Performance measures can be used to evaluate treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. |
Audit and group feedback is acceptable and valuable exercise for rheumatologists to review individuals practice results. |
Results from audit and feedback can be used to drive quality improvements in rheumatology clinics and future evaluation of the impact of this process on patient outcomes is planned. |
Digital Features
Introduction
Methods
Study Design and Setting
Clinical Data Source
Inclusion Criteria
Performance Measure Operationalization
PM | Measure description | Operationalization of the PMs | Sensitivity analysis |
---|---|---|---|
PM1 | Percent of RA patients seen in follow-up at least once per year | Numerator: Patients with a visit each year Denominator: Total expected RA cases in Rheum4U Exclusions: Patients who died, left the cohort, or moved during the measurement year | N/A |
PM2 | Percent of RA patients with > = 50% of total number of outpatient encounters per year with assessment of disease activity using a standardized measurea | Numerator: Patients with a documented composite measure of disease activity (CDAI or DAS28) Denominator: Total RA cases with a visit during the measurement year Calculation: Must meet the measure at \(\ge\) 50% of all clinic visits per year Exclusions: Patients who died, left the cohort, or moved during the measurement year | N/A |
PM3 | Percent of RA patients seen in clinic within 3 months if not in remissionb | Numerator: Number of patients not in remission seen in clinic within 3 months Denominator: Number of patients where the patient was not in remission by any measure of disease activity (CDAI or DAS28) Exclusions: Patients who died, left the cohort, or moved during the measurement year | Calculated using patients or clinic visits as the unit of measurement Threshold of LDAd instead of remissionb |
PM4 | Percent of RA patients with active RAc who have LDAd within 6 months | Numerator: Number of patients with active RA who are in LDA within 6 months Denominator: Number of patients with active RA by any measure of disease activity (CDAI or DAS28) Exclusions: Patients who died, left the cohort, or moved during the measurement year, patient refusal of medication change | Calculated using patients or clinic visits as the unit of measurement Examined using LDAd at 9 and 12 months |
PM5 | Percent of RA patients in remissionb during the year | Numerator: Number of patients with remission documented at least once by any measure of disease activity (CDAI or DAS28) Denominator: Number of RA patients with documented disease activity scores Exclusions: Patients who died, left the cohort, or moved during the measurement year | Calculated using patients or clinic visits as the unit of measurement Examined remissionb by any composite measure at all documented visits |
Rheumatologist Practice Reports for T2T Audit and Feedback
Rheumatologist Experience with the T2T Audit and Feedback Process
Results
Rheumatologist Characteristics and Aggregate Results
Performance measure (PM) | Group according to disease duration | Year | Patients in the denominator n | Patients who met the measure n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
PM1: % seen in yearly follow-up | All RA patients RA | 2017 | 76 | 68 (89.4) |
2018 | 185 | 160 (86.5) | ||
Established RA | 2017 | 50 | 42 (84.0) | |
2018 | 132 | 124 (93.4) | ||
Early RA | 2017 | 26 | 26 (100.0) | |
2018 | 45 | 36 (80.0) | ||
Physician pre-estimate of PM1 | All RA patients | N/A | N/A | Mean 81.5% (SD 31.5) Range (15–100%) |
PM2: % with assessment of disease activitya at > = 50% of total visits | All RA patients | 2017 | 183 | 183 (100) |
2018 | 401 | 401 (100) | ||
Established RA | 2017 | 134 | 134 (100) | |
2018 | 305 | 305 (100) | ||
Early RA | 2017 | 49 | 49 (100) | |
2018 | 96 | 96 (100) | ||
Physician pre-estimate of PM2 | All RA patients | N/A | N/A | Mean 64.0% (SD 31.3) Range (10–100%) |
PM | Group according to disease duration | Year | Clinic visits in denominator n | Clinic visits that met the measure n (%) | Patients in denominator n | Patients who met the measure n (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PM3: % patients seen in 3 months if not in remissiona | All RA patients | 2017 | 207 | 56 (27.1) | 132 | 45 (34.1) | ||
2018 | 580 | 161 (27.8) | 314 | 107 (34.1) | ||||
Established RA | 2017 | 143 | 36 (25.2) | 95 | 29 (30.5) | |||
2018 | 419 | 97 (23.2) | 239 | 67 (28.0) | ||||
Early RA | 2017 | 64 | 20 (31.3) | 37 | 16 (43.2) | |||
2018 | 161 | 64 (39.8) | 75 | 40 (53.3) | ||||
Physician pre-estimate of PM3 | All RA patients | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Mean 76.5% (SD 25.7) Range 20–100% | ||
PM4: % patients with active RAb who have LDAc or remission within 6 months | All RA patients | 2017 | 87 | 45 (51.7) | 65 | 40 (61.5) | ||
2018 | 220 | 119 (54.1) | 134 | 93 (69.4) | ||||
Established RA | 2017 | 59 | 27 (45.8) | 43 | 25 (58.1) | |||
