Rheumatoid Arthritis: Traina SB

Khanna D, Arnold EL, Pencharz JN, Grossman JM, Traina SB, Lal A, MacLean CH. · Division of Immunology, University of Cincinnati and VAMC, OH, USA. · Semin Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16461068 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To describe the scientific evidence that supports each of the explicit process measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis. METHODS: For each of the 27 measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator set, a comprehensive literature review was performed for evidence that linked the process of care defined in the indicator with relevant clinical outcomes and to summarize practice guidelines relevant to the indicators. RESULTS: Over 7500 titles were identified and reviewed. For each of the indicators the scientific evidence to support or refute the quality indicator was summarized. We found direct evidence that supported a process-outcome link for 15 of the indicators, an indirect link for 7 of the indicators, and no evidence to support or refute a link for 5. The processes of care described in the indicators for which no supporting/refuting data were found have been assumed to be so essential to care that clinical trails assessing their importance have not, and probably never will be, performed. The process of care described in all but 2 of the indicators is recommended in 1 or more practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: There are sufficient scientific evidence and expert consensus to support the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis, which defines a minimal standard of care that can be used to assess health care quality for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Kahn KL, Maclean CH, Wong AL, Rubenstein LZ, Liu H, Fitzpatrick DM, Harker JO, Chen WP, Traina SB, Mittman BS, Hahn BH, Paulus HE. · University of California at Los Angeles, California 90095-1736, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #17530663 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) starter set of quality measures for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an actual patient cohort that preceded publication of the quality measures. METHODS: We retrospectively applied the 2006 ACR quality criteria to a prospectively studied cohort of 568 patients with RA treated by 1,932 unique physicians including 255 different rheumatologists between the years 1999 and 2003. Data on performance were obtained from self-report surveys and medical record review within 12 months. RESULTS: At least 1 joint examination was performed in 98% of patients. Patient and physician global assessments were reported for 79% and 74% of patients, respectively. A total of 85% of patients received disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). DMARD adjustments were made for 50% of patients in whom increasing disease activity was noted at least once and for 64% of patients in whom increasing disease activity was noted during 2 (of 4) 3-month periods within the year. Compared with self-report surveys, medical records substantially underreported performance on quality measures. CONCLUSION: The ACR-endorsed quality measures for RA can be assessed using available data sources. When both self-report and medical record data are used, adherence rates, designed to serve as minimum standards of care, were moderate or high for most measures. Prior to using indicators to compare quality across groups, specific strategies for operationalizing measures and for using accurate data sources to assess adherence to the measures should be defined.

Kahn KL, MacLean CH, Liu H, Rubenstein LZ, Wong AL, Harker JO, Chen WP, Fitzpatrick DM, Bulpitt KJ, Traina SB, Mittman BS, Hahn BH, Paulus HE. · University of California at Los Angeles, Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California 90095-1736, USA. · Med Care. · Pubmed #17279021 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) provide an important opportunity for understanding care of patients with a serious chronic condition. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize the complexity of care for patients with RA, including metrics describing the patient, the disease, and use of the health care system across time and place. METHODS: We undertook a prospective cohort study of 568 community-dwelling patients with RA by using observational data from clinically detailed telephone interviews at baseline and 2 years later in addition to medical record abstraction. Health status, comorbidity, use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, visits, providers, provider types, encounter settings, and the discontinuity between patients and providers were studied. RESULTS: Within a 12-month window, 568 patients had 8686 outpatient encounters with the health care system with a mean of 3.41 unique providers per patient associated with a mean of 5 primary care and 6 rheumatologist visits. Half did not see a primary care physician, and 20% did not see a rheumatologist during 6-month periods despite their use of potentially toxic drugs, a mean of 4 comorbidities and progressive RA. Over the course of 24 months, 29% of patients changed their primary care provider, and 15% changed their rheumatologist. Patients were moderately impaired with mean SF-12 physical component score 37 (SD, 9). CONCLUSION: Patients with RA have frequent encounters with multiple providers and also frequent discontinuity of care. Recognizing the complexity of the care of patients with a chronic disease across multiple dimensions provides an opportunity to better understand challenges and opportunities in delivering high quality care.

Kahn KL, MacLean CH, Liu H, Rubenstein LZ, Wong AL, Harker JO, Chen WP, Fitzpatrick DM, Bulpitt KJ, Traina SB, Mittman BS, Hahn BH, Paulus HE. · Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1736, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #17139665 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To construct quality measures with measurement validity and meaning for clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of rates of change in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and/or systemic corticosteroid drug or dose for 568 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across 6,159 clinical encounters within 12 months to examine how changes in clinical specifications change adherence. RESULTS: Rates of DMARD change were sensitive to specifications regarding the intensity of disease activity (severe or moderate), duration of specified disease activity, and length of the observation period. Over 12 months, the proportions of 377 patients with severe disease activity observed for 1-month, 2-month, and 3-month time blocks who had a change in DMARD drug or dose were 36%, 57%, and 74%, respectively. Over 12 months, a change in DMARD drug or dose was observed for 44%, 50%, and 68% of 377 patients with severe disease within 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively, of the patient meeting criteria for severe disease activity. A change in DMARD drug or dose was observed for 21%, 23%, and 34% of 149 patients with moderate disease activity within 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, of the patient meeting criteria for moderate disease activity. CONCLUSION: Rates of pharmacologic interventions for patients with moderate and severe RA disease activity vary substantially by intensity and duration of disease activity and by duration of period for observing change. Lack of precision in explicit process criteria could substantially mislead comparisons of quality of care across comparison groups.

Traina SB, MacLean CH, Park GS, Kahn KL. · Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, The David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. · J Clin Epidemiol. · Pubmed #15939228 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: This study assessed the impact of follow-up reminder phone calls on response rates to a mailed consent form packet. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were invited to enroll in a study by signing and returning consent forms by mail. Patients not returning completed study consent forms were called and reminded to return the signed consent forms. RESULTS: Among 724 mailed consent form packets, 376 (52%) were returned without further follow-up. Follow-up reminder calls were made to 220 of the 348 patients who did not return signed consent forms. Among subjects contacted by phone, 67 (31% of those called) returned signed consent forms. CONCLUSION: Follow-up reminder phone calls raised the overall consent rate of 52 to 61%, suggesting that they can be an effective technique in increasing response rates.