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

Quality indicators for care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Objective

To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) tailored to improve the care provided to children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in countries across the Asia-Pacific region.

Methods

An adaptation of the Research and Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used. An initial set of 32 QIs was developed after a systematic search of the literature. These were presented to members of a Delphi panel composed of pediatric rheumatologists and other relevant stakeholders from the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology Pediatric Special Interest Group (APLAR-Pediatric SIG). After each round, the mean scores for validity and reliability, level of disagreement, and median absolute deviation from the mean were calculated.

Results

The panelists were presented with 32 QIs in two rounds of voting, resulting in the formulation of a final set of 22 QIs for JIA. These QIs are categorized within six domains of care, including access to care, clinical assessment, medications and medication monitoring, screening for comorbidities, counseling, and self-efficacy and satisfaction with care.

Conclusion

These QIs have been developed to evaluate and improve the quality of care provided to children with JIA, aiming to enhance health outcomes and ensure that healthcare services are tailored to the unique needs of this patient population.

Evaluating key performance indicators of the process of care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether and how often the information to measure a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is found in data collected routinely in a Pediatric Rheumatology Clinic.

METHODS

A retrospective electronic chart review and administrative data analysis was conducted for a cohort of 140 patients with JIA at a tertiary Pediatric Rheumatology Clinic between 2016-2020. The set of KPIs include measuring patient outcomes (joint assessment, physician's global assessment of disease activity, assessment of functional ability, composite disease activity measurement), access to care (waiting time between referral and first visit, visit with the rheumatologist within the first year of diagnosis, annual follow-up visits with the rheumatologist), and safety (tuberculosis screening, and laboratory monitoring). Documentation was assessed as a binary variable indicating whether the required information was ever found. Documentation frequency for each KPI was assessed with counts and percentages of the number of times the required information was documented for each clinic visit. Compliance with the safety KPI definitions was assessed using administrative databases.

RESULTS

Data for each KPI were found at least once in the cohort and documentation varied in frequency and consistency. Access to care and safety KPIs were documented more frequently than patient outcome KPIs. A joint assessment was documented at every visit for 95% of patients, 46% for an assessment of pain, and none for a physician's global assessment of disease activity, an assessment of functional ability, or a composite disease activity measurement.

CONCLUSION

Although feasible to measure, there is an opportunity for improving the consistency of documentation. Having an active system of monitoring KPIs and tools to simplify measurement is a key step in the process toward improved patient care outcomes. Streamlining the collection of KPI data can increase the likelihood of compliance. Next steps should involve replicating this study in various centres.

An iceberg I can't handle: a qualitative inquiry on perceptions towards paediatric rheumatology among healthcare workers in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Delay in diagnosis and access to specialist care is a major problem for many children and young people with rheumatic disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Most children with symptoms of rheumatic disease present to non-specialists for care. There is an urgent need to understand and scale-up paediatric rheumatology knowledge and skills amongst non-specialist healthcare workers to promote early diagnosis, prompt referral, and management.

PURPOSE

We evaluated the knowledge, attitudes and practices towards diagnosis and care of paediatric rheumatology patients among health care workers in Kenya.

METHODS

We conducted 12 focus group discussions with clinical officers (third-tier community health workers) nurses, general practitioners and paediatricians across 6 regions in Kenya. Interviews were conducted on zoom, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using NVIVO software.

RESULTS

A total of 68 individuals participated; 11 clinical officers, 12 nurses, 10 general practitioners, 27 paediatricians and 7 others. Most (n = 53) were female, and the median age was 36 years (range 31-40 years). Fifty per cent of the participants (34 of 68) worked in public health facilities. Our study revealed gaps in knowledge of paediatric rheumatology amongst healthcare workers which contributes to delayed diagnosis and poor management. Healthcare workers reported both positive and negative attitudes towards diagnosis and care of paediatric rheumatology patients. Perceived complexity and lack of knowledge in diagnosis, management and lack of health system clinical pathways made all cadres of healthcare workers feel helpless, frustrated, inadequate and incompetent to manage paediatric rheumatology patients. Positive attitudes arose from a perceived feeling that paediatric rheumatology patients pose unique challenges and learning opportunities.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need to educate healthcare workers and improve health systems to optimize clinical care for paediatric rheumatology patients.

The impact of introducing multidisciplinary care assessments on access to rheumatology care in British Columbia: an interrupted time series analysis

Background

In 2011 the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Health introduced a new fee-for-service billing code that allowed “Multidisciplinary Care Assessment” (MCA). This change has the potential to change access to and quality of care for patients. This study aimed to explore the impact on access to rheumatology services in the province.

Methods

Fee-for-service rheumatology billings were evaluated for each rheumatologist 2 years before and after use of the MCA code. Numbers of 1) unique patients and 2) services provided per month were used as proxy measures of access to care. A multiple-baseline interrupted time series model assessed the impact of the MCA on levels and trends of the access outcomes.

Results

Our analysis consisted of 82,360 patients cared for by 26 rheumatologists who billed for an MCA. In our primary analysis we observed a sustained increase in the mean number of unique patients of 4.9% (95% CI: 0.0% to 9.9%, p = 0.049) and the mean number of services of 7.1% (95% CI: 1.0% to 13.6%, (p = 0.021), per month provided by a rheumatologist, corresponding to the initial use of MCA.

Conclusion

The introduction of the MCA code was associated with an initial increase in the measures of access, which was maintained but did not increase over time. Our study suggests that the use of Multidisciplinary Care Assessment can contribute to expanding and/or sustaining access to care for people with complex chronic conditions, like rheumatic diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07715-x.

Implementation Science in Pediatric Rheumatology: A Path to Health Equity

Implementation science is the study of processes that promote reliable uptake of evidence-based practices into clinical care. The integration of implementation science and health disparities research approaches has been proposed as a method to reduce health inequity through detection, understanding, and implementation of health equity-focused interventions. In this review, we provide an argument for the study of implementation science in pediatric rheumatology in light of previously observed health disparities, present a framework for the study of health equity and implementation science in pediatric rheumatology, and propose next steps to accelerate action.

Evaluating Research Centers in Minority Institutions: Framework, Metrics, Best Practices, and Challenges

The NIH-funded Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program is currently funding 18 academic institutions to strengthen the research environment and contribution to health disparities research. The purpose of this multiphase mixed-methods study was to establish a uniform evaluation framework for demonstrating the collective success of this research consortium. Methods included discussions of aims and logic models at the RCMI Evaluators' Workshop, a literature review to inform an evaluation conceptual framework, and a case study survey to obtain evaluation-related information and metrics. Ten RCMIs participated in the workshop and 14 submitted responses to the survey. The resultant RCMI Evaluation Conceptual Model presents a practical ongoing approach to document RCMIs' impacts on health disparities. Survey results identified 37 common metrics under four primary categories. Evaluation challenges were issues related to limited human resources, data collection, decision-making, defining metrics, cost-sharing, and revenue-generation. There is a need for further collaborative efforts across RCMI sites to engage program leadership and community stakeholders in addressing the identified evaluation challenges and measurement. Program leadership should be engaged to apply the Evaluation Conceptual Framework and common metrics to allow for valid inter-institutional comparisons and consortium-wide evaluations. Stakeholders could ensure evaluation metrics are used to facilitate community impacts.