2018 | 153 | 73 (47.7) | 94 | 60 (63.8) | ||||
Early RA | 2017 | 28 | 18 (64.3) | 22 | 15 (68.2) | |||
2018 | 67 | 46 (68.7) | 40 | 33 (82.5) | ||||
Physician pre-estimate of PM4 | All RA patients | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Mean 58.0% (SD 28.1) Range (10–95%) |
Group according to disease duration | Year | Clinic visits (n) | Clinic visits that met the measure n (%) | Patients (n) | Patients who met the measure n (%) | Patients in remission at all visits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All RA patients | 2017 | 305 | 170 (55.7) | 183 | 130 (71.0) | 88 |
2018 | 783 | 419 (53.5) | 401 | 289 (72.1) | 173 | |
Established RA | 2017 | 211 | 118 (55.9) | 134 | 94 (70.1) | 66 |
2018 | 555 | 305 (55.0) | 305 | 221 (72.5) | 140 | |
Early RA | 2017 | 94 | 52 (55.3) | 49 | 36 (73.5) | 22 |
2018 | 228 | 114 (50.0) | 96 | 68 (70.8) | 33 | |
Physician pre-estimate of PM5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Mean 64.0% (SD 25.7) Range 15–95% | N/A |
Group Feedback Session
Rheumatologist Experience with Audit and Feedback
Theme | Selected quotations |
---|---|
Measurement selection | Measurement selection felt to be appropriate “I thought it was pretty reasonable… I don’t think there was anything else I would've necessarily been interested in or wished that they'd reported that I can think of right off the top of my head” (Rheumatologist 3) Limitation of disease activity measures discussed “So, in general, but that's all we have at the moment. So if you think about, for example, in the management of diabetes, there are very clear, objective outcome measures, the HbA1c—so, the control of your blood glucose over time, over a 3-month period, and that's gold. We don't have that for inflammatory disease” (Rheumatologist 4) |
PLP involvement in quality reporting | Need to ensure involvement of rheumatologists in presentation and interpretation of data “I think it's an interesting concept, because I think sometimes we're maybe not the best … critics, of ourselves, so having another set of eyes have a look at it is not a bad idea. I think it does depend, of course, on the body that's looking at them and what their expertise is, because, I mean, if it's a group that knows nothing about rheumatology, you know, their opinion may not be as relevant to us as someone who is very well-versed in rheumatology” (Rheumatologist 2) Some ambivalence regarding the future need for PLP involvement “I don't care who did it, as long as it's done and in the most appropriate way” (Rheumatologist 4) |
Report formatting | Report format was easy to read and understand “I thought it was good. I liked how it was all broken down into separate sections with the graphs from—comparing the year-to-year” (Rheumatologist 2) |
Interpretation of results | Factors were discussed which could impact interpretation of results “…how many years you've been in practice, how complex your patients are, all of that, really impacts this… (Rheumatologist 3) |
Utility of results | Discussion around how to view results so that they could be actionable “Like, who are these people who are doing really poorly?” and suggested that “…this is good for sort of overall practice reflection, but I think it'd be really interesting to know….who are my five worst patients?.. Or the top 10—that’d be really interesting, actually” (Rheumatologist 3) “so it's kind of interesting to see, you know, is everyone seeing everyone in 6 months, or is everyone seeing everyone once a year….” (Rheumatologist 2) |
Rhem4U as a data source | Rheum4U may not be representative of rheumatologists’ practices causing concern about generalizability of results “…so I don't know how valid is that, how far can you take it” (Rheumatologist 1) |
Reaction to individualized results | Some rheumatologists expressed surprise at their performance results “I guess I was surprised that my outcomes were not as good as other people's” (Rheumatologist 1) “I was really shocked about was the 3-month follow-up for people—like, patients who were not in remission” (Rheumatologist 2) Explanations for possible poor performance were discussed “I'm really tough on calling things "remission" where I think that there is room for improvement.” (Rheumatologist 5) “But some of it isn't the doctor's fault that the patient isn't getting seen quickly. It could be availability; it could be booking; it could be patient factors too…” (Rheumatologist 4) Comparison to peers valuable “I learned a lot of things, I think. I think I learned in general what the spectrum of rheumatology practices look like in the clinic, because, you know, on a day-to-day basis, we're really in our offices seeing our own patients, so we don't really get to see what other patients'—or, practitioners,' practice look like, so it's kind of interesting to see” (Rheumatologist 2) Practice change for some was unlikely “I don’t think it’s going to change anything else, to be honest” (Rheumatologist 2) |