Dataset Information

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is increasing interest in the quality of health care and considerable efforts are being made to improve it. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that can result in favorable outcomes when appropriate diagnosis and treatment are provided. However, several studies have shown that RA is often managed inappropriately. Therefore, the Korean College of Rheumatology aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve the health care of patients with RA.

Methods

Preliminary QIs were derived based on the existing guidelines and QIs for RA. The final QIs were determined through two separate consensus meetings of experts. The consensus was achieved through a panel of experts who voted using the modified Delphi method.

Results

Fourteen final QIs were selected among 70 preliminary QIs. These included early referral to and regular follow-up with a rheumatologist, radiographs of the hands and feet, early initiation and maintenance of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, periodic assessment of disease activity, screening for drug safety and comorbidities, including viral hepatitis and tuberculosis before biologic DMARD therapy, periodic laboratory testing, supplementation with folic acid, assessment of the risk for cervical spine instability before general anesthesia, patient education, and specialized nurse.

Conclusion

These QIs can be used to assess and improve the quality of health care for patients with RA.

SUBMITTER: Seo MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8093604 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus.

Seo Mi Ryoung MR Kim Gunwoo G Moon Ki Won KW Sung Yoon Kyoung YK Yoo Jong Jin JJ Yoon Chong Hyeon CH Lee Eun Bong EB Lee Jisoo J Kang Eun Ha EH Kim Hyungjin H Park Eun Jung EJ Uhm Wan Sik WS Lee Myeung Su MS Lee Seung Won SW Choi Byoong Yong BY Hong Seung Jae SJ Baek Han Joo HJ

Journal of Korean medical science 20210503 17

<h4>Background</h4>There is increasing interest in the quality of health care and considerable efforts are being made to improve it. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that can result in favorable outcomes when appropriate diagnosis and treatment are provided. However, several studies have shown that RA is often managed inappropriately. Therefore, the Korean College of Rheumatology aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve the health care of patients with RA.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 33942576

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are currently no global recommendations on a parsimonious and robust set of indicators that can be measured routinely or periodically to monitor quality of hospital care for children and young adolescents. We describe a systematic methodology used to prioritize and define a core set of such indicators and their metadata for progress tracking, accountability, learning and improvement, at facility, (sub) national, national, and global levels.MethodsWe used a deductive methodology which involved the use of the World Health Organization Standards for improving the quality-of-care for children and young adolescents in health facilities as the organizing framework for indicator development. The entire process involved 9 complementary steps which included: a rapid literature review of available evidence, the application of a peer-reviewed systematic algorithm for indicator systematization and prioritization, and multiple iterative expert consultations to establish consensus on the proposed indicators and their metadata.ResultsWe derived a robust set of 25 core indicators and their metadata, representing all 8 World Health Organization quality standards, 40 quality statements and 520 quality measures. Most of these indicators are process-related (64%) and 20% are outcome/impact indicators. A large proportion (84%) of indicators were proposed for measurement at both outpatient and inpatient levels. By virtue of being a parsimonious set and given the stringent criteria for prioritizing indicators with "quality measurement" attributes, the recommended set is not evenly distributed across the 8 quality standards.ConclusionsTo support ongoing global and national initiatives around paediatric quality-of-care programming at country level, the recommended indicators can be adopted using a tiered approach that considers indicator measurability in the short-, medium-, and long-terms, within the context of the country's health information system readiness and maturity. However, there is a need for further research to assess the feasibility of implementing these indicators across contexts, and the need for their validation for global common reporting.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough quality care markers exist for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the predictors of meeting these markers are unclear.ObjectiveTo explore factors associated with quality care among patients with RA.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study using insurance claims from 2009 to 2017 was conducted, and 6 sequential logistic regression models were built to evaluate quality care markers. Quality care markers were measured at 1 year post-RA diagnosis for each patient. The MarketScan Research Database, which contains commercial and Medicare Advantage administrative claims data from more than 100 million individuals in the US, was used to identify patients aged 18 to 64 years with a diagnosis claim for RA. Patients with conditions presenting similar to RA and missing demographic characteristics were excluded. Data analysis occurred between February 18 and May 5, 2022.ExposuresSuccess or failure to meet selected RA quality care markers within 1 year after RA diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of meeting successive quality care markers for RA.ResultsAmong 581 770 patients, 430 843 (74.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 48.9 (11.3) years. Most patients (236 285 [40.6%]) resided in the South and had an income less than or equal to $45 200 (490 366 [84.3%]). Of the total study population, 399 862 individuals (68.7%) met at least 1 quality care marker and 181 908 (31.3%) met 0 markers. Most commonly, patients met annual laboratory testing (299 323 [51.5%]) and referral to a rheumatologist (256 765 [44.1%]) markers. The least met marker was receiving hepatitis B screening prior to initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (18 548 [3.2%]). Women were most likely to meet all quality care markers except receiving DMARDs with hepatitis B screening (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16). Individuals with lower median household income had lower odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral, an annual physical examination, or annual laboratory testing, but greater odds of receiving the other quality care markers. Patients with Medicare and those with comorbidities were generally less likely to meet quality care markers.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with RA, findings indicated downstream associations with rheumatologist referral and receiving DMARDs and varied associations between meeting quality care markers and patient characteristics. These findings suggest that prioritizing early care, especially for vulnerable patients, will ensure that quality care continues.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this article is to illustrate the application of an evidence-based, structured performance measurement methodology to identify, prioritize, and (when appropriate) generate new measures of health care quality, using primary care as a case example. Primary health care is central to the health care system and health of the American public; thus, ensuring high quality is essential. Due to its complexity, ensuring high-quality primary care requires measurement frameworks that can assess the quality of the infrastructure, workforce configurations, and processes available. This paper describes the use of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) to compile a targeted set of such measures, prioritized according to their contribution and value to primary care.MethodsWe adapted ProMES to select and rank existing primary care measures according to value to the primary care clinic. Nine subject matter experts (SMEs) consisting of clinicians, hospital leaders and national policymakers participated in facilitated expert elicitation sessions to identify objectives of performance, corresponding measures, and priority rankings.ResultsThe SMEs identified three fundamental objectives: access, patient-health care team partnerships, and technical quality. The SMEs also selected sixteen performance indicators from the 44 pre-vetted, currently existing measures from three different data sources for primary care. One indicator, Team 2-Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio, was selected as an indicator of both team partnerships and technical quality. Indicators were prioritized according to value using the contingency functions developed by the SMEs.ConclusionOur article provides an actionable guide to applying ProMES, which can be adapted to the needs of various industries, including measure selection and modification from existing data sources, and proposing new measures. Future work should address both logistical considerations (e.g., data capture, common data/programming language) and lingering measurement challenges, such as operationalizating measures to be meaningful and interpretable across health care settings.

Dataset Information

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets