Evaluation of a patient-initiated review system in rheumatoid arthritis: an implementation trial protocol

Patient-controlled outpatient follow-up on demand for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 2-year randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Scheduled routine visits in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be in a stable period without active disease. Consequently, there is a demand for developing outpatient control procedures which cater to the needs of the individual patient.

Objective

This study aims to compare a patient-controlled outpatient follow-up system, Open Outpatient Clinic Programme (OOCP), with traditional scheduled routine follow-up (TSRF) regarding patient satisfaction and disease activity markers in RA patients.

Method

In a 2-year randomized controlled trial, RA patients were allocated to OOCP or TSRF. OOCP patients had no scheduled appointments but were allowed acute appointments with their rheumatologist and had access to nurse-led consultations and a telephone helpline. Appointments for the TSRF group were scheduled according to routine procedures (clinical parameters: DAS-28, C-reactive protein, VAS pain, tender and swollen joint count, HAQ-DI and radiographs; psychological parameters: VAS patient satisfaction and EQ-5D).

Results

Of 282 patients, 239 completed the study (OOCP/TSRF characteristics: age 61.4 ± 10.5/60.9 ± 12.2 years, females 77/74%, ACPA positive 66/65%). At years 1 and 2, OCCP had fewer visits (year 2: 2.6 ± 1.6 vs. 3.5 ± 2; p < 0.0005) but more phone calls (year 2: 0.7 ± 1.4 vs. 0.1 ± 0.3; p < 0.0005) compared to TSRF. OOCP was comparable to TSRF regarding clinical and psychological outcome measures, and no radiographic progression was observed.

Conclusions

OOCP was associated with significantly fewer visits but with more phone calls to the nurse and was comparable with TSGentofte University HospitalRF regarding clinical, psychological and radiographic outcomes. Thus, the organization of outpatient care according to OOCP may be applied to strengthen patient-centred care in patients with RA.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (July 20, 2020): NCT04476875

Key points • In a patient-controlled outpatient follow-up system, RA patients had significantly fewer visits compared to traditional follow-up. • The patient-controlled follow-up system was comparable with traditional follow-up regarding clinical, psychological and radiographic outcomes. • Organization of outpatient care according to a patient-controlled follow-up system may be applied to strengthen patient-centred care in patients with RA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10067-021-05674-y.

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care

BACKGROUND

Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

Implementing a patient-initiated review system for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective, comparative service evaluation

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) usually entails regular hospital reviews with a specialist often when the patient is well rather than during a period of exacerbation. An alternative approach where patients initiate appointments when they need them can improve patient satisfaction and resource use whilst being safe. This service evaluation reports a system-wide implementation of a patient-initiated review appointment system called Direct Access (DA) for people with RA. The aim was to establish the impact on patient satisfaction of the new system versus usual care as well as evaluate the implementation processes.

METHODS

As all patients could not start on the new system at once, in order to manage the implementation, patients were randomly allocated to DA or to usual care. Instead of regular follow-up appointments, DA comprised an education session and access to a nurse-led telephone advice line where appointments could be accessed within two weeks. Usual care comprised routine follow-ups with the specialist. Data were collected on patient satisfaction, service use and outcomes of any contact to the advice line.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eleven patients with RA were assessed as being suitable for DA. In terms of patient satisfaction, between-group differences were found in favour of DA for accessibility and convenience, ease of contacting the nurse and overall satisfaction with the service. Self-reported visits to the general practitioner were also significantly lower. DA resulted in a greater number of telephone contacts (incidence rate ratio = 1.69; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.68). Hospital costs of the two different service models were similar. Mean waiting time for an appointment was 10.8 days

CONCLUSION

This service evaluation found that DA could be implemented and it demonstrated patient benefit in a real-world setting. Further research establishing the broader cost-consequences across the whole patient pathway would add to our findings.

Implementing a patient-initiated review system in rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative evaluation

Background

The management of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), a chronic relapsing condition primarily affecting joints usually entails regular hospital reviews with a specialist. These reviews can occur when the patient is well. This study forms part of a service evaluation of a system wide implementation of a patient initiated review appointment system which we have called Direct Access (DA). The aim was to explore the experiences of patients and staff of a DA system in order to understand the process of the implementation and to identify potential improvements.

Methods

Twenty-three patients with RA that had completed one year of follow-up on the DA system and seven healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the implementation of the DA review system took part in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data and field notes.

