Specification, validation, and adherence of quality indicators to optimize the safe use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis pain in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care may cause gastrointestinal or renal injury. This study estimated adherence to two quality indicators (QIs) to optimize NSAID safety: add proton pump inhibitors (PPI) to NSAIDs for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) risk (QI #1 NSAID-PPI) and avoid oral NSAIDs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage G4 or G5 (QI #2 NSAID-CKD). METHODS: This retrospective study included index primary care clinic visits for knee OA at our health system in 2019. The validation cohort consisted of a random sample of 60 patients. The remainder were included in the expanded cohort. Analysis of structured data extracts was validated against chart review of clinic visit notes (validation cohort) and estimated QI adherence (expanded cohort). RESULTS: Among 60 patients in the validation cohort, analysis of data extracts was validated against chart review for QI #1 NSAID-PPI (100% sensitivity and 91% specificity) and QI #2 NSAID-CKD (100% accuracy). Among 335 patients in the expanded cohort, 44% used NSAIDs, 27% used PPIs, 73% had elevated GI risk, and only 2% had CKD stage 4 or 5. Twenty-one percent used NSAIDs and had elevated GI risk but were not using PPIs. Therefore, adherence to QI #1 NSAID-PPI was 79% (95% CI, 74-83%). No patients with CKD stage 4 or 5 used NSAIDs. Therefore, adherence to QI #2 NSAID-CKD was 100%. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of knee OA patients with GI risk factors did not receive PPI with NSAID therapy during primary care visits.

Quality indicators for osteoarthritis pain management in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Development of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings. METHODS: Literature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs. RESULTS: Literature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging. CONCLUSION: This multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.