the US, was used to identify patients aged 18 to 64 years with a diagnosis claim for RA. Patients with conditions presenting similar to RA and missing demographic characteristics were excluded. Data analysis occurred between February 18 and May 5, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Success or failure to meet selected RA quality care markers within 1 year after RA diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of meeting successive quality care markers for RA.

RESULTS

Among 581 770 patients, 430 843 (74.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 48.9 (11.3) years. Most patients (236 285 [40.6%]) resided in the South and had an income less than or equal to $45 200 (490 366 [84.3%]). Of the total study population, 399 862 individuals (68.7%) met at least 1 quality care marker and 181 908 (31.3%) met 0 markers. Most commonly, patients met annual laboratory testing (299 323 [51.5%]) and referral to a rheumatologist (256 765 [44.1%]) markers. The least met marker was receiving hepatitis B screening prior to initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (18 548 [3.2%]). Women were most likely to meet all quality care markers except receiving DMARDs with hepatitis B screening (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16). Individuals with lower median household income had lower odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral, an annual physical examination, or annual laboratory testing, but greater odds of receiving the other quality care markers. Patients with Medicare and those with comorbidities were generally less likely to meet quality care markers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients with RA, findings indicated downstream associations with rheumatologist referral and receiving DMARDs and varied associations between meeting quality care markers and patient characteristics. These findings suggest that prioritizing early care, especially for vulnerable patients, will ensure that quality care continues.

The Relationship Between Electronic Health Record System and Performance on Quality Measures in the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Routine collection of disease activity (DA) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are nationally endorsed quality measures and critical components of a treat-to-target approach. However, little is known about the role electronic health record (EHR) systems play in facilitating performance on these measures.

OBJECTIVE

Using the American College Rheumatology's (ACR's) RISE registry, we analyzed the relationship between EHR system and performance on DA and functional status (FS) quality measures.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected in 2018 from practices enrolled in RISE. We assessed practice-level performance on quality measures that require DA and FS documentation. Multivariable linear regression and zero-inflated negative binomial models were used to examine the independent effect of EHR system on practice-level quality measure performance, adjusting for practice characteristics and patient case-mix.

RESULTS

In total, 220 included practices cared for 314,793 patients with RA. NextGen was the most commonly used EHR system (34.1%). We found wide variation in performance on DA and FS quality measures by EHR system (median 30.1, IQR 0-74.8, and median 9.0, IQR 0-74.2), respectively). Even after adjustment, NextGen practices performed significantly better than Allscripts on the DA measure (51.4% vs 5.0%; P<.05) and significantly better than eClinicalWorks and eMDs on the FS measure (49.3% vs 29.0% and 10.9%; P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance on national RA quality measures was associated with the EHR system, even after adjusting for practice and patient characteristics. These findings suggest that future efforts to improve quality of care in RA should focus not only on provider performance reporting but also on developing and implementing rheumatology-specific standards across EHRs.

Identification of Five Quality Needs for Rheumatology (Text Analysis and Literature Review)

Background: While the use of the term "quality" in industry relates to the basic idea of making processes measurable and standardizing processes, medicine focuses on achieving health goals that go far beyond the mere implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic processes. However, the quality management systems used are often simple, self-created concepts that concentrate on administrative processes without considering the quality of the results, which is essential for the patient. For several rheumatic diseases, both outcome and treatment goals have been defined. This work summarizes current mainstreams of strategies with published quality efforts in rheumatology. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used to search for studies, and additional manual searches were carried out. Screening and content evaluation were carried out using the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist. After duplicate search in the Endnote reference management software (version X9.1), the software Rayyan QCRI (https://rayyan.qcri.org) was applied to check for pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Abstracts and full texts were screened and rated using Voyant Tools (https://voyant-tools.org/). Key issues were identified using the collocate analysis. Results: The number of selected publications was small but specific (14 relevant correlations with coefficients >0.8). Using trend analysis, 15 publications with relative frequency of keywords >0.0125 were used for content analysis, revealing 5 quality needs. The treat to target (T2T) initiative was identified as fundamental paradigm. Outcome parameters required for T2T also allow quality assessments in routine clinical work. Quality care by multidisciplinary teams also focusing on polypharmacy and other quality aspects become essential, A global software platform to assess quality aspects is missing. Such an approach requires reporting of multiple outcome parameters according to evidence-based clinical guidelines and recommendations for the different rheumatic diseases. All health aspects defined by the WHO (physical, mental, and social health) have to be integrated into the management of rheumatic patients. Conclusion: For the future, quality projects need goals defined by T2T based initiatives in routine clinical work, secondary quality goals include multidisciplinary cooperation and reduction of polypharmacy. Quality indicators and standards in different health systems will provide new information to optimize patients' care in different health systems.

