Measuring process of arthritis care: the Arthritis Foundation's quality indicator set for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the scientific evidence that supports each of the explicit process measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis. METHODS: For each of the 27 measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator set, a comprehensive literature review was performed for evidence that linked the process of care defined in the indicator with relevant clinical outcomes and to summarize practice guidelines relevant to the indicators. RESULTS: Over 7500 titles were identified and reviewed. For each of the indicators the scientific evidence to support or refute the quality indicator was summarized. We found direct evidence that supported a process-outcome link for 15 of the indicators, an indirect link for 7 of the indicators, and no evidence to support or refute a link for 5. The processes of care described in the indicators for which no supporting/refuting data were found have been assumed to be so essential to care that clinical trails assessing their importance have not, and probably never will be, performed. The process of care described in all but 2 of the indicators is recommended in 1 or more practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: There are sufficient scientific evidence and expert consensus to support the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis, which defines a minimal standard of care that can be used to assess health care quality for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Measuring quality in arthritis care: the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator set for osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive set of explicit process measures to assess the quality of health care for osteoarthritis and to describe the scientific evidence that supports each measure. METHODS: Through a comprehensive literature review, we developed potential quality measures and a summary of existing data to support or refute the relationship between the processes of care proposed in the indicators and relevant clinical outcomes. The proposed measures and literature summary were presented to a multidisciplinary panel of experts in arthritis and pain. The panel rated each proposed measure for its validity as a measure of health care quality. RESULTS: Among 22 measures proposed for osteoarthritis, the expert panel rated 14 as valid measures of health care quality. CONCLUSION: Sufficient scientific evidence and expert consensus exist to support a comprehensive set of measures to assess the quality of heath care for osteoarthritis. These measures can be used to gain an understanding of the quality of care for patients with osteoarthritis.

Use of mainstream nonpharmacologic treatment by patients with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of nonpharmacologic treatment by patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were recruited from physicians' offices in Ontario, Canada. All participants completed questionnaires that asked about their health status, use of medications and nonpharmacologic treatments, and use of health care resources. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with OA and 253 patients with RA completed the survey on the use of nonpharmacologic treatment. Only 73% of patients with OA had been told to use nonpharmacologic modalities, but 98.8% had tried at least 1 type of treatment. About 97% of those with RA had been told to use and had tried at least 1 type of treatment. Most patients continued to use a treatment once they had tried it. CONCLUSION: The use of nonpharmacologic modalities is common among patients with arthritis. It is important that clinicians address with their patients the appropriate use of and barriers to continuing these treatments.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of lower-limb osteoarthritis.

Clinical practice guidelines are important tools to assist clinical decision-making. Recently, several guidelines addressing the management of osteoarthritis (OA) have been published. Clinicians treating patients with OA must ensure that these guidelines are developed with consistency and methodological rigour. We undertook a qualitative summary and critical appraisal of six medical treatment guidelines for the management of lower-limb OA published in the medical literature within the past 5 years. A review of these six guidelines revealed that each possesses strengths and weakness. While most described the scope and intended patient populations, the guidelines varied considerably in the rigour of their development, coverage of implementation issues, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.