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

Introducing value-based healthcare perspectives into hospital performance assessment: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) puts patient outcomes at the center of the healthcare process while optimizing the use of hospital resources across multiple stakeholders. This scoping review was conducted to summarize how VBHC had been represented in theory and in practice, how it had been applied to assess hospital performance, and how well it had been ultimately implemented.

METHODS

For this review, we followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol and searched five major online databases for articles published between January 2006 and July 2022. We included original articles that used the concept of VBHC to conduct performance assessments of healthcare organizations. We extracted and analyzed key concepts and information on the dimensions of VBHC, specific strategies and methods for using VBHC in performance assessment, and the effectiveness of the assessment.

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies from 7866 articles. Nineteen nonempirical studies focused on the development of a VBHC performance assessment indicator system, and 29 empirical studies reported on the ways and points of introducing VBHC into performance assessment and its effectiveness. Ultimately, we summarized the key dimensions, processes, and effects of performance assessment after introducing VBHC.

CONCLUSION

Current healthcare performance assessment has begun to focus on implementing VBHC as an integrated strategy, and future work should further clarify the reliability of metrics and their association with evaluation outcomes and consider the effective integration of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

A scoping review of shared care models for rheumatoid arthritis with patient-initiated follow-up

OBJECTIVE

An emerging strategy to address access challenges to rheumatologists for patients with RA is shared care between primary and specialist care, with patient-initiated rheumatologist follow-up as needed. The objective of this scoping review was to explore studies implementing this model of care.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from 01/01/2000-31/03/2022 using three main concepts (RA, shared care, patient-initiated follow-up). English-language studies of any design were included if they described the implementation and/or outcomes of shared care model for RA with patient-initiated follow-up. Two authors reviewed and selected articles in duplicate and extracted data on study characteristics, care model implementation and outcomes according to a pre-specified protocol.

RESULTS

Following duplicate removal, 1578 articles were screened for inclusion and 58 underwent full-text review. Sixteen articles were included, representing 10 unique studies. Five studies had qualitative outcomes and two were pre-implementation studies. Model implementation varied significantly between studies. Effectiveness data was available in 10 studies and demonstrated equivalent outcomes for the model of care (disease activity, radiographic damage, quality of life). Health system costs were equivalent or lower than usual care. While satisfaction with care was equivalent or improved in shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up, some concerns were expressed in qualitative evaluation around appropriate patient selection for such models, and information for health equity evaluation was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

While shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up may offer comparable outcomes for RA, further work is required to understand patient preferences, health equity considerations and longer-term outcomes for such models of care.

Better Clinical Results in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated Under a Multidisciplinary Care Model When Compared with a National Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

Purpose

To describe clinical characteristics and effectiveness of health care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as part of a multidisciplinary care model (MCM) in a specialized rheumatology center, compared with the results of a national registry of RA (NARRA) as evidence of real-world management.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a real-world study (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) based on an analysis of electronic health records of a cohort of RA patients managed with the “Treat-to-Target” strategy in a specialized rheumatology center in Colombia with an MCM, compared with the NARRA that includes different models of usual care.

Results

We have analyzed 7053 subjects with RA treated at a specialized rheumatology center and 81,492 patients from the NARRA. Cohorts were similar in their baseline characteristics, with women in predominance and diagnosis age close to 50 years. At the time of diagnosis, a higher proportion of clinical diagnostic test use and rheumatology consultation access was observed in the specialized rheumatology center than in the national registry (4–6 per year versus three or less). In addition, higher proportions of patients in remission and low disease activity were reported for the specialized rheumatology center, with a >40% amount of data lost in the national registry. Pharmacological management was similar regarding the analgesic use. In the specialized center, Certolizumab was more frequently used than in the NARRA registry; also, there were significant differences in methotrexate, leflunomide, and sulfasalazine use, being higher in the specialized rheumatology center.

Conclusion

The MCM of a specialized center in RA can guarantee comprehensive care, with better access to all the services required to manage the disease. It ensures specialist management and evidence-based care that facilitates the achievement of therapeutic objectives. In addition, better patient records and follow-ups are available to evaluate health outcomes.

Development of an interdisciplinary early rheumatoid arthritis care pathway

Background

To develop an interdisciplinary care pathway for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) including referral triage, diagnosis, and management.

