Quality of care in rheumatic diseases: Performance measures and improvement

Current Opinion in Rheumatology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 153-158

  Harrington, J Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical process improvement; Disease activity measurement; Pay for performance

Indexed keywords

CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTINUOUS PROCESS; COST CONTROL; DISEASE ACTIVITY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL FEE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDICARE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RHEUMATIC DISEASE;

DISEASE MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; MEDICARE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REIMBURSEMENT, INCENTIVE; RHEUMATIC DISEASES; RHEUMATOLOGY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; UNITED STATES;

EID: 40349110732     PISSN: 10408711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e3282f4b200     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of healthcare delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2635-2645.
2. Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
3. Druss BG, Marcus SC, Olfson M, et al. Comparing the national economic burden of five chronic conditions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20:233-241.
4. Berwick DM. A primer on leading the improvement of systems. Bmj 1996; 312:619-622.
5. Shortell SM, Rundall TG, Hsu J. Improving patient care by linking evidence-based medicine and evidence-based management. JAMA 2007; 298:673-676. Improving chronic disease outcomes requires both evidence-based medicine to improve knowledge and evidence-based management to improve the underlying organization of care. Recognizing these distinctions and the need to integrate knowledge with delivery of care processes is an important contribution.
6. Porter ME, Teisberg EO. How physicians can change the future of healthcare. JAMA 2007; 297:1103-1111. These well known economists have provided a fresh approach to solving the problems that compromise the US Health System in journal publications and a comprehensive text, Redefining Healthcare. They recommend that physicians return medicine to its appropriate focus by emphasizing value for patients, reorganization of care around medical conditions and care cycles, and emphasizing measurement of risk-adjusted outcomes and costs. This well documented perspective forms a basis for the ACR's quality movement, and broader healthcare improvement.
7. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-forperformance: from concept to practice. JAMA 2005; 294:1788-1793.
8. Petersen LA, Woodard LD, Urech T, et al. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of healthcare? Ann Intern Med 2006; 145:265-272.
9. Rosenthal MB, Landon BE, Normand SL, et al. Pay for performance in commercial HMOs. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1895-1902.
10. Epstein AM. Pay for performance at the tipping point. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:515-517.
11. Rosenthal MB, Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance: will the latest payment trend improve care? JAMA 2007; 297:740-744.
12. Pham HH, Schrag D, O'Malley AS, et al. Care patterns in Medicare and their implications for pay for performance. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1130-1139.
13. Pincus T, Gibofsky A, Weinblatt ME. Urgent care and tight control of rheumatoid arthritis as in diabetes and hypertension: better treatments but a shortage of rheumatologists. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46:851-854.
14. Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A, et al. Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364:263-269.
15. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, de Vries-Bouwstra JK, Allaart CF, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52:3381-3390.
16. Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF, et al. The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:26-37.
17. St Clair EW, van der Heijde DM, Smolen JS, et al. Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:3432-3443.
18. Chevalley T, Hoffmeyer P, Bonjour JP, Rizzoli R. An osteoporosis clinical pathway for the medical management of patients with low-trauma fracture. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13:450-455.
19. Hawker G, Ridout R, Ricupero M, et al. The impact of a simple fracture clinic intervention in improving the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14:171-178.
20. McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, McQuillian C. The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14:1028-1034.
21. Harrington JT, Barash HL, Day S, Lease J. Redesigning the care of fragility fracture patients to improve osteoporosis management: a healthcare improvement project. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53:198-204.
22. Newman ED, Matzko CK, Olenginski TP, et al. Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis Program (GIOP): a novel, comprehensive, and highly successful care program with improved outcomes at 1 year. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17:1428-1434.
23. Olenginski TP, Newman ED, Hummel JL, Hummer M. Development and evaluation of a vertebral fracture assessment program using IVA and its integration with mobile DXA. J Clin Densitom 2006; 9:72-77.
24. Harrington JT, Deal CL. Successes and failures in improving osteoporosis care after fragility fracture: results of a multiple site clinical improvement project. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55:724-728.
25. Harrington JT, Broy SB, Derosa AM, et al. Hip fracture patients are not treated for osteoporosis: a call to action. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47:651-654.
26. Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch ER, Jamal SA, Beaton DE. Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15:767-778.
27. Woolf AD. An update on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2007; 19:370-375.
28. Ross PD. Osteoporosis: frequency, consequences, and risk factors. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:1399-1411.
29. Cohen S, Gabriel S, Moynihan E. The quality movement: rheumatologists need to be prepared. Am Coll Rheumatol Pract View 2006; 1:1-11.
30. Berwick DM, Nolan TW. Physicians as leaders in improving healthcare: a new series in Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128:289-292.
