EVOLVE: The Australian Rheumatology Association's 'top five' list of investigations and interventions doctors and patients should question.

BACKGROUND: The EVOLVE (evaluating evidence, enhancing efficiencies) initiative aims to drive safer, higher-quality patient care through identifying and reducing low-value practices. AIMS: To determine the Australian Rheumatology Association's (ARA) 'top five' list of low-value practices. METHODS: A working group comprising 19 rheumatologists and three trainees compiled a preliminary list. Items were retained if there was strong evidence of low value and there was high or increasing clinical use and/or increasing cost. All ARA members (356 rheumatologists and 72 trainees) were invited to indicate their 'top five' list from a list of 12-items through SurveyMonkey in December 2015 (reminder February 2016). RESULTS: A total of 179 rheumatologists (50.3%) and 19 trainees (26.4%) responded. The top five list (percentage of rheumatologists, including item in their top five list) was: Do not perform arthroscopy with lavage and/or debridement for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee nor partial meniscectomy for a degenerate meniscal tear (73.2%); Do not order anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing without symptoms and/or signs suggestive of a systemic rheumatic disease (56.4%); Do not undertake imaging for low back pain for patients without indications of an underlying serious condition (50.8%); Do not use ultrasound guidance to perform injections into the subacromial space as it provides no additional benefit in comparison to landmark-guided injection (50.3%) and Do not order anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies in ANA negative patients unless the clinical suspicion of systemic lupus erythematosus remains high (45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This list is intended to increase awareness among rheumatologists, other clinicians and patients about commonly used low-value practices that should be questioned.

Training a system-literate care coordination workforce.

People with chronic complex conditions continue to experience increasing health system fragmentation and poor coordination. To reverse these trends, one solution has been an investment in effective models of care coordination that use a care coordinator workforce. Care coordinators are not a homogenous workforce - but an applied professional role, providing direct and indirect care, and is often undertaken by nurses, allied health professionals, social workers or general practitioners. In Australia, there is no training curriculum nor courses, nor nationally recognised professional quality standards for the care coordinator workforce. With the growing complexity and fragmentation of the health care system, health system literacy - shared understanding of the roles and contributions of the different workforce professions, organisations and systems, among patients and indeed the health workforce is required. Efforts to improve health system literacy among the health workforce are increasing at a policy, practice and research level. However, insufficient evidence exists about what are the health system literacy needs of care coordinators, and what is required for them to be most effective. Key areas to build a health system literate care coordination workforce are presented. Care coordination is more than an optional extra, but one of the only ways we are going to be able to provide equitable health services for people with chronic complex conditions. People with low health literacy require more support with the coordination of their care, therefore we need to build a high performing care coordinator workforce that upholds professional quality standards, and is health literacy responsive.

A framework to support team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system.

Health systems with strong primary care orientations are known to be associated with improved equity, better access for patients to appropriate services at lower costs, and improved population health. Team-based models of primary care have emerged in response to health system challenges due to complex patient profiles, patient expectations and health system demands. Successful team-based models of primary care require a combination of interprofessional education and learning; organisational and management policies and systems; and practice support systems. To ensure evidence is put into practice, we propose a framework comprising five domains (theory, implementation, infrastructure, sustainability and evaluation) to assist policymakers, educators, researchers, managers and health professionals in supporting team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Simulation in clinical teaching and learning.

Simulation-based education (SBE) is a rapidly developing method of supplementing and enhancing the clinical education of medical students. Clinical situations are simulated for teaching and learning purposes, creating opportunities for deliberate practice of new skills without involving real patients. Simulation takes many forms, from simple skills training models to computerised full-body mannequins, so that the needs of learners at each stage of their education can be targeted. Emerging evidence supports the value of simulation as an educational technique; to be effective it needs to be integrated into the curriculum in a way that promotes transfer of the skills learnt to clinical practice. Currently, SBE initiatives in Australia are fragmented and depend on local enthusiasts; Health Workforce Australia is driving initiatives to develop a more coordinated national approach to optimise the benefits of simulation.

Taking stock of interprofessional learning in Australia.

Changes in health service delivery and issues of quality of care and safety are driving interprofessional practice, and interprofessional learning (IPL) is now a requirement for medical school accreditation. There is international agreement that learning outcomes frameworks are required for the objectives of IPL to be fully realised, but there is debate about the most appropriate terminology. Interprofessional skills can be gained in several ways - from formal educational frameworks, at pre- and post-registration levels to work-based training. Research activity suggests that many consider that IPL delivers much-needed skills to health professionals, but some systematic reviews show that evidence of a link to patient outcomes is lacking. Australian efforts to develop an evidence base to support IPL have progressed, with new research drawing on recommendations of experts in the area. The focus has now shifted to curriculum development. The extent to which IPL is rolled out in Australian universities will depend on engagement and endorsement from curriculum managers and the broader faculty.

Evidence-based primary health care workforce reforms: priority areas for research.

To respond to changing population and workforce needs and expectations, evidence must inform policy investment, implementation and evaluation.

Is health workforce sustainability in Australia and New Zealand a realistic policy goal?