Results

Four themes emerged in the data: (1) building patient confidence and empowerment, (2) right place right time, (3) safety, (4) the everyday challenges of managing change. These show that in order for implementation to be successful the patient needs to have confidence in using a new system of requesting a medical review, which, in turn, needs to be offered quickly and in a setting convenient to both patient and clinician. Embedded in the change process need to be systems for ensuring regular disease monitoring and general issues surrounding team working, communication and ownership of the change process also need to be considered from the outset.

Conclusion

The clinics offer increased patient autonomy and the opportunity for greater self-management of chronic disease. This fits with new models of care where the patient is considered to be ‘the expert’.

Targeting the Use of Reminders and Notifications for Uptake by Populations (TURNUP): a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Background

Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and a resource inefficiency that impact on the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health-care services are increasingly utilising reminder systems to counter these negative effects.

Objectives

This project explores the differential effect of reminder systems for different segments of the population for improving attendance, cancellation and rescheduling of appointments.

Design

Three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to theoretical explanations for appointment behaviour (review 1), the effectiveness of different approaches to reminding patients to attend health service appointments (review 2) and factors likely to influence non-attendance (review 3).

Data sources

Database searches were conducted on Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with Full Text, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via NHS Evidence from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012), Health Management Information Consortium database, Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersXplore, The King’s Fund Library Catalogue, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012. Supplementary screening of references of included studies was conducted to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Conceptual papers were identified for review 1, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for review 2 and a range of quantitative and qualitative research designs for review 3.

Methods

We conducted three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, involving a review of conceptual frameworks of reminder systems and adherence behaviours, a review of the reminder effectiveness literature and a review informed by realist principles to explain the contexts and mechanisms that explain reminder effectiveness. A preliminary conceptual framework was developed to show how reminder systems work, for whom they work and in which circumstances. Six themes emerged that potentially influence the effectiveness of the reminder or whether or not patients would attend their appointment, namely the reminder–patient interaction, reminder accessibility, health-care settings, wider social issues, cancellation and rebookings, and distal/proxy attributes. Standardised review methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of reminders to promote attendance, cancellation or rebooking across all outpatient settings. Finally, a review informed by realist principles was undertaken, using the conceptual framework to explain the context and mechanisms that influence how reminders support attendance, cancellation and rebooking.

Results

A total of 466 papers relating to 463 studies were identified for reviews 2 and 3. Findings from 31 RCTs and 11 separate systematic reviews (review 2 only) revealed that reminder systems are consistently effective at reducing non-attendance at appointments, regardless of health-care setting or patient subgroups. Simple reminders that provide details of timing and location of appointments are effective for increasing attendance at appointments. Reminders that provide additional information over and above the date, time and location of the appointment (‘reminder plus’) may be more effective than simple reminders at reducing non-attendance and may be particularly useful for first appointments and screening appointments; simple reminders may be appropriate thereafter for most patients the majority of the time. There was strong evidence that the timing of reminders, between 1 and 7 days prior to the appointment, has no effect on attendance; substantial numbers of patients do not receive their reminder; reminders promote cancellation of appointments; inadequate structural factors prevent patients from cancelling appointments; and few studies investigated factors that influence the effectiveness of reminder systems for population subgroups.

Limitations

Generally speaking, the systematic review method seeks to provide a precise answer to a tightly focused question, for which there is a high degree of homogeneity within the studies. A wide range of population types, intervention, comparison and outcomes is included within the RCTs we identified. However, use of this wider approach offers greater analytical capability in terms of understanding contextual and mechanistic factors that would not have been evident in a more narrowly focused review and increases confidence that the findings will have relevance in a wide range of service settings.

Conclusions

Simple reminders or ‘reminder plus’ should be sent to all patients in the absence of any clear contraindication. Other reminder alternatives may be relevant for key groups of patients: those from a deprived background, ethnic minorities, substance abusers and those with comorbidities and/or illnesses. We are developing a practice guideline that may help managers to further tailor their reminder systems for their service and client groups. We recommend future research activities in three main areas. First, more studies should routinely consider the potential for differential effects of reminder systems between patient groups in order to identify any inequalities and remedies. Second, ‘reminder plus’ systems appear promising, but there is a need for further research to understand how they influence attendance behaviour. Third, further research is required to identify strategies to ‘optimise’ reminder systems and compare performance with current approaches.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.