Use of Coordinator Role Improves Access to Rheumatologic Advanced Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Delays in initiation of advanced therapies, which include biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, contribute to poor patient outcomes. The objective of this quality improvement project was to identify factors that lead to a delay in the initiation of advanced therapy and to perform plan-do-study-act cycles to decrease the time to start advanced therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified factors involved in delay to start advanced therapy. The primary outcome of the study was the number of days to advanced therapy start as measured by the date of rheumatologist recommendation to the date advanced therapy was initiated by the patient. An Advanced Therapy Coordinator role was created to standardize the workflow, optimize communication, and ensure a safety checklist was instituted. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were reviewed for the study with 18 excluded. Preintervention median wait time was 82.0 (IQR 46.0-80.5) days. Median wait time during the intervention improved to 49.5 (IQR 34.0-69.5) days (April 2021 to January 2022), with nonrandom variation post intervention. Nonrandom variation was also noted in the latter baseline data (March 2020 to March 2021). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improved wait time to advanced therapy initiation through the role of an Advanced Therapy Coordinator to facilitate communication pathways.

Improving diagnosis and treatment of knee osteoarthritis in persons with type 2 diabetes: development of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) commonly co-occurs in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and increases the risk for diabetes complications, yet uptake of evidence-based treatment is low. We combined theory, stakeholder involvement and existing evidence to develop a multifaceted intervention to improve OA care in persons with T2DM. This was done in partnership with Arthritis Society Canada to leverage the existing infrastructure and provincial funding for community arthritis care. METHODS: Each step was informed by a User Advisory Panel of stakeholder representatives, including persons with lived experience. First, we identified the target groups and behaviours through consulting stakeholders and current literature. Second, we interviewed persons living with T2DM and knee OA (n = 18), health professionals (HPs) who treat people with T2DM (n = 18) and arthritis therapists (ATs, n = 18) to identify the determinants of seeking and engaging in OA care (patients), assessing and treating OA (HPs) and considering T2DM in OA treatment (ATs), using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We mapped the content to behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to identify the potential intervention components. Third, we conducted stakeholder meetings to ascertain the acceptability and feasibility of intervention components, including content and modes of delivery. Fourth, we selected intervention components informed by prior steps and constructed a programme theory to inform the implementation of the intervention and its evaluation. RESULTS: We identified the barriers and enablers to target behaviours across a number of TDF domains. All stakeholders identified insufficient access to resources to support OA care in people with T2DM. Core intervention components, incorporating a range of BCTs at the patient, HP and AT level, sought to identify persons with knee OA within T2DM care and refer to Arthritis Society Canada for delivery of evidence-based longitudinal OA management. Diverse stakeholder input throughout development allowed the co-creation of an intervention that appears feasible and acceptable to target users. CONCLUSIONS: We integrated theory, evidence and stakeholder involvement to develop a multifaceted intervention to increase the identification of knee OA in persons with T2DM within diabetes care and improve the uptake and engagement in evidence-based OA management. Our partnership with Arthritis Society Canada supports future spread, scalability and sustainability. We will formally assess the intervention feasibility in a randomized pilot trial.

Quality of rheumatology care for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndromes.

BACKGROUND: One-third of primary care providers (PCPs) refer patients with fibromyalgia or chronic pain (FM/CP) to specialist care, typically rheumatology. Yet, comprehensive data on the quality of rheumatology care for patients with FM/CP are currently lacking. METHODS: Records of patients referred for rheumatology consultation for FM/CP and seen at a single academic centre between 2017 and 2018 were extracted by retrospective chart review. Variables were diagnostic accuracy (at referral vs consultation), resource utilisation (investigations, medications, medical and allied health referral), direct costs (physician billing, staff salary, investigation fees) and access (consult wait time). Patient experience and referring PCP experience surveys were administered. RESULTS: 79 charts were identified. Following consultation, 81% of patients (n=64) maintained the same diagnosis of FM/CP, 19% (n=15) were diagnosed with regional pain and 0% of patients (n=0) were diagnosed with an inflammatory arthritis or connective tissue disease. Investigations were ordered for 37% of patients (n=29), medication prescribed for 10% (n=8) and an allied health referral provided for 54% (n=43). Direct costs totalled $19 745 (average $250/consult; range $157-$968/consult). Consultation wait time averaged 184 days (range 62-228 days). Out of the seven (64%) responses to the patient experience survey, 86% of patients (n=6) were satisfied with provider communication but the consultation 'definitely' met the expectations of only 57% (n=4). The PCP survey returned an insufficient response rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that no patient referred to rheumatology care for FM/CP was diagnosed with an inflammatory arthritis or connective tissue disease. Furthermore, patients with FM/CP experience lengthy wait times for rheumatology care which delay their management of chronic pain. Interdisciplinary and collaborative healthcare models can potentially provide higher quality care for patients with FM/CP.