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the quality of health care and considerable efforts are being made to improve it. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that can result in favorable outcomes when appropriate diagnosis and treatment are provided. However, several studies have shown that RA is often managed inappropriately. Therefore, the Korean College of Rheumatology aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve the health care of patients with RA.

METHODS

Preliminary QIs were derived based on the existing guidelines and QIs for RA. The final QIs were determined through two separate consensus meetings of experts. The consensus was achieved through a panel of experts who voted using the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

Fourteen final QIs were selected among 70 preliminary QIs. These included early referral to and regular follow-up with a rheumatologist, radiographs of the hands and feet, early initiation and maintenance of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, periodic assessment of disease activity, screening for drug safety and comorbidities, including viral hepatitis and tuberculosis before biologic DMARD therapy, periodic laboratory testing, supplementation with folic acid, assessment of the risk for cervical spine instability before general anesthesia, patient education, and specialized nurse.

CONCLUSION

These QIs can be used to assess and improve the quality of health care for patients with RA.

Implementing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in health systems to support value-based care

Models of Care (MoCs), and their local Models of Service Delivery, for people with musculoskeletal conditions are becoming an acceptable way of supporting effective implementation of value-based care. MoCs can support the quadruple aim of value-based care through providing people with musculoskeletal disease improved access to health services, better health outcomes and satisfactory experience of their healthcare; ensure the health professionals involved are experiencing satisfaction in delivering such care and health system resources are better utilised. Implementation of MoCs is relevant at the levels of clinical practice (micro), service delivery organisations (meso) and health system (macro) levels. The development, implementation and evaluation of MoCs has evolved over the last decade to more purposively engage people with lived experience of their condition, to operationalise the Chronic Care Model and to employ innovative solutions. This paper explores how MoCs have evolved and are supporting the delivery of value-based care in health systems.

Models of Arthritis Care: A Systems-level Evaluation of Acceptability as a Dimension of Quality of Care

OBJECTIVE

To describe a systems-level baseline evaluation of central intake (CI) and triage systems in arthritis care within Alberta, Canada. The specific objectives were to (1) describe a process for systems evaluation for the provision of arthritis care; (2) report the findings of the evaluation for different clinical sites that provide arthritis care; and (3) identify opportunities for improving appropriate and timely access based on the findings of the evaluation.

METHODS

The study used a convergent mixed methods design. Surveys and semistructured interviews were the main data collection methods. Participants were recruited through 2 rheumatology clinics and 1 hip and knee clinic providing CI and triage, and included patients, referring physicians, specialists, and clinic staff who experienced CI processes.

RESULTS

A total of 237 surveys were completed by patients (n = 169), referring physicians (n = 50), and specialists (n = 18). Interviews (n = 25) with care providers and patients provided insights to the survey data. Over 95% of referring physicians agreed that the current process of CI was satisfactory. Referring physicians and specialists reported issues with the referral process and perceived support in care for wait-listed patients. Patients reported positive experiences with access and navigation of arthritis care services but expressed concerns around communication and receiving minimal support for self-management of their arthritis before and after receiving specialist care.

CONCLUSION

This baseline evaluation of CI and triage for arthritis care indicates satisfaction with the service, but areas that require further consideration are referral completion, timely waiting lists, and further supporting patients to self-manage their arthritis.

Management of Gout in the United States: A Claims-based Analysis

Objective

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in the United States. Although numerous guidelines exist for the management of gout, they are not routinely implemented. This study evaluated the real‐world practice patterns in gout patients using large administrative claims databases.

Methods

An analysis of patients diagnosed with gout from October 2015 to November 2018 was carried out using the Symphony Integrated Dataverse and Truven Marketscan administrative claims databases. Patients were identified as having gout if they were more than18 years of age and had 2 or more primary gout diagnoses on different days, separated by 3 or more months. Patients were further identified as having either acute gout or advanced forms of gout including chronic nontophaceous, tophaceous, and uncontrolled gout. Percent and frequency of serum urate testing, rheumatology specialist visits, prescriptions for urate lowering therapies (ULTs), and emergency room (ER) visits for gout flares were evaluated.

