Impact of the 2014 NIH chronic graft-versus-host disease scoring criteria modifications assessed in a large cohort of severely affected patients.

In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) consensus project provided diagnosis and staging criteria, based mostly on clinical experience and expert opinion. These criteria were revised in 2014, aiming to provide enhanced specificity and clarity. However, the impact of 2014 changes to the original NIH cGVHD severity scoring criteria has not been reported. In this study, 284 patients, prospectively enrolled on the National Cancer Institute's cross-sectional cGVHD natural history study, were scored using the 2005 NIH cGVHD criteria and then rescored according to the 2014 modifications. In comparing the two criteria, 2014 cGVHD global severity scoring resulted in a tendency toward being categorized as milder scores (75 vs. 72% of severe score per 2014, p = 0.0009), with a statistically significant shift in NIH liver and lung scores toward milder categories (p < 0.0001). 2005 and 2014 NIH global severity scores showed a significant association with reduced grip strength (p < 0.0001), reduced joint range of motion (p = 0.0003), and the subspecialist evaluation score (p < 0.0001). Poor survival prediction of the severe NIH lung score is also retained in the new criteria (p = 0.0012). These findings support the use of 2014 cGVHD scoring criteria in continuous efforts to develop better classification systems.

Toward a National Initiative in Cancer Rehabilitation: Recommendations From a Subject Matter Expert Group.

The health care delivery system in the United States is challenged to meet the needs of a growing population of cancer survivors. A pressing need is to optimize overall function and reduce disability in these individuals. Functional impairments and disability affect most patients during and after disease treatment. Rehabilitation health care providers can diagnose and treat patients' physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments in an effort to maintain or restore function, reduce symptom burden, maximize independence and improve quality of life in this medically complex population. However, few care delivery models integrate comprehensive cancer rehabilitation services into the oncology care continuum. The Rehabilitation Medicine Department of the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health with support from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research convened a subject matter expert group to review current literature and practice patterns, identify opportunities and gaps regarding cancer rehabilitation and its support of oncology care, and make recommendations for future efforts that promote quality cancer rehabilitation care. The recommendations suggest stronger efforts toward integrating cancer rehabilitation care models into oncology care from the point of diagnosis, incorporating evidence-based rehabilitation clinical assessment tools, and including rehabilitation professionals in shared decision-making in order to provide comprehensive cancer care and maximize the functional capabilities of cancer survivors. These recommendations aim to enable future collaborations among a variety of stakeholders to improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

Development of key performance indicators to evaluate centralized intake for patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Centralized intake is integral to healthcare systems to support timely access to appropriate health services. The aim of this study was to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate centralized intake systems for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Phase 1 involved stakeholder meetings including healthcare providers, managers, researchers and patients to obtain input on candidate KPIs, aligned along six quality dimensions: appropriateness, accessibility, acceptability, efficiency, effectiveness, and safety. Phase 2 involved literature reviews to ensure KPIs were based on best practices and harmonized with existing measures. Phase 3 involved a three-round, online modified Delphi panel to finalize the KPIs. The panel consisted of two rounds of rating and a round of online and in-person discussions. KPIs rated as valid and important (≥7 on a 9-point Likert scale) were included in the final set. RESULTS: Twenty-five KPIs identified and substantiated during Phases 1 and 2 were submitted to 27 panellists including healthcare providers, managers, researchers, and patients in Phase 3. After the in-person meeting, three KPIs were removed and six were suggested. The final set includes 9 OA KPIs, 10 RA KPIs and 9 relating to centralized intake processes for both conditions. All 28 KPIs were rated as valid and important. CONCLUSIONS: Arthritis stakeholders have proposed 28 KPIs that should be used in quality improvement efforts when evaluating centralized intake for OA and RA. The KPIs measure five of the six dimensions of quality and are relevant to patients, practitioners and health systems.

Optimizing the interprofessional workforce for centralized intake of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease: case study.

INTRODUCTION: This case study was part of a larger programme of research in Alberta that aims to develop an evidence-based model to optimize centralized intake province-wide to improve access to care. A centralized intake model places all referred patients on waiting lists based on severity and then directs them to the most appropriate provider or service. Our research focused on an in-depth assessment of two well-established models currently in place in Alberta to 1) enhance our understanding of the roles and responsibilities of staff in current intake processes, 2) identify workforce issues and opportunities within the current models, and 3) inform the potential use of alternative providers in the proposed centralized intake model. CASE DESCRIPTION: Our case study included two centralized intake models in Alberta associated with three clinics. One model involved one clinic that focuses on rheumatoid disease. The other model involved two clinics that focus on osteoarthritis. We completed a document review and interviews with managers and staff from both models. Finally, we reviewed the scope of practice regulations for a range of health-care providers to examine their suitability to contribute to the centralized intake process of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: Interview findings from both models suggested a need for an electronic medical record and eReferral system to improve the efficiency of the current process and reduce staff workload. Staff interviewed also spoke of the need to have a permanent musculoskeletal screener available to streamline the intake process for osteoarthritis patients. Both models relied on registered nurses, medical office assistants, and physicians throughout their intake process. Our scope of practice review revealed that several providers have the competencies to screen, assess, and provide case management at different junctures in the centralized intake of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease. CONCLUSIONS: Using a broader range of providers in the centralized intake of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease has the potential to improve access and care specifically related to the assessment and management of patients. This may enhance the patient care experience and address current access issues.

Why is school closed today? Unplanned K-12 school closures in the United States, 2011-2013.

INTRODUCTION: We describe characteristics of unplanned school closures (USCs) in the United States over two consecutive academic years during a non-pandemic period to provide context for implementation of school closures during a pandemic. METHODS: From August 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013, daily systematic internet searches were conducted for publicly announced USCs lasting ≥ 1 day. The reason for closure and the closure dates were recorded. Information on school characteristics was obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics. RESULTS: During the two-year study period, 20,723 USCs were identified affecting 27,066,426 students. Common causes of closure included weather (79%), natural disasters (14%), and problems with school buildings or utilities (4%). Only 771 (4%) USCs lasted ≥ 4 school days. Illness was the cause of 212 (1%) USCs; of these, 126 (59%) were related to respiratory illnesses and showed seasonal variation with peaks in February 2012 and January 2013. CONCLUSIONS: USCs are common events resulting in missed school days for millions of students. Illness causes few USCs compared with weather and natural disasters. Few communities have experience with prolonged closures for illness.

Identifying healthy eating strategies in low-income pregnant women: applying a positive deviance model.

Using positive deviance methodology, we identified strategies that enabled some low-income pregnant women to eat healthy meals while others did not. We used a descriptive design consisting of small group interviews of low-income pregnant women and identified 6 of 18 women as eating healthy diets. Women with healthy diets knew to eat balanced meals, had family support, were willing to prepare foods that were different than other family members, and ate at home more frequently than women with unhealthy diets. Health care providers can use the positive deviance approach to guide the development of interventions to improve women's diets using community-specific solutions to enhance the health of mothers and infants.

A new approach to patient-centered care.

An opportunity existed at our rehabilitation hospital, in preparation for Medicare's Prospective Payment System (PPS) in acute medical rehabilitation, to develop an integrated inpatient care model using all available resources. The results have been an improved practice of all staff, increased efficiency and productivity, and increased staff and patient satisfaction. This article discusses the drivers for changing the team model within a large rehabilitation hospital. It includes an overview of the process of data gathering prior to changing the team model, how the new team model functions, and follow-up data collection 9 months after to provide evidence on what changes worked and what areas required further change to meet the objectives.