This paper assesses what health workforce 'sustainability' might mean for Australia and New Zealand, given the policy direction set out in the World Health Organization draft code on international recruitment of health workers. The governments in both countries have in the past made policy statements about the desirability of health workforce 'self-sufficiency', but OECD data show that both have a high level of dependence on internationally recruited health professionals relative to most other OECD countries. The paper argues that if a target of 'self-sufficiency' or sustainability were to be based on meeting health workforce requirements from home based training, both Australia and New Zealand fall far short of this measure, and continue to be active recruiters. The paper stresses that there is no common agreed definition of what health workforce 'self-sufficiency', or 'sustainability' is in practice, and that without an agreed definition it will be difficult for policy-makers to move the debate on to reaching agreement and possibly setting measurable targets or timelines for achievement. The paper concludes that any policy decisions related to health workforce sustainability will also have to taken in the context of a wider community debate on what is required of a health system and how is it to be funded.

Harms reported by patients in rheumatology drug trials: a systematic review of randomized trials in the cochrane library from an OMERACT working group.

BACKGROUND: Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms. METHODS: We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting. RESULTS: The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients' reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients' and investigators' perspectives. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018108393.

Patient Perspectives on DMARD Safety Concerns in Rheumatology Trials: Results from Inflammatory Arthritis Patient Focus Groups and OMERACT Attendees Discussion.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group is identifying core safety domains that matter most to patients with rheumatic disease. METHODS: International focus groups were held with 39 patients with inflammatory arthritis to identify disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) experiences and concerns. Themes were identified by pragmatic thematic coding and discussed in small groups by meeting attendees. RESULTS: Patients view DMARD side effects as a continuum and consider the cumulative effect on day-to-day function. Disease and drug experiences, personal factors, and life circumstances influence tolerance of side effects and treatment persistence. CONCLUSION: Patients weigh overall adverse effects and benefits over time in relation to experiences and life circumstances.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology. METHODS: Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes. RESULTS: From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach. CONCLUSION: The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. METHODS: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. RESULTS: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. CONCLUSION: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient's perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.

The primary care amplification model: taking the best of primary care forward.

BACKGROUND: Primary care internationally is approaching a new paradigm. The change agenda implicit in this threatens to de-stabilise and challenge established general practice and primary care. DISCUSSION: The Primary Care Amplification Model offers a means to harness the change agenda by 'amplifying' the strengths of established general practices around a 'beacon' practice. CONCLUSION: Such 'beacon' practices can provide a mustering point for an expanded scope of practice for primary care, integrated primary/secondary service delivery, interprofessional learning, relevant local clinical research, and a focus on local service innovation, enhancing rather than fragmenting the collective capacity of existing primary care.

Options for expanding the health workforce.

Health workforce reform remains a major challenge for Australia. The recent Productivity Commission report provided some guidance, but, sadly, few of the recommendations have been implemented. Health economies (and with them the health workforce) will continue to expand as the burden of disease increases. The important issue is to expand the current workforce but provide for a generalist stream that allows flexibility and retraining. The future health workforce needs to be able to provide patient-centred care, to have a focus on public health and disease prevention, use information and the new communication technologies, to be able to work as part of a team and partner with a range of organisations and to be dedicated to quality improvement within the health system.

Developing an OMERACT Core Outcome Set for Assessing Safety Components in Rheumatology Trials: The OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to report harmful outcomes in clinical research can introduce bias favoring a potentially harmful intervention. While core outcome sets (COS) are available for benefits in randomized controlled trials in many rheumatic conditions, less attention has been paid to safety in such COS. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 emphasizes the importance of measuring harms. The Safety Working Group was reestablished at the OMERACT 2016 with the objective to develop a COS for assessing safety components in trials across rheumatologic conditions. METHODS: The safety issue has previously been discussed at OMERACT, but without a consistent approach to ensure harms were included in COS. Our methods include (1) identifying harmful outcomes in trials of interventions studied in patients with rheumatic diseases by a systematic literature review, (2) identifying components of safety that should be measured in such trials by use of a patient-driven approach including qualitative data collection and statistical organization of data, and (3) developing a COS through consensus processes including everyone involved. RESULTS: Members of OMERACT including patients, clinicians, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives reached consensus on the need to continue the efforts on developing a COS for safety in rheumatology trials. There was a general agreement about the need to identify safety-related outcomes that are meaningful to patients, framed in terms that patients consider relevant so that they will be able to make informed decisions. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT Safety Working Group will advance the work previously done within OMERACT using a new patient-driven approach.

The burden of musculoskeletal disease--a global perspective.

Musculoskeletal diseases are one of the major causes of disability around the world and have been a significant reason for the development of the Bone and Joint Decade. Rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and back pain are important causes of disability-adjusted-life years in both the developed and developing world. COPCORD studies in over 17 countries around the world have identified back and knee pain as common in the community and are likely to increase with the ageing population. Musculoskeletal conditions are an enormous cost to the community in economic terms, and these figures emphasise how governments need to invest in the future and look at ways of reducing the burden of musculoskeletal diseases by encouraging exercise and obesity prevention campaigns.