Results

We identified 1 162 747 gout patients. Gout patients were seen most frequently by internists and family medicine practitioners. Neither urate testing nor prescriptions for ULTs were uniform. Patients with acute gout were infrequently seen by rheumatologists, whereas rheumatologist care progressively increased in patients with advanced gout. The frequency of serum urate testing and prescriptions for ULTs significantly increased, whereas the frequency of ER visits decreased in gout patients seen by a rheumatologist.

Conclusion

Measurement of serum urate and prescriptions for ULTs are not consistent in gout patients. Rheumatologist care increases the frequency of urate measurement and ULT prescriptions and may also improve outcomes for gout patients.

Treat-to-Target Approach in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Quality Improvement Trial

OBJECTIVE

Using a quality improvement approach, our objective was to integrate a treat-to-target approach for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through routine electronic collection of patient-reported disease activity scores and a multidisciplinary learning collaborative for rheumatologists.

METHODS

RA patients completed a patient-reported outcome measure, the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), at check-in. Nine rheumatologists and their patients were allocated to a learning collaborative intervention group focused on a treat-to-target approach and 13 were allocated to a control group. The primary outcome was documentation of a treat-to-target implementation score: disease activity score, disease activity score used in the medication change decision, the presence of a treatment target, and an indication of shared decision-making. A primary analysis of patient visits with medication changes was conducted using an interrupted time-series analysis.

RESULTS

We studied 554 individual rheumatology patients with 709 patient visits. Treat-to-target implementation scores among intervention rheumatologists (mean ± SD 44.6% ± 1.63%) were 12.4% higher than in the control group (mean ± SD 32.2% ± 1.50%; P < 0.0001). We observed differences in treat-to-target implementation score components, comparing intervention group to control group rheumatologists: disease activity score present, 77.2% versus 68.0% (P = 0.02); disease activity score used in the medication change decision, 45.2% versus 30.0% (P < 0.01); treatment target, 9.0% versus 0.4% (P < 0.01); and shared decision-making, 46.9% versus 30.0% (P < 0.01). Secondary analysis of patient visits with high RAPID3 scores found that medication changes were 54% less likely in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio 0.46 [95% confidence interval 0.27-0.79], P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This nonrandomized, interrupted time-series trial demonstrated a modest but significant impact of a learning collaborative intervention on rheumatologist documentation of a treat-to-target approach in RA.

Treatment Patterns with Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in U.S. Veterans with Newly Diagnosed Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Ankylosing Spondylitis

BACKGROUND

Delays in treatment for inflammatory arthritis (IA) are associated with unfavorable outcomes, including impaired quality of life, irreversible joint damage, and disability.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize treatment initiation patterns in veterans with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

METHODS

ICD-9/10-CM codes and natural language processing were used to identify incident cases of RA, PsA, or AS between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, in patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration. Patterns of treatment initiation and nontreatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were assessed in the 12-month follow-up period after the incident diagnosis. Outcomes included the percentage of veterans treated with a DMARD, the mean time to the initial DMARD after diagnosis, and the percentage of veterans who accessed rheumatology care before DMARD initiation. To assess outcomes over time, veterans were grouped by year of initial IA diagnosis. Additionally, outcomes were compared between nonbiologic and biologic DMARDs and among IA subtypes (RA, PsA, and AS). Groups were statistically compared with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The population consisted of 12,118 IA veterans (9,711 RA, 1,472 PsA, and 935 AS), with 91.3% males and a mean age of 63.7 years. The percentage of veterans treated with ≥ 1 DMARD (nonbiologic or biologic) during the 12-month follow-up period increased from 48.8% in 2007 to 66.4% in 2015. In veterans diagnosed with IA in 2015, DMARD treatment was more common for PsA patients (72.9%) and RA patients (68.6%) than for AS patients (28.9%). In the subset treated with a DMARD within 12 months after diagnosis, the mean time to the initial DMARD after diagnosis did not change throughout the observation period (35.5 days for RA, 43.9 days for PsA, and 59.5 days for AS). Rheumatology specialty care was accessed by 87.4% of veterans treated with a nonbiologic DMARD and 92.2% of veterans treated with a biologic DMARD, in patients diagnosed in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

DMARD treatment rates during the initial 12 months after diagnosis increased between 2007 and 2015, but nontreatment remained common, particularly in veterans with AS. The time to treatment after diagnosis was stable over time; it was shortest for RA, intermediate for PsA, and longest for AS. DMARD treatment was uncommon in veterans who did not access rheumatology specialty care.

