Using the technology acceptance model to assess clinician perceptions and experiences with a rheumatoid arthritis outcomes dashboard: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Improving shared decision-making using a treat-to-target approach, including the use of clinical outcome measures, is important to providing high quality care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We developed an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated, patient-facing sidecar dashboard application that displays RA outcomes, medications, and lab results for use during clinical visits ("RA PRO dashboard"). The purpose of this study was to assess clinician perceptions and experiences using the dashboard in a university rheumatology clinic. METHODS: We conducted focus group (FG) discussions with clinicians who had access to the dashboard as part of a randomized, stepped-wedge pragmatic trial. FGs explored clinician perceptions towards the usability, acceptability, and usefulness of the dashboard. FG data were analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive techniques; generated themes were categorized into the domains of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). RESULTS: 3 FG discussions were conducted with a total of 13 clinicians. Overall, clinicians were enthusiastic about the dashboard and expressed the usefulness of visualizing RA outcome trajectories in a graphical format for motivating patients, enhancing patient understanding of their RA outcomes, and improving communication about medications. Major themes that emerged from the FG analysis as barriers to using the dashboard included inconsistent collection of RA outcomes leading to sparse data in the dashboard and concerns about explaining RA outcomes, especially to patients with fibromyalgia. Other challenges included time constraints and technical difficulties refreshing the dashboard to display real-time data. Methods for integrating the dashboard into the visit varied: some clinicians used the dashboard at the beginning of the visit as they documented RA outcomes; others used it at the end to justify changes to therapy; and a few shared it only with stable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides valuable insights into clinicians' perceptions and experiences with the RA PRO dashboard. The dashboard showed promise in enhancing patient-clinician communication, shared decision-making, and overall acceptance among clinicians. Addressing challenges related to data collection, education, and tailoring dashboard use to specific patient populations will be crucial for maximizing its potential impact on RA care. Further research and ongoing improvements in dashboard design and implementation are warranted to ensure its successful integration into routine clinical practice.

The association of trauma with self-reported flares and disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

OBJECTIVES: Trauma has been linked to incident SLE, but its relationship with SLE disease activity is unknown. This analysis examines associations between trauma exposures and patient-reported SLE disease activity and flares. METHODS: Data were from the California Lupus Epidemiology Study (CLUES). Flares were self-reported as any flare and, of those, flares accompanied by medical care (hospitalization or physician contact). The Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) assessed disease activity. The Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ) assessed all historical trauma exposures. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) questionnaire was available for a subset. Multivariable regression analyses (n = 252) examined whether trauma exposure was associated with flares or SLAQ controlling for age, sex, poverty, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, perceived stress, disease duration and self-reported disease damage. RESULTS: Excluding exposure to serious illness, 63.4% reported ≥1 trauma exposure. Any traumatic event, excluding illness, doubled the odds of a flare [OR 2.27 (95% CI 1.24, 4.17)] and was associated with significantly higher SLAQ scores [ß 2.31 (0.86, 3.76)]. Adjusted odds of any flare and flare with medical care were significantly elevated for those with both BTQ and ACE exposures [5.91 (2.21, 15.82) and 4.69 (1.56, 14.07), respectively]. SLAQ scores were also higher for those with both exposures [ß 5.22 (3.00, 7.44)]. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, those with a history of trauma reported more flares and greater disease activity. Identifying mechanisms of associations between trauma and disease activity and flares, as well as interventions to mitigate the effects of trauma exposures is critical, given the high rates of trauma exposures.

Medication Cost Concerns and Disparities in Patient-Reported Outcomes Among a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Concerns about the affordability of medications are common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but the relationship between medication cost concerns and health outcomes is poorly understood. We assessed the association of self-reported medication cost concerns and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a multiethnic SLE cohort. METHODS: The California Lupus Epidemiology Study is a cohort of individuals with physician-confirmed SLE. Medication cost concerns were defined as having difficulties affording SLE medications, skipping doses, delaying refills, requesting lower-cost alternatives, purchasing medications outside the United States, or applying for patient assistance programs. Linear regression and mixed effects models assessed the cross-sectional and longitudinal association of medication cost concerns and PROs, respectively, adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, principal insurance, immunomodulatory medications, and organ damage. RESULTS: Of 334 participants, medication cost concerns were reported by 91 (27%). Medication cost concerns were associated with worse Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ; beta coefficient [ß] 5.9, 95% CI 4.3-7.6; P < 0.001), 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8; ß 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-4.0; P < 0.001), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS; ß for physical function -4.6, 95% CI -6.7 to -2.4; P < 0.001) scores after adjusting for covariates. Medication cost concerns were not associated with significant changes in PROs over 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: More than a quarter of participants reported at least 1 medication cost concern, which was associated with worse PROs. Our results reveal a potentially modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes rooted in the unaffordability of SLE care.