31. Harrington JT. A view of our future: the case for redesigning rheumatology practice. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49:716-719.
32. Harrington JT, Juozevicius JJ. A pilot test using a standardized clinical database to monitor rheumatoid arthritis disease activity in rheumatology practice. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52:S688.
33. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74:511-544.
34. Solberg LI, Brekke ML, Fazio CJ, et al. Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000; 26:171-188.
35. Deal CL, Hooker R, Harrington T, et al. The United States Rheumatology Taskforce: supply and demand, 2005-2025. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:722-729. The ACR manpower taskforce has created a carefully considered report that documents a growing deficit of rheumatology manpower over the next 20 years and advocates for maintaining training, improving practice efficiencies, and involving other healthcare disciplines in team-based care that reassigns work that has traditionally been provided by rheumatologists themselves. The choice is clearly defined: change or fail to meet the needs of musculoskeletal disease patients.
36. Pham HH, Ginsburg PB, McKenzie K, Milstein A. Redesigning care delivery in response to a high-performance network: the Virginia Mason Medical Center. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26:w532-w544.
37. Harrington JT, Newman ED. Redesigning the care of rheumatic diseases at the practice and system levels. Part 1: Practice level process improvement (Redesign 101). Clin exp rheumatol 2007; 25 (Suppl 47):S55-S63. This and the following companion review provide a tutorial on continuous process improvement methods and examples of successful practice and system projects from the authors' extensive experience in this field. Rheumatologists must become adept at practice redesign whether interested in contributing original work to the field or implementing changes in their own practices that result in positive change without disruption or unintended consequences.
38. Newman E, Harrington JT. Redesigning the care of rheumatic diseases at the practice and system levels. Part 2: System level process improvement (Redesign 201). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007; 25 (Suppl 47):S64-S68. This and the previous companion review provide a tutorial on continuous process improvement methods and examples of successful practice and system projects from the authors' extensive experience in this field. Rheumatologists must become adept at practice redesign whether interested in contributing original work to the field or implementing changes in their own practices that result in positive change without disruption or unintended consequences.
39. Lawrence DM. Chronic disease care: rearranging the deck chairs. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:458-459.
40. Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003; 289:1278-1287.
41. Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21 (Suppl 2):S58-S64.
42. Eccles M, Johnston M, Hrisos S, et al. Translating clinicians' beliefs into implementation interventions (TRACII): a protocol for an intervention modeling experiment to change clinicians' interventions to implement evidence-based practice. Implement Sci 2007; 2:27.
43. Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, et al. Translation in the health professions: converting science into action. Eval Health Prof 2006; 29:7-32.
44. Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:608-613.
45. Berwick DM. Broadening the view of evidence-based medicine. Qual Saf Healthcare 2005; 14:315-316.
46. Davidoff F, Batalden P. Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement: draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Qual Saf Healthcare 2005; 14:319-325.
47. Thomson RG. Consensus publication guidelines: the next step in the science of quality improvement? Qual Saf Healthcare 2005; 14:317-318.
48. Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, et al. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:825-834.
49. van Riel PL. Provisional guidelines for measuring disease activity in clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1992; 31:793-794.
50. Tugwell P, Boers M. OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: introduction. J Rheumatol 1993; 20:528-530.
51. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993; 36:729-740.
52. van der Heijde DM, van't Hof M, van Riel PL, van de Putte LB. Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 1993; 20:579-581.
53. Prevoo ML, van't Hof MA, Kuper HH, et al. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38:44-48.
54. Pincus T, Sokka T, Kautiainen H. Further development of a physical function scale on a MDHAQ [corrected] for standard care of patients with rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2005; 32:1432-1439.
55. Pincus T, Sokka T. Can a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) and routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) scores be informative in patients with all rheumatic diseases? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007; 21:733-753.
56. Cush JJ. Global arthritis score: a rapid practice tool for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) assessment. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52:S686.
57. Pincus T, Wolfe F. Patient questionnaires for clinical research and improved standard patient care: is it better to have 80% of the information in 100% of patients or 100% of the information in 5% of patients? J Rheumatol 2005; 32:575-577.
58. Pincus T, Maclean R, Yazici Y, Harrington JT. Quantitative measurement of patient status in regular care of patients with rheumatic diseases as a continuous quality improvement program, rather than a traditional research program, over 25 years. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007; 25 (Suppl 47):S69-S81. This review characterizes development of a practice-based disease activity scoring process (MDHAQ and RAPID) for rheumatic diseases as a series 20 Plan-Do-Study-Act process improvement cycles. It provides an excellent example of orderly redesign of complex clinical processes and the rigorous use of before-after data to guide the process over many years. The disease activity assessment methods described provide a practical approach to measurement in clinical practice.