DISCLOSURES

AbbVie Pharmaceuticals and Marriott Daughters Foundation funded this study via investigator-initiated grants. Data analyses were completed by investigators independent of AbbVie and Marriott Daughters Foundation. Walker, Clewell, and Douglas are employed by, and stockholders in, Abbvie. Halwani reports grants from BMS, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Seattle Genetics, Roche-Genentech, Miragen, Immunedesign, Takeda, Amgen, Pharmacyclics, and Abbvie. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Patient-centred value framework for haemophilia

INTRODUCTION

Growing budgetary demands have led to increased scrutiny of healthcare spending for rare diseases, leading to a unified goal within the haemophilia community to define objectively patient-centred value in haemophilia care.

AIM

To develop a patient-centred outcomes framework with global applicability for assessing value in haemophilia healthcare.

METHODS

An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to identify the range of patient impacts of haemophilia health care and organize these into a three-tiered, patient-centred outcomes framework based on Porter's model for assessing value.

RESULTS

In addition to measures common to other chronic diseases (eg survival and quality of life), Tier 1, health status achieved or retained, includes haemophilia-specific outcomes of bleeding frequency, musculoskeletal complications and life-threatening bleeds, as well as measures of function or activity. Tier 2, process of recovery, includes such outcomes as time to initial treatment, time to recovery and time missed at education/work; also included are disutility of care, measured by inhibitor development, pathogen transmission/infections, orthopaedic intervention and difficult venous access. Tier 3, sustainability of health, is measured by bleed avoidance, maintenance of productive lives and good health over time; potential long-term negative consequences include insufficient or inappropriate therapy and age-related complications. The applicability of the outcomes framework for different types of haemophilia healthcare interventions is described.

CONCLUSION

Haemophilia health care can affect multiple patient-centred outcomes across diverse patient types and healthcare systems. This framework organizes those outcomes for informing value-based decision making by multiple stakeholders and provides the basis for further refinement and development of a standardized outcomes set.

A Systematic Review of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and quality appraisal of quality measures for inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings terms for inflammatory arthritis and quality measures. A "grey literature" search of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II) was used to appraise the measure development process, which determined final inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, measure type, and domains of quality.

RESULTS

Thirteen measurement sets were included from 4 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands) and 1 European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, inflammatory arthritis, and JIA. There were 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure, and 5 outcome). Major themes included assessment, medications, and comorbidities. Measure development methods were varied, including RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises, or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 77% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.

CONCLUSION

Inflammatory arthritis quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure, and outcomes of care across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations, measure development is not standardized. Local assessment of measurement feasibility before use outside the original development context is recommended.

Development of the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatoid Arthritis Electronic Clinical Quality Measures

OBJECTIVE

Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) rely on computer algorithms to extract data from electronic health records (EHRs). On behalf of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), we sought to develop and test eCQMs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Drawing from published ACR guidelines, a working group developed candidate RA process measures and subsequently assessed face validity through an interdisciplinary panel of health care stakeholders. A public comment period followed. Measures that passed these levels of review were electronically specified using the quality data model, which provides standard nomenclature for data elements (category, datatype, and value sets) obtained through an EHR. For each eCQM, 3 clinical sites using different EHR systems tested the scientific feasibility and validity of measures. Measures appropriate for accountability were presented for national endorsement.

RESULTS

Expert panel validity ratings were high for all measures (median 8-9 of 9). Health system performance on the eCQMs was 53.6% for RA disease activity assessment, 69.1% for functional status assessment, 93.1% for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and 72.8% for tuberculosis screening. Kappa statistics, which evaluated whether the eCQM validly captured data obtained from manual EHR chart review, demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement (0.54 for functional status assessment, 0.73 for tuberculosis screening, 0.84 for disease activity, and 0.85 for DMARD use).

CONCLUSION

Four eCQMs for RA have achieved national endorsement and are recommended for use in federal quality reporting programs. Implementation and further refinement of these measures is ongoing in the ACR's registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE).

