Search

Vandana Ahluwalia,1 Taucha Inrig,2 Tiffany Larsen,3 Rachel Shupak,4 Tripti Papneja,1 Arthur Karasik,5 Carol Kennedy,2 Katie Lundon6 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, William Osler Health System, Brampton, ON, Canada; 2Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Department of Physiotherapy, Headwaters Healthcare Centre, Orangeville, ON, Canada; 4Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5Independent Rheumatology Practice, Etobicoke, ON, Canada; 6Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Vandana AhluwaliaIndependent Community Rheumatology Practice, 314-40 Finchgate Boulevard, Brampton, ON, Canada, L6T 3J1 Tel +1 905-799-1850 Ext 221Fax +1 905-799-8040Email a7mad.al0rabi@gmail.comPurpose: This study describes patient care experiences of solo-rheumatologist and co-managed care models utilizing an Advanced Clinician Practitioner in Arthritis Care-trained Extended Role Practitioner (ACPAC-ERP) in three community rheumatology practices.Materials and Methods: Patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) were assigned to care provided by one of three (2 senior, 1 early-career) community-based rheumatologists (usual care), or an ACPAC-ERP (co-managed care) for the 6-months following diagnosis. Patient experiences were surveyed using validated measures of patient satisfaction (Patient Doctor Interaction Scale-PDIS), global ratings of confidence and satisfaction, referral patterns, disease activity (RADAI) and self-perceived disability (HAQ-Disability) as well as demographic information. Practice capacity was evaluated 18-months prior to, and across, the study period.Results: Of 55 participants (mean age 56.6 years, 61.8% female), 33 received co-managed care. Most participants were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (65.5%) with a median symptom duration of 1.1 years. At 6-months, patients from both models of care were equally satisfied in terms of the information provided (usual care 4.6 vs co-managed care 4.7/5=greater satisfaction), rapport with health-care provider (4.6 vs 4.6/5) and having needs met (4.7 vs 4.5/5). Overall satisfaction was high (87.2 vs 85.3/100=completely satisfied) as was confidence in the system by which care was received (85.0 vs 82.1/100=completely confident). Usual care patients reported higher perceived disability than co-managed patients (HAQ-Disability 0.5 vs 0.2/3=unable to do). Significant differences in overall RADAI score (p=0.014) were found between the two models. The senior rheumatologist, with a previously saturated practice, attained a 37% capacity increase for new patients utilizing the co-managed care model.Conclusion: The ACPAC-ERP model was equivalent to the solo-rheumatologist model with regard to patient experience and satisfaction. A co-management model utilizing a highly trained ACPAC-ERP can increase capacity in community rheumatology clinics for patients newly diagnosed with IA while maintaining confidence and satisfaction with their care.Keywords: health service accessibility, interprofessional practice, rheumatology, patient satisfaction, quality improvement, extended role practitioner, integrated delivery systems, model of care

Study objective Common outcomes of care valued by emergency department (ED) patients who are not hospitalized have been characterized, but no measurement instrument has been developed to date. We developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure for use with adult ED patients who are discharged home (PROM-ED). Methods In previous research, 4 main outcomes of importance to ED patients were defined: symptom relief, understanding, reassurance, and having a plan. We developed a bank of potential questions (phase 1) that were first tested for suitability through cognitive debriefing with patients (phase 2). Revised questions were then tested quantitatively with a large panel of participants who had recently received ED care (phase 3). Informed by these results, a panel of experts used a modified Delphi process to make decisions on item reduction. The resulting instrument (PROM-ED 1.0) was then evaluated for its measurement properties (structural validity, hypothesis testing, and reliability). Results Sixty-seven questions divided among 4 scales (1 for each outcome domain) were assembled. In accordance with cognitive debriefing with 8 patients (phase 2), 15 questions were modified and 13 removed. Testing of these questions with 444 participants (phase 3) identified problematic floor or ceiling effects (n=10), excessive correlations between items (n=11), and low item-total correlations (n=7). The expert panel (22 participants, phase 4) made decisions using this information on the exclusion of items, resulting in 22 questions across 4 scales that together constitute the PROM-ED 1.0. Testing provided good evidence of validity and test-retest reliability (n=200). Conclusion The PROM-ED enables the measurement of patient-centered outcomes of importance to patients receiving care in the ED who are not hospitalized. These data could have important applications in research and care improvement.

