A Systematic Review of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis

Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network's Quality Measure Set to Improve Care of Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the selection, development, and implementation of quality measures (QMs) for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) by the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN), a multihospital learning health network using quality improvement methods and leveraging QMs to drive improved outcomes across a JIA population since 2011.

METHODS

An American College of Rheumatology-endorsed multistakeholder process previously selected initial process QMs. Clinicians in PR-COIN and parents of children with JIA collaboratively selected outcome QMs. A committee of rheumatologists and data analysts developed operational definitions. QMs were programmed and validated using patient data. Measures are populated by registry data, and performance is displayed on automated statistical process control charts. PR-COIN centers use rapid-cycle quality improvement approaches to improve performance metrics. The QMs are revised for usefulness, to reflect best practices, and to support network initiatives.

RESULTS

The initial QM set included 13 process measures concerning standardized measurement of disease activity, collection of patient-reported outcome assessments, and clinical performance measures. Initial outcome measures were clinical inactive disease, low pain score, and optimal physical functioning. The revised QM set has 20 measures and includes additional measures of disease activity, data quality, and a balancing measure.

CONCLUSION

PR-COIN has developed and tested JIA QMs to assess clinical performance and patient outcomes. The implementation of robust QMs is important to improve quality of care. PR-COIN's set of JIA QMs is the first comprehensive set of QMs used at the point-of-care for a large cohort of JIA patients in a variety of pediatric rheumatology practice settings.

Patient participation in defining best-practice rheumatology service provision in Aotearoa New Zealand: a qualitative study with service consumers

BACKGROUND

Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ) has no agreed models for rheumatology service provision in government-funded health care. We aimed to describe what people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases who have used rheumatology services view as being important in those services, and map these views to previously collated statements describing best practice components of rheumatology services from international recommendations. If these statements did not capture all service aspects that people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases considered important, we aimed to co-create new statements with our patient-participants.

METHODS

We conducted one focus group and an interview with people with inflammatory rheumatic disease who had used a government-funded rheumatology service in the previous 5 years (patient-participants) and analysed data using thematic analysis. The research team mapped subthemes to previously collated best practice recommendations that had been included in a Delphi consensus exercise with rheumatologists in AoNZ and proposed new statements, based on patient-participant data. Patient-participant feedback on thematic analysis and the new statements led to a refining of statements. A patient-partner in the research team informed research design and data analysis.

RESULTS

Patient-participants viewed it as highly valuable for rheumatology services to respect and value their experiences as people and patients, and those of their whānau (Māori word for family). They expected rheumatology services to provide the right care, at the right time. Many of the subthemes mapped to the best-practice statements. However, three new principles and three new statements were developed and refined by patient-participants. The three principles addressed valuing individuals, and their whānau (family) and their experiences, and providing a patient-focused health system that supports patient participation in decision-making and self-management, and patient education. New statements related to having a specific rheumatologist and other staff for comprehensive care, having adequate nurse staffing, and active provision of outside services and support.

CONCLUSION

It was important to patients that rheumatology services demonstrated that patients and their whānau (family) were valued. The inclusion of people with rheumatic diseases who are users of rheumatology services in service development can provide valuable insights to inform how services should be delivered.

Quality Indicators for Youth Transitioning to Adult Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Transition from pediatric to adult care is associated with adverse health outcomes for many adolescents with chronic illness. We identified quality indicators for transition to adult care that are broadly applicable across chronic illnesses and health systems.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched, covering earliest available date to July 2021. The Gray Matters framework was used to search gray literature. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract, followed by full-text review. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Studies were included that identified quality indicators developed via consensus-building methods. Indicators were organized into a framework categorized by illness specificity, level of care, Donabedian model, and Institute of Medicine quality domain. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool was used for critical appraisal.

RESULTS

The search identified 4581 articles, of which 321 underwent full-text review. Eight peer-reviewed studies and 1 clinical guideline were included, identifying 169 quality indicators for transition. Of these, 56% were illness specific, 43% were at the patient level of care, 44% related to transition processes, and 51% were patient centered and 0% equity focused. Common indicator themes included education (12%), continuity of care (8%), satisfaction (8%), and self-management/self-efficacy (7%). The study was limited by quality indicators developed through consensus-building methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most quality indicators for transition were patient-centered outcomes, few were informed by youth and parents/caregivers, and none focused on equity. Further work is needed to prioritize quality indicators across chronic illness populations while engaging youth and parents/caregivers in the process.