“Rheum to Improve”: Quality Improvement in Outpatient Rheumatology

The commitment to improve care processes and patient outcomes is a professional mandate for clinicians and is also seen as an operational priority for institutions. Quality improvement now figures in the accreditation of training programs, specialty examinations, and hospital scorecards. Rheumatologists have traditionally focused primarily on quality problems such as guideline adherence; however, improvement goals should also include other aspects of care that are helpful to patients and are professionally rewarding for practitioners. This review makes use of improvement projects in outlining tangible tools rheumatologists can use to resolve quality concerns in their practices.

Standards of care for inflammatory arthritis: A literature review

OBJECTIVE

Quality standards are tools that may be used for advocacy, education, and for quality improvement purposes. The objective of this review is to describe the current landscape of quality standards for inflammatory arthritis (including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and spondyloarthritis), and to describe the methodology for standard development.

METHODS

Three medical databases were reviewed, as well as major rheumatology and health care quality websites. Standards were abstracted and classified as pertaining to the structure, processes, or outcomes of health care and also thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 10 sets including over 300 standards were abstracted and classified into 29 themes, 62% related to processes and 38% to structure. While the standards encompassed many aspects along the continuum of patient care from early identification and access to multidisciplinary care, to patient treatment and education, there were no outcome standards. Furthermore, the methodology used to develop the standards was highly heterogeneous and patients were involved in only 50% of the development teams.

CONCLUSIONS

The review provides a comprehensive report on quality standards in inflammatory arthritis and highlights two uses of the term "Standard" in the quality literature as follows: (i) a numeric target for performance measurement and (ii) a statement about minimum, optimum, or aspirational goals of care that may not be easily measurable. Future standard development teams should include patients living with arthritis and should employ rigorous and transparent methodology for standard development and consider development of quality measures alongside standards to enhance uptake and impact of both tools.

A new era of quality measurement in rheumatology: electronic clinical quality measures and national registries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the evolution of quality measurement in rheumatology, highlighting new health-information technology infrastructure and standards that are enabling unprecedented innovation in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Spurred by landmark legislation that ties physician payment to value, the widespread use of electronic health records, and standards such as the Quality Data Model, quality measurement in rheumatology is rapidly evolving. Rather than relying on retrospective assessments of care gathered through administrative claims or manual chart abstraction, new electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) allow automated data capture from electronic health records. At the same time, qualified clinical data registries, like the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry, are enabling large-scale implementation of eCQMs across national electronic health record networks with real-time performance feedback to clinicians. Although successful examples of eCQM development and implementation in rheumatology and other fields exist, there also remain challenges, such as lack of health system data interoperability and problems with measure accuracy.

SUMMARY

Quality measurement and improvement is increasingly an essential component of rheumatology practice. Advances in health information technology are likely to continue to make implementation of eCQMs easier and measurement more clinically meaningful and accurate in coming years.

Folic Acid Supplementation Is Suboptimal in a National Cohort of Older Veterans Receiving Low Dose Oral Methotrexate

Objectives

Co-prescription of folic acid in patients receiving low dose oral methotrexate is recommended because it reduces adverse events and prolongs the use of methotrexate (MTX). However, little is known about how often new users of methotrexate are co-prescribed folic acid, and what factors are associated with its use. We aimed to determine the prevalence, predictors of, and persistence of folic acid use in a population-based cohort of MTX users with rheumatic diseases.

Methods

Using a national, administrative database of patients seen through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that included pharmacy and laboratory data, we performed an observational cohort study of veterans over 65 years old who were new users of MTX. We used log-binomial regression to identify independent predictors of folic acid use and Kaplan Meyer survival analysis to examine persistence of folic acid over time.

Results

We studied 2467 incident users of MTX. 27% of patients were not prescribed folic acid through the VHA pharmacy within 30 days of MTX initiation. Patients who did not see a rheumatologist were 23% less likely to receive folic acid compared to patients who did have a rheumatologist visit during the baseline period (RR (95% CI) 0.77 (0.72, 0.82). These results remained unchanged even after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and other factors (adjusted RR (95% CI) 0.78 (0.74, 0.85)). After 20 months, only 50% of patients continued to receive folic acid.