Background The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications). Methods We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported. Results The FSPP had lower expected costs ($274 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP. Conclusions The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist. Level of evidence Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background We sought to report the prevalence of fragility fracture patients who were screened at high falls risk using a large provincial database, and to determine the characteristics associated with being screened at high falls risk. Methods The study population included fragility fracture patients 50+ years of age who were screened at 35 hospital fracture clinics in Ontario over a 3.5 year period. The outcome was based on two screening questions measuring the risk of falling, both adapted from the STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries) tool. Multivariable associations of sociodemographic, fracture-related, and health-related characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression. Results Of the sample, 9735 (44.5%) patients were classified as being at high falls risk, and 12,089 (55.3%) were not. In the multivariable logistic regression, being 80+ years of age (vs. 50–64 years of age), non-community dwelling (vs. living with spouse, family member, roommate), having a mental/physical impairment (vs. none), and taking multiple medications, were all strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. Conclusions Living in a non-community dwelling and taking 4+ medications were the variables most strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. These are potentially modifiable characteristics that should be considered when assessing falls risk in fragility fracture patients, and particularly when designing interventions for preventing subsequent falls. Ongoing work to address the higher risk of falls in the fragility fracture population is warranted.

We examined individuals’ experiences using an educational booklet developed by the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy. The booklet appeared to motivate individuals to make changes to their existing management of their bone health and served as a reference tool reaffirming current practices and beliefs for others. The purpose of this study was to examine individuals’ experiences of the educational booklet and explore the influence of the booklet on individuals’ beliefs and actions regarding their bone health. Eligible individuals were those who had been prescribed medication to treat low bone mass. One-on-one telephone interviews were conducted over an 18-month period. Participants were interviewed for approximately 1 hour and asked to provide their feedback on the booklet, and to discuss what they were doing with respect to the recommendations made in the booklet. We interviewed 50 participants who ranged in age from 58 to 89. The overall impression of the booklet was positive. Participants described the language in the booklet as clear and easy to understand. Participants stated that they would have appreciated receiving this tool at the onset of their diagnosis. Forty-two participants had already taken action, or expressed an intention to make changes, to their existing routines to improve their bone health. In contrast, eight participants used the booklet to reaffirm current practices and beliefs. For these individuals, the recommendations made in the booklet were consistent with what they had already been doing. The booklet can engage patients in discussions about bone health. The booklet appeared to motivate individuals to make changes to their existing routines in an effort to achieve better health outcomes for their bone health. Providing a tool like this to people recently diagnosed with a bone health issue may prove to be beneficial.

Vandana Ahluwalia,1 Tiffany L H Larsen,2 Carol A Kennedy,3 Taucha Inrig,3 Katie Lundon4 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, William Osler Health System, Brampton, ON, Canada; 2Department of Physiotherapy, Headwaters Health Care Center, Orangeville, ON, Canada; 3Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4Office of Continuing Professional Development and the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, ON, Canada Objective: To facilitate access and improve wait times to a rheumatologist’s consultation, this study aimed to 1) determine the ability of an advanced clinician practitioner in arthritis care (ACPAC)-trained extended role practitioner (ERP) to triage patients with suspected inflammatory arthritis (IA) for priority assessment by a rheumatologist and 2) determine the impact of an ERP on access-to-care as measured by time-to-rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision.Materials and methods: A community-based ACPAC-trained ERP triaged new referrals for suspected IA. Patients with suspected IA were booked to see the rheumatologist on a priority basis. Diagnostic accuracy of the ERP to correctly identify priority patients; the level of agreement between ERP and rheumatologist (Kappa coefficient and percent agreement); and the time-to-treatment-decision for confirmed cases of IA were investigated. Retrospective chart review then compared time-to-rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision in the solo-rheumatologist versus the ERP-triage model.Results: One hundred twenty-one patients were triaged. The ERP designated 54 patients for priority assessment. The rheumatologist confirmed IA in 49/54 (90.7% positive predictive value [PPV]). Of the 121 patients, 67 patients were designated as nonpriority by the ERP, and none were determined to have IA by the rheumatologist (100% negative predictive value [NPV]). Excellent agreement was found between the ERP and the rheumatologist (Kappa coefficient 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84–0.99). In the ERP-triage model, time-from-referral-to-treatment-decision for patients with IA was 73.7 days (SD 40.4, range 12–183) compared with 124.6 days (SD 61.7, range 26–359) in the solo-rheumatologist model (40% reduction in time-to-treatment-decision).Conclusion: A well-trained and experienced ERP can shorten the time-to-Rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision for patients with suspected IA. Keywords: rheumatology, health services accessibility, interprofessional relations, community health services, integrated delivery systems

We examined international osteoporosis guidelines to determine the tools used to assess fracture risk, the classification of fracture risk presented, and the recommendations based on fracture risk status. We conducted a document analysis of guidelines from the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) website retrieved as of May 10, 2018, focusing on guidelines written in English only. Two reviewers independently reviewed each document and the following data were extracted: (1) fracture risk tool(s) endorsed; (2) classification system used to describe fracture risk status (e.g., low, moderate, high); and (3) recommendations based on