Does the Use of Immunosuppressive Drugs Impact on SARS-CoV-2 Infection Outcome? Data From A National Cohort of Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SAR-COVID Registry).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study describes the impact of immunomodulatory and/or immunosuppressive (IM/IS) drugs in the outcomes of COVID-19 infection in a cohort of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). METHODS: Adult patients with IMIDs with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Data were reported by the treating physician between August 13, 2020 and July 31, 2021. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, and DMARDs, as well as clinical characteristics, complications, and treatment of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, were recorded. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression models were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 1672 patients with IMIDs were included, of whom 1402 were treated with IM/IS drugs. The most frequent diseases were rheumatoid arthritis (47.7%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (18.4%). COVID-19 symptoms were present in 95.2% of the patients. A total of 461 (27.6%) patients were hospitalized, 8.2% were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 4.4% died due to COVID-19.Patients without IM/IS treatment used glucocorticoids less frequently but at higher doses, had higher levels of disease activity, were significantly older, were more frequently hospitalized, admitted to the intensive care unit, and died due to COVID-19. After adjusting for these factors, treatment with IM/IS drugs was not associated with a worse COVID-19 outcome (World Health Organization-Ordinal Scale ≥5) (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: SAR-COVID is the first multicenter Argentine registry collecting data from patients with rheumatic diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection. After adjusting for relevant covariates, treatment with IM/IS drugs was not associated with severe COVID-19 in patients with IMIDs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT04568421.

Review of publications evaluating opioid use in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses publications assessing the prevalence, efficacy, and safety of opioid analgesics in patients with rheumatic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies show long-term opioid use is common in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease. We did not find any studies demonstrating improved function or pain control with long-term opioid use in people with rheumatic diseases. Some data shows potential adverse effects including increased risk for fractures and opioid poisoning hospitalizations. There is evidence demonstrating an association of opioid use with mental health disorders, fibromyalgia, obesity, and disability, although causative links have not been established. Only minimal reductions in opioid use were observed after initiation of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Studies have shown delayed DMARD initiation and reduced DMARD use in patients on opioids, raising concerns that these analgesics may delay care or initially mask symptoms of active disease. SUMMARY: Available literature highlights high levels of opioid use in people with rheumatic disease, without scientific evidence to support efficacy for chronic pain control and increasing evidence of adverse events. These findings strongly suggest that opioids do not have a routine role in the chronic management of inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Global research collaboration in a pandemic-challenges and opportunities: the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA), the reason for its formation, the challenges with running the registry, and future opportunities for global collaborative research in rheumatology. RECENT FINDINGS: The GRA has been successful in collecting and publishing a large volume of case data on patients with rheumatic disease with COVID-19. In addition, the GRA has published reviews, opinion pieces, and patient-directed summaries of research to further assist in disseminating timely and accurate information about COVID-19 in rheumatic diseases. There have been numerous challenges in the journey but they have been addressed through a collaborative problem-solving approach. SUMMARY: The initial objectives of the GRA to describe the outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease who developed COVID-19 have been achieved. There has been extensive use of the data in the clinic and also to try and understand the mechanisms of disease and opportunities for drug repurposing. There remain numerous important areas for research which the GRA will continue to pursue as the pandemic evolves.

Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: To determine factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Physician-reported registry of adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19 (from 24 March to 1 July 2020). The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, rheumatic disease diagnosis, disease activity and medications were included as covariates in multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses were further stratified according to rheumatic disease category. RESULTS: Of 3729 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% female), 390 (10.5%) died. Independent factors associated with COVID-19-related death were age (66-75 years: OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.22; >75 years: 6.18, 4.47 to 8.53; both vs ≤65 years), male sex (1.46, 1.11 to 1.91), hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease (1.89, 1.31 to 2.73), chronic lung disease (1.68, 1.26 to 2.25) and prednisolone-equivalent dosage >10 mg/day (1.69, 1.18 to 2.41; vs no glucocorticoid intake). Moderate/high disease activity (vs remission/low disease activity) was associated with higher odds of death (1.87, 1.27 to 2.77). Rituximab (4.04, 2.32 to 7.03), sulfasalazine (3.60, 1.66 to 7.78), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, mycophenolate or tacrolimus: 2.22, 1.43 to 3.46) and not receiving any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (2.11, 1.48 to 3.01) were associated with higher odds of death, compared with methotrexate monotherapy. Other synthetic/biological DMARDs were not associated with COVID-19-related death. CONCLUSION: Among people with rheumatic disease, COVID-19-related death was associated with known general factors (older age, male sex and specific comorbidities) and disease-specific factors (disease activity and specific medications). The association with moderate/high disease activity highlights the importance of adequate disease control with DMARDs, preferably without increasing glucocorticoid dosages. Caution may be required with rituximab, sulfasalazine and some immunosuppressants.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance: evaluating the rapid design and implementation of an international registry against best practice.

OBJECTIVES: As the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic developed there was a paucity of data relevant to people living with rheumatic disease. This led to the development of a global, online registry to meet these information needs. This manuscript provides a detailed description of the coronavirus disease 2019 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry development, governance structure, and data collection, and insights into new ways of rapidly establishing global research collaborations to meet urgent research needs. METHODS: We use previously published recommendations for best practices for registry implementation and describe the development of the Global Rheumatology Alliance registry in terms of these steps. We identify how and why these steps were adapted or modified. In Phase 1 of registry development, the purpose of the registry and key stakeholders were identified on online platforms, Twitter and Slack. Phase 2 consisted of protocol and data collection form development, team building and the implementation of governance and policies. RESULTS: All key steps of the registry development best practices framework were met, though with the need for adaptation in some areas. Outputs of the registry, two months after initial conception, are also described. CONCLUSION: The Global Rheumatology Alliance registry will provide highly useful, timely data to inform clinical care and identify further research priorities for people with rheumatic disease with coronavirus disease 2019. The formation of an international team, easily able to function in online environments and resulting in rapid deployment of a registry is a model that can be adapted for other disease states and future global collaborations.

Mortality Among Minority Populations with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Including Asian and Hispanic/Latino Persons - California, 2007-2017.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multisystem autoimmune disease with manifestations that vary widely in severity. Although minority populations are at higher risk for SLE and have more severe outcomes (1), population-based estimates of mortality by race and ethnicity are often lacking, particularly for Asian and Hispanic/Latino persons. Among 812 patients in the California Lupus Surveillance Project (CLSP) during 2007-2009 (2,3), who were matched to the 2007-2017 National Death Index (NDI), 16.6% had died by 2017. This proportion included persons of White (14.4%), Black (25%), Asian (15.3%), and Hispanic/Latino (15.5%) race/ethnicity. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of observed-to-expected deaths among persons with SLE within each racial/ethnic group were 2.3, 2.0, 3.8, and 3.9, respectively. These findings provide the first population-based estimates of mortality among Asian and Hispanic/Latino persons with SLE. Coordination of robust care models between primary care providers and rheumatologists could ensure that persons with SLE receive a timely diagnosis and appropriate treatments that might help address SLE-associated mortality.

Effects of the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic on U.S. rheumatology outpatient care delivery and use of telemedicine: an analysis of data from the RISE registry.

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic resulted in major disruptions to medical care. We aimed to understand changes in outpatient care delivery and use of telemedicine in U.S. rheumatology practices during this period. Rheumatology Informatics System Effectiveness (RISE) is a national, EHR-enabled registry that passively collects data on all patients seen by participating practices. Included practices were required to have been participating in RISE from January 2019 through August 2020 (N = 213). We compared total visit counts and telemedicine visits during March-August 2020 to March-August 2019 and stratified by locations in states with shelter-in-place (SIP) orders. We assessed characteristics of patients within each practice, including primary rheumatic diagnosis and disease activity scores, where available. We included 213 practices with 945,160 patients. Overall, we found visit counts decreased by 10.9% (from 1,302,455 to 1,161,051) between March and August 2020 compared to 2019; this drop was most dramatic during the month of April (- 22.3%). Telemedicine visits increased from 0% to a mean of 12.1%. Practices in SIP states had more dramatic decreases in visits, (11.5% vs. 5.3%). We found no major differences in primary diagnoses or disease activity across the two periods. We detected a meaningful decrease in rheumatology visits in March-August 2020 during the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic compared to the year prior with a concomitant increase in the use of telemedicine. Future work should address possible adverse consequences to patient outcomes due to decreased contact with clinicians.

