Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus.
Ontology highlight
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 |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9270792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a high risk of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). We developed CVD quality indicators (QI) for screening and use in rheumatology clinics.A systematic review was conducted of the literature on CVD risk reduction in RA and the general population. Based on the best practices identified from this review, a draft set of 12 candidate QI were presented to a Canadian panel of rheumatologists and cardiologists (n = 6) from 3 academic centers to achieve consensus on the QI specifications. The resulting 11 QI were then evaluated by an online modified-Delphi panel of multidisciplinary health professionals and patients (n = 43) to determine their relevance, validity, and feasibility in 3 rounds of online voting and threaded discussion using a modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology.Response rates for the online panel were 86%. All 11 QI were rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible (median rating ? 7 on a 1-9 scale), with no significant disagreement. The final QI set addresses the following themes: communication to primary care about increased CV risk in RA; CV risk assessment; defining smoking status and providing cessation counseling; screening and addressing hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes; exercise recommendations; body mass index screening and lifestyle counseling; minimizing corticosteroid use; and communicating to patients at high risk of CVD about the risks/benefits of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.Eleven QI for CVD care in patients with RA have been developed and are rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible by an international multidisciplinary panel.
| S-EPMC4758831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quality performance indicators (QPIs) are used to monitor the delivery of cancer care. Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a family of individually uncommon cancers that derive from neuroendocrine cells or their precursors, and can occur in most organs. There are currently no QPIs available for NETs and their heterogeneity makes QPI development difficult. CommNETs is a collaboration between NET clinicians, researchers and advocates in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We created QPIs for NETs using a three-step consensus process. First, a multidisciplinary team used the nominal group technique to create candidates (n = 133) which were then curated into appropriateness statements (62 statements, 44 sub-statements). A two-stage modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus process was conducted: an online survey rated the statement appropriateness then the top-ranked statements (n = 20) were assessed in a face-to-face meeting. Finally, 10 QPIs met consensus criteria; documentation of primary site, proliferative index, differentiation, tumour board review, use of a structured pathology report, presence of distant metastasis, 5- and 10-year disease-free and overall survival. These NET QPIs will be trialed as a method to monitor and improve care for people with NETs and to facilitate international comparison.
| S-EPMC6780732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Real-world data (RWD) collected in routine health care processes and transformed to real-world evidence have become increasingly interesting within the research and medical communities to enhance medical research and support regulatory decision-making. Despite numerous European initiatives, there is still no cross-border consensus or guideline determining which qualities RWD must meet in order to be acceptable for decision-making within regulatory or routine clinical decision support. In the absence of guidelines defining the quality standards for RWD, an overview and first recommendations for quality criteria for RWD in pharmaceutical research and health care decision-making is needed in Austria. An Austrian multistakeholder expert group led by Gesellschaft für Pharmazeutische Medizin (Austrian Society for Pharmaceutical Medicine) met regularly; reviewed and discussed guidelines, frameworks, use cases, or viewpoints; and agreed unanimously on a set of quality criteria for RWD. This consensus statement was derived from the quality criteria for RWD to be used more effectively for medical research purposes beyond the registry-based studies discussed in the European Medicines Agency guideline for registry-based studies. This paper summarizes the recommendations for the quality criteria of RWD, which represents a minimum set of requirements. In order to future-proof registry-based studies, RWD should follow high-quality standards and be subjected to the quality assurance measures needed to underpin data quality. Furthermore, specific RWD quality aspects for individual use cases (eg, medical or pharmacoeconomic research), market authorization processes, or postmarket authorization phases have yet to be elaborated.
| S-EPMC9250059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature previously identified over 1200 perioperative structure and process quality indicators. We undertook a Delphi consensus process with the aim of creating a concise list of indicators that experts deemed most important for assessing quality in perioperative care. Methods:A basic Delphi consensus was completed using an online survey which was distributed to surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physicians and lay representatives. Participants were asked to prioritise the indicators in order of importance (high, medium or low) to be included for collection in a national perioperative quality improvement programme. Results:One hundred and thirty-seven indicators were included in the first iteration of the Delphi consensus (91 structure and 48 process indicators). Sixty-three experts agreed to participate and the consensus was completed in five rounds. Ninety-five indicators were agreed as high priority: 65 structural and 30 process indicators. Conclusion:The Delphi consensus process was able to reduce the number of recommended indicators to only a modest extent. Further work to evaluate the practicalities of routinely collecting such a comprehensive list of quality indicators is now required.
| S-EPMC7063823 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC1743692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation.
| S-EPMC6697344 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8765671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disease that primarily affects joints with some extraarticular involvement. If inappropriately treated, it usually results in persistent joint pain, irreversible deformities, and functional disability, leading to poor quality of life. Our objective was to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and related factors in patients with RA.MethodsFour hundred sixty-four patients from the Rheumatoid Arthritis registries of Siriraj and Phramongkutklao teaching hospitals were enrolled. Sociodemographic, clinical and laboratory data related to disease activity, and functional status were collected. HRQoL was assessed using the Thai version of EuroQol five dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and EQ global health visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were employed to identify factors related to HRQoL.ResultsEighty-five percent were female with a mean age ± SD of 59.15 ± 11.43 years and a mean disease duration ± SD of 11.53 ± 8.3 years. The mean educational level ± SD was 9.42 ± 5.21 years. Almost half were unemployed or retired (47%). They had moderate disease activity (mean cumulative DAS28 ± SD, 3.5 ± 0.8) and mild functional impairment (mean HAQ ± SD, 0.70 ± 0.68). The mean EQ-5D ± SD (0-1) was 0.87 ± 0.13 and mean EQ VAS ± SD (0-10) was 7.94 ± 1.7. Based on the EQ-5D domain, 49% reported that they had no problem with mobility, 83% had no difficulties with self-care, 65% had no difficulties with usual activity, 30% had no pain or discomfort, and 61% had no depression or anxiety. The relationship between problems of each dimension in EQ-5D significantly increased according to severity of RA assessed by the Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (p < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, high cumulative disease activity, functional disability, depression, and anxiety were negatively associated with EQ-5D (adjusted R 2 0.38, p < 0.001) and EQ VAS (adjusted R 2 0.19, p < 0.001).ConclusionDisease severity and psychological disturbance have a negative impact on quality of life in patients with RA. These factors should be considered in management of RA patients to improve the standard of care.
| S-EPMC6694487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and oral health problems have been reported as specific disease units; however, this study was conducted to evaluate the association between RA and comprehensive oral health status. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the association between RA and oral health using self-perceived oral health (SPOH) variables that can determine the oral health status in Korean adults using representative national data. Data from 40,186 selected participants were collected from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) between 2007 and 2018. The prevalence relative risk (PRR) was estimated using Poisson regression analysis to obtain the risk ratio of the SPOH according to RA. The risk of SPOH depending on the RA status was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.108, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-1.222). In addition, the risk of SPOH depending on the RA status was higher in the group with diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 1.205, 95% CI 0.966-1.503) than in the group without DM (OR = 1.088, 95% CI 0.976-1.214). In this study, a significant association was identified between RA and SPOH. Oral health experts should identify the factors affecting the oral health of patients with RA and provide correct oral health care; however, additional research is needed.
| S-EPMC8954365 | biostudies-literature