Improving Hydroxychloroquine Dosing and Toxicity Screening at a Tertiary Care Ambulatory Center: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a commonly used weight-based medication with a risk of retinal toxicity when prescribed at doses above 5 mg/kg/day. The objectives of our study were (1) to characterize the frequency of inappropriate HCQ dosing and retinopathy screening, and (2) to improve guideline-based management by implementing quality improvement (QI) strategies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to obtain baseline analysis of HCQ dosing, weight documentation, and retinal toxicity screening to characterize current practices. The primary aim was to increase the percentage of patients appropriately dosed from 30% to 90% over a 10-month period. The secondary aim was to increase the percentage of documented retinal screening from 59% to 90%. The process measure was the number of patients with a documented weight in the chart. The balancing measure was the physician's perceived increase in time spent with each patient due to implemented interventions. QI methodology was used to implement sequential change ideas: (1) HCQ weight-based dosing charts to facilitate prescription regimens; (2) addition of scales to patient rooms to facilitate weight documentation; and (3) electronic medical record (EMR) "force function" involving weight documentation and autodosing prescription. RESULTS: The percentage of patients being weighed increased from 40% to 92% after 10 months. Appropriate HCQ dosing improved from 30% to 89%. Retinal screening documentation improved by 33%. CONCLUSION: Dosing charts in clinic rooms, addition of weight scales, and EMR force function autodosing prescriptions significantly improved appropriate HCQ dosing practices. These interventions are generalizable and can promote safe and guideline-based care.

Frequency of repeat antinuclear antibody testing in Ontario: a population-based descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Repeat antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing may be unnecessary, potentially harmful and costly. Our aim was to assess the frequency and correlates of repeat ANA testing in Ontario. METHODS: We performed a retrospective descriptive study identifying ANA tests performed over 2008-2015 among adults within the Ontario Laboratories Information System. Our primary outcome was any ANA test performed within 1 year of a previous ANA test. Our secondary outcome was any repeat test after a previous positive result. Repeat testing overall (regardless of who performed the previous test) and repeat testing by the same provider who performed the previous test were determined separately. We assessed correlates of repeat testing (e.g., patient and physician characteristics) and of repeat testing after a positive result using separate logistic regression models by means of generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of repeat testing within patients and within physician practices. RESULTS: In total, 587 357 ANA tests were performed in 437 966 patients over the study period, of which 126 322 (21.5%) gave a positive result and 164 913 (28.1%) were repeat tests. Family physicians ordered 358 422 tests (61.0%), and rheumatologists ordered 65 071 tests (11.1%). Of the repeat tests, 82 332 (49.9%) were ordered within 12 months of the previous test. Among the 73 961 repeat tests ordered by the same practitioner within 12 months, the previous test result was positive for 22 657 (30.6%). A higher proportion of rheumatologists than other physicians ordered repeat tests within 12 months (36.1% v. 11.3%). The most significant correlate of potentially redundant testing was testing among patients with suspected or confirmed connective tissue disease. INTERPRETATION: Over a quarter of ANA tests in Ontario were repeat tests; rheumatologists were most likely to order repeat testing. Our findings may be useful to inform quality-improvement initiatives related to the appropriateness of ANA testing.

The Evaluation of an Osteoporosis Clinic in a Community Hospital Setting: a Retrospective Chart Review and Telephone Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have suffered fragility fractures are at an increased risk for subsequent fractures. The Osteoporosis (OP) Clinic at Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH) was set up in July 2015 to screen, diagnose, and treat patients with fragility fractures. The goal of this study was to identify differences in OP screening and treatment initiation between patients seen in the OP clinic versus usual care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study and telephone interview was conducted on 40 patients who had sustained a hip fragility fracture between September 2015 and July 2016. 20 of those patients were referred to the OP clinic, while the remaining patients received usual care. RESULTS: At the end of the intervention, 16/20 patients in the OP clinic group were appropriately placed on a bisphosphonate/RANKL inhibitor versus only 6/20 patients in the usual care group (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A significant care gap exists in secondary fracture prevention between the osteoporosis clinic and usual care groups. Better screening and subsequent intervention are needed for patients with fragility fractures. This study highlights the efficacy of an outpatient OP clinic in a community hospital setting.

Triage of Rheumatology Referrals Facilitates Wait Time Benchmarks.

OBJECTIVE: In 2014 the Canadian Rheumatology Association published wait time benchmarks for inflammatory arthritis (IA) and connective tissue disease (CTD) to improve patient outcomes. This study's aim was to determine whether centralized triage and the introduction of quality improvement initiatives would facilitate achievement of wait time benchmarks. METHODS: Referrals from September to November 2012 were retrospectively triaged by an advanced practice physiotherapist (APP) and compared to referrals triaged by an APP from January to March 2014. Each referral was assigned a priority ranking and categorized into one of 2 groups: suspected IA/CTD, or suspected non-IA/CTD. Time to initial consult and time to notification from receipt of referral were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 558 (n = 227 and n = 331 from 2012 and 2014, respectively) referrals were evaluated with 35 exclusions. In 2012, there were 96 (42.5%) suspected IA/CTD and 124 (54.9%) suspected non-IA/CTD patients at the time of the initial consult. Mean wait times in 2012 for patients suspected to have IA was 33.8 days, 95% CI 27.8-39.8, compared to 37.3 days, 95% CI 32.9-41.7 in suspected non-IA patients. In 2014, there were 131 patients (43%) with suspected IA based on information in the referral letter. Mean wait times in 2014 for patients suspected to have IA was 15.5 days, 95% CI 13.85-17.15, compared to 52.2 days, 95% CI 46.3-58.1 for suspected non-IA patients. Time to notification of appointment improved from 17 days to 4.37 days. CONCLUSION: Centralized triage of rheumatology referrals and quality improvement initiatives are effective in improving wait times for priority patients as determined by paper referral.