Epidemiology and outcomes of novel coronavirus 2019 in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is of special concern for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) and those who care for them because of the potential for worse outcomes. This article analyzes peer-reviewed research on the epidemiology and outcomes of COVID-19 in those with IMID. RECENT FINDINGS: Published literature on approximately 1400 patients was included from rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology. Data suggest that those who are older and have comorbidities have poorer outcomes. This is consistent with the reports from the general population of patients with COVID-19. Adjusted analyses from the largest published studies demonstrate independent effects of systemic glucocorticoids, as well as age and comorbidities with poorer COVID-19 outcomes (SECURE-IBD registry, n = 525; COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry, n = 600); biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy has not been associated with more severe outcomes. These early results will require validation in population-based studies as more data becomes available. SUMMARY: Current data suggest that similar to the general population, age, and comorbidities are risk factors for poorer COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IMID. Additional research is needed to quantify outcomes and risk across rheumatic disease types, comorbidities, and immunosuppressive drugs.

Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic diseases remain poorly understood. The aim was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation status in people with rheumatic disease. METHODS: Case series of individuals with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry: 24 March 2020 to 20 April 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs of hospitalisation. Age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic disease diagnosis, comorbidities and rheumatic disease medications taken immediately prior to infection were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 600 cases from 40 countries were included. Nearly half of the cases were hospitalised (277, 46%) and 55 (9%) died. In multivariable-adjusted models, prednisone dose ≥10 mg/day was associated with higher odds of hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.96). Use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) alone or in combination with biologics/Janus Kinase inhibitors was not associated with hospitalisation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46, respectively). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was not associated with hospitalisation status (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) use was associated with a reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.81), while no association with antimalarial use (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.57) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that glucocorticoid exposure of ≥10 mg/day is associated with a higher odds of hospitalisation and anti-TNF with a decreased odds of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease. Neither exposure to DMARDs nor NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of hospitalisation.

Patient and clinician perspectives on a patient-facing dashboard that visualizes patient reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Poor patient-clinician communication around patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a barrier to the effective management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to develop an RA 'dashboard' that could facilitate conversations about PROs and that would be acceptable to a wide range of patients, including English and Spanish speakers and patients with adequate or limited health literacy. METHODS: A diverse group of RA patients along with clinicians from two academic rheumatology clinics joined separate focus groups. We solicited feedback and made iterative changes to mock-ups of an RA dashboard that visualized PROs using a human-centred design process. We used the thematic analysis method to identify and characterize themes from the focus groups and used these insights to refine the dashboard. RESULTS: We conducted six focus groups involving 25 RA patients and three groups with 11 clinicians. Patients and clinicians agreed that the dashboard could enhance communication about PROs and RA disease activity and could promote patient self-management. Patients varied in their (a) comprehension, (b) preferences for the display and features of the dashboard, and (c) desired uses for the dashboard. Clinicians expressed significant concerns about the logistics of using the dashboard in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Using principles of human-centred design, we created an RA dashboard that was well-accepted among patients and clinicians. The ability to customize the data display is important for tailoring the dashboard to patients with diverse needs and preferences. Special attention should be given to feasibility concerns voiced by clinicians.

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

Quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology: an integrative review of the last 5 years.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed recent quality improvement initiatives in the field of rheumatology to identify common strategies and themes leading to measurable change. RECENT FINDINGS: Efforts to improve quality of care in rheumatology have accelerated in the last 5 years. Most studies in this area have focused on interventions to improve process measures such as increasing the collection of patient-reported outcomes and vaccination rates, but some studies have examined interventions to improve health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are studying electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions, such as standardized templates, flowsheets, best practice alerts and order sets. EHR-based interventions were most successful when reinforced with provider education, reminders and performance feedback. Most studies also redesigned workflows, distributing tasks among clinical staff. Given the common challenges and solutions facing rheumatology clinics under new value-based payment models, there are important opportunities to accelerate quality improvement by building on the successful efforts to date. Structured quality improvement models such as the learning collaborative may help to disseminate successful initiatives across practices. SUMMARY: Review of recent quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology demonstrated common solutions, particularly involving leveraging health IT and workflow redesign.