Conclusions

In a nationwide VHA cohort of new users of oral MTX, many patients did not receive folic acid or discontinued it over time. Rheumatologists were more likely to prescribe folic acid than other providers. These data highlight the need to improve patient safety for users of methotrexate by standardizing workflows for folic acid supplementation.

Using LASSO Regression to Predict Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Efficacy

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) accounts for one-fifth of the deaths due to arthritis, the leading cause of disability in the United States. Finding effective treatments for managing arthritis symptoms are a major challenge, since the mechanisms of autoimmune disorders are not fully understood and disease presentation differs for each patient. The American College of Rheumatology clinical guidelines for treatment consider the severity of the disease when deciding treatment, but do not include any prediction of drug efficacy. Using Electronic Health Records and Biomedical Linked Open Data (LOD), we demonstrate a method to classify patient outcomes using LASSO penalized regression. We show how Linked Data improves prediction and provides insight into how drug treatment regimes have different treatment outcome. Applying classifiers like this to decision support in clinical applications could decrease time to successful disease management, lessening a physical and financial burden on patients individually and the healthcare system as a whole.

Incentives in Rheumatology: the Potential Contribution of Physician Responses to Financial Incentives, Public Reporting, and Treatment Guidelines to Health Care Sustainability

Concerns about the sustainability of current health care expenditure are focusing attention on the cost, quality and value of health care provision. Financial incentives, for example pay-for-performance (P4P), seek to reward quality and value in health care provision. There has long been an expectation that P4P schemes are coming to rheumatology. We review the available evidence about the use of incentives in this setting and provide two emerging examples of P4P schemes which may shape the future of service provision in rheumatology. Currently, there is limited and equivocal evidence in rheumatology about the impact of incentive schemes. However, reporting variation in the quality and provision of rheumatology services has highlighted examples of inefficiencies in the delivery of care. If financial incentives can improve the delivery of timely and appropriate care for rheumatology patients, then they may have an important role to play in the sustainability of health care provision.

Challenges and Opportunities in Using Patient-reported Outcomes in Quality Measurement in Rheumatology

Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) in rheumatology research is widespread, but use of PRO data to evaluate the quality of rheumatologic care delivered is less well established. This article reviews the use of PROs in assessing health care quality, and highlights challenges and opportunities specific to their use in rheumatology quality measurement. It first explores other countries' experiences collecting and evaluating national PRO data to assess quality of care. It describes the current use of PROs as quality measures in rheumatology, and frames an agenda for future work supporting development of meaningful quality measures based on PROs.

Assessment of American College of Rheumatology-Endorsed Quality Indicators in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Quality Improvement Initiative

BACKGROUND

The American College of Rheumatology endorses 7 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) quality indicators (QIs), which we used to access quality of care at our institution.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of care provided to RA patients at our outpatient rheumatology practice based on adherence to 7 QIs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective paper chart review and included 356 RA patients to determine adherence to each QI. A χ test analyzed trends in the assessment of disease activity and functional status.

RESULTS

There was excellent adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy (99.4%) and managing worsening disease (100%). Assessment of disease activity and functional status increased over the study period (72.8% to 94.2% and 70.8% to 93.4%, respectively). Despite this, none of our patients had disease prognosis classified and documented. Tuberculosis screening was done in 87.9%. Only a small percentage (1.4%) of patients met criteria for a glucocorticoid management plan, thus limiting our assessment of this QI.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and management is likely due to targeting clinical remission. Assessment of disease activity and functional status not only rose each year, but also is higher compared with similar studies. This may be due to an increased awareness of QIs and the utility of objective measures of disease activity. Deficient documentation of prognosis may be due to a lack of awareness of its importance. Suboptimal tuberculosis screening may be an artifact of poor documentation. We propose interventions to improve adherence.

Influence of Continuing Medical Education on Rheumatologists' Performance on National Quality Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

In recent years researchers have reported deficits in the quality of care provided to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including low rates of performance on quality measures. We sought to determine the influence of a quality improvement (QI) continuing education program on rheumatologists’ performance on national quality measures for RA, along with other measures aligned with National Quality Strategy priorities. Performance was assessed through baseline and post-education chart audits.