Associations between quality of health care and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a rehabilitation cohort study

BACKGROUND

The quality of provided health care may be an important source of variation in rehabilitation outcomes, increasing the interest in associations between quality indicators (QIs) and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, we examined the associations between the quality of rehabilitation processes and subsequent clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

In this multicentre prospective cohort study, adults with RMDs undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation at eight participating centres reported the quality of rehabilitation after 2 months and outcomes after 2, 7, and 12 months. We measured perceived quality of rehabilitation by 11 process indicators that cover the domains of initial assessments, patient participation and individual goal-setting, and individual follow-up and coordination across levels of health care. The patients responded "yes" or "no" to each indicator. Scores were calculated as pass rates (PRs) from 0 to 100% (best score). Clinical outcomes were goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), physical function (30 s sit-to-stand test), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L). Associations between patient-reported quality of care and each outcome measure at 7 months was analysed by linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 293 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 52 years, 76% female). Primary diagnoses were inflammatory rheumatic disease (64%), fibromyalgia syndrome (18%), unspecific neck, shoulder, or low back pain (8%), connective tissue disease (6%), and osteoarthritis (4%). The overall median PR for the process indicators was 73% (range 11-100%). The PR was lowest (median 40%) for individual follow-up and coordination across levels of care. The mixed model analyses showed that higher PRs for the process indicators were not associated with improved goal attainment or improved physical function or improved health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of rehabilitation processes was not associated with important clinical outcomes. An implication of this is that measuring only the outcome dimension of quality may result in incomplete evaluation and monitoring of the quality of care, and we suggest using information from both the structure, process, and outcome dimensions to draw inferences about the quality, and plan future quality initiatives in the field of complex rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03102814 ).

Quality indicators for transition from paediatric to adult care for adolescents with chronic physical and mental illness: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Transition from paediatric to adult care is a complex process, which poses significant challenges for adolescents with chronic physical and mental illnesses. For many, transfer to adult care is associated with poor health and psychosocial outcomes. Quality indicators to evaluate transition to adult care are needed to benchmark and compare performance across conditions and health systems. This systematic review aims to identify quality indicators for successful transition to adult care which can be applied across chronic physical and/or mental illnesses.

METHODS

Published literature will be searched using MEDLINE, Embase and CINHAL from earliest available date to July 2021. Grey literature will be searched using the Grey Matters tool. Using a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Study selection and data extraction will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Study appraisal will be completed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Quality Indicators instrument. Extracted quality indicators will be categorised into a conceptual framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results from this review will offer novel insights into quality indicators that may be used to measure and evaluate transition success across conditions, which will be disseminated via a Canadian transition collaborative, workshops and peer-reviewed publication. Extracted quality indicators will be further prioritised in a Delphi study with patients, caregivers and providers. This is a critical step in developing a core set of metrics to evaluate transitions to adult care. Ethics approval is not required as this review will identify and synthesise findings from published literature.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198030.

Strategies for developing and implementing a rheumatoid arthritis healthcare quality framework: a thematic analysis of perspectives from arthritis stakeholders

OBJECTIVES

To obtain stakeholder perspectives to inform the development and implementation of a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) healthcare quality measurement framework.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews.

SETTING

Arthritis stakeholders from across Canada including healthcare providers, persons living with RA, clinic managers and policy leaders were recruited for the focus groups and interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-four stakeholders from nine provinces.

INTERVENTIONS

Qualitative researchers led each focus group/interview using a semistructured guide; the digitally recorded data were transcribed verbatim. Two teams of two coders independently analysed the transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Perspectives on the use of different types of measurement frameworks in healthcare were obtained. In particular, stakeholders advocated for the use of existing healthcare frameworks over frameworks developed in the business world and adapted for healthcare. Persons living with RA were less familiar with specific measurement frameworks, however, they had used existing online public forums for rating their experience and quality of healthcare provided. They viewed a standardised framework as potentially useful for assisting with monitoring the care provided to them individually. Nine guiding principles for framework development and 13 measurement themes were identified. Perceived barriers identified included access to data and concerns about how measures in the framework were developed and used. Effective approaches to framework implementation included having sound knowledge translation strategies and involving stakeholders throughout the measurement development and reporting process. Clinical models of care and health policies conducive to outcome measurement were highlighted as drivers of successful measurement initiatives.

CONCLUSION

These important perspectives will be used to inform a healthcare quality measurement framework for RA.

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.

A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing

Background

Systems for monitoring effectiveness and quality of rehabilitation services across health care levels are needed. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test a quality indicator set for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Methods

The set was developed according to the Rand/UCLA Appropriateness Method, which integrates evidence review, in-person multidisciplinary expert panel meetings and repeated anonymous ratings for consensus building. The quality indicators were pilot-tested for overall face validity and feasibility in 15 specialist and 14 primary care rehabilitation units. Pass rates (percentages of “yes”) of the indicators were recorded in telephone interviews with 29 unit managers (structure indicators), and 164 patients (process and outcome indicators). Time use and participants’ numeric rating of face validity (0–10, 10 = high validity) were recorded.

Results

Nineteen structure, 12 process and five outcome indicators were developed and piloted. Mean (range) sum pass rates for the structure, process and outcome indicators were 59%(84%), 66%(100%) and 84%(100%), respectively. Mean (range) face validity score for managers/patients was 8.3 (8)/7.9 (9), and mean answering time was 6.0/5.5 min. The final indicator set consists of 19 structure, 11 process and three outcome indicators.

Conclusion

To our knowledge this is the first quality indicator set developed for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Good overall face validity and a feasible format indicate a set suitable for monitoring quality in rehabilitation. The variation in pass rates between centers indicates a potential for quality improvement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal rehabilitation in Norway.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4091-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.