Methods

Our process was a four-phase approach. In Phase 1, an anonymous survey was electronically distributed to division rheumatologists. This provided data to a small interprofessional working group of rheumatology team members who drafted an initial care pathway informed by evidence-based practice in Phase 2. In Phase 3, an education day was held with approximately 40 physicians (rheumatologists and rheumatology residents), members of our interprofessional team, and two clinic managers to review the proposed care elements through presentations and small group discussions. The care pathway was revised for content and implementation considerations based on feedback received. Implementation of the care pathway and development of strategies for evaluation is ongoing across multiple practice sites (Phase 4).

Results

Our care pathway promotes an approach to patient-centered early RA care using an interdisciplinary approach. Care pathway elements include triage processes, critical diagnostics, pre-treatment screening and vaccinations, and uptake of suggested RA pharmacologic treatment using shared decision-making strategies. Pathway implementation has been facilitated by nursing protocols and evaluation includes continuous monitoring of key indicators.

Conclusion

The ‘Calgary Early RA Care Pathway’ emphasizes a patient-centered and interdisciplinary approach to early RA identification and treatment. Implementation and evaluation of this care pathway is ongoing to support, highest quality care for patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-022-00267-x.

Nurse-Led Care for Stable Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Quality of Care in Routine Practice Compared to the Traditional Rheumatologist-Led Model

INTRODUCTION

This pragmatic non-inferiority study assessed quality of care within a nurse-led care (NLC) model for stable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared to the traditional rheumatologist-led care (RLC) model.

METHODS

Data were collected through a chart review. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared using Chi-square test and t test. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients being in remission or low disease activity (R/LDA) with the Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) ≤ 3.2 at 1-year follow-up. Process measures included the percentages of patients with chart documentation of (1) comorbidity screening; (2) education on flare management, and (3) vaccinations screening. Outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Each group included 124 patients. At baseline, demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups for most variables. Exceptions were the median (Q1, Q3) Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index scores [0 (0, 0.25) in NLC and 0.38 (0, 0.88) in RLC, p = 0.01], and treatment patterns with 3% of NLC and 38% of RLC patients receiving a biologic agent, p = 0.01. NLC was non-inferior to RLC with 97% of NLC and 92% of RLC patients being in R/LDA at 1-year follow-up. Patients in the NLC group had better documentation across all process measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided real-world evidence that the evaluated NLC model providing protocolized follow-up care for stable patients with RA is effective to address patients' needs for ongoing disease monitoring, chronic disease management, education, and support.

Implementation and Evaluation of Audit and Feedback for Monitoring Treat-to-Target (T2T) Strategies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Performance Measures

INTRODUCTION

In collaboration with the Alberta Medical Association's Physician Learning Program we developed individualized physician reports and held a group feedback session on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PM) to facilitate treat-to-target (T2T) strategies and evaluated physician experiences with this process.

METHODS

5 PMs addressing T2T concepts from an established Canadian quality framework were operationalized for physician practice reports at 2 university-affiliated rheumatology clinics. Rheum4U, a quality improvement and research platform, was the data source. The audit results were reviewed in a facilitated group feedback session. Rheumatologists provided experiential feedback on the process through survey and/or an interview. Transcripts from interviews were analyzed using a 6-step thematic analysis.

RESULTS

11 of 12 eligible rheumatologists consented to receive practice reports and provided feedback through surveys (n = 5) and interviews (n = 6). The practice reports from Rheum4U (n = 448 patients) revealed high rates of yearly follow-up (> 85%, PM1) and 100% performance on documentation of disease activity at ≥ 50% of visits (PM2). Only 34% of patients were seen within 3 months if not in remission (PM3) with 62% (2017) and 69% (2018) of those with active RA achieving a LDA state within 6 months (PM4). Approximately 70% of patients were in remission at any time point (PM5). All survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed comparison to peers was valuable and helped them reflect on their practice. Several strategies for improvement were identified, including but not limited to, leveraging of electronic records for future audit and feedback reports, providing additional granularity of results, additional stratification of results, and using high-performing peers as the comparator rather than the group mean.

CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback was perceived by clinicians as a useful strategy for evaluating T2T efforts in RA. Future work will focus on longitudinal evaluation of the clinical impact of this quality improvement initiative.