Methods

Twenty community-based rheumatologists across the United States were recruited to participate in the QI education program and chart audits. Charts were retrospectively audited before (n = 160 charts) and after (n = 160 charts) the rheumatologists participated in a series of accredited QI-focused educational activities that included private audit feedback, small-group webinars, and online- and mobile-accessible print and video activities. The charts were audited for patient demographics and the rheumatologists’ documented performance on the 6 quality measures for RA included in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). In addition, charts were abstracted for documentation of patient counseling about medication benefits/risks and adherence, lifestyle modifications, and quality of life; assessment of RA medication side effects; and assessment of RA medication adherence.

Results

Mean rates of documented performance on 4 of the 6 PQRS measures for RA were significantly higher in the post-education versus baseline charts (absolute increases ranged from 9 to 24% of patient charts). In addition, after the intervention, significantly higher mean rates were observed for patient counseling about medications and quality of life, and for assessments of medication side effects and adherence (absolute increases ranged from 9 to 40% of patient charts).

Conclusion

This pragmatic study provides preliminary evidence for the positive influence of QI-focused education in helping rheumatologists improve performance on national quality measures for RA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-015-0018-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Application and feasibility of systemic lupus erythematosus reproductive health care quality indicators at a public urban rheumatology clinic

OBJECTIVES

Quality indicators (QIs) are evidence-based processes of care designed to represent the current standard of care. Reproductive health QIs for the care of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have recently been developed, and examine areas such as pregnancy screening for autoantibodies, treatment of pregnancy-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, and contraceptive counseling. This study was designed to investigate our performance on these QIs and to explore potential gaps in care and demographic predictors of adherence to the QIs in a safety-net hospital.

METHODS

We performed a record review of patients with a diagnosis of SLE at Denver Health Medical Center (DH) through an electronic query of existing medical records and via chart review. Data were limited to female patients between the ages of 18 and 50 who were seen between July 2006 and August 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 137 female patients between the ages of 18 and 50 were identified by ICD-9 code and confirmed by chart review to have SLE. Of these, 122 patients met the updated 1997 American College of Rheumatology SLE criteria and had intact reproductive systems. Only 15 pregnancies were documented during this five-year period, and adherence to autoantibody screening was 100 percent. We did not have any patients who were pregnant and met criteria for pregnancy-associated antiphospholipid syndrome. Sixty-five patients (53%) received potentially teratogenic medications, and 30 (46%) had documented discussions about these medications' potential risk upon their initiation. Predictors of whether patients received appropriate counseling included younger age (OR 0.92, CI 0.87-0.98) and those who did not describe English as their primary language (OR 0.24, CI 0.07-0.87) in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to detect an important gap in care regarding teratogenic medication education to SLE patients of childbearing potential in our public health academic clinic, as only one in two eligible patients had documented appropriate counseling at the initiation of a teratogenic medication.

A new paradigm of quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis: how our new therapeutics have changed the game

Demonstrating the effectiveness of expensive new rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapeutics is imperative to determine whether the quality of care has improved with the introduction of these agents. Our current RA quality measures are primarily process based, but they must become outcomes based to better demonstrate quality. New RA quality measures must be multidimensional, accounting for all of the important outcomes in RA: radiographic, functional status, and disease activity. To fully understand the potential benefits of new therapeutics in RA, outcome measures must be integrated with routine practice.

Rheumatoid arthritis quality measures and radiographic progression

OBJECTIVE

Documentation of quality measures (QMs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is used as a surrogate for measure of quality of care, but the association of this documentation with radiographic outcomes is uncertain. We examined documentation of RA QMs, for disease activity and functional status and the association with radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

Data were analyzed for 438 RA patients in a longitudinal cohort with complete data on van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score (TSS). All rheumatologist (N = 18) notes in the electronic medical record during a 24-month period were reviewed for RA QMs. Any mention of disease activity categorized as low, moderate, or high was considered documentation of the QM for disease activity. Functional status QM documentation included any mention of the impact of RA on function. Change in TSS was quantified with progression defined as ≥1 unit per year. We compared percent of visits with an RA QM documented and mean change in TSS.

RESULTS

The mean age in the cohort was 56.9 years, disease duration was 10.8 years, baseline DAS28 score was 3.8 (±1.6), 67.7% were seropositive, and 33.9% used a biologic DMARD. Radiographic progression was observed in 28.5%. Disease activity was documented for 29.0% of patient visits and functional status in 74.7%; neither had any significant relationship to mean TSS change (both P > 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The documentation of RA QMs was infrequent and not associated with radiographic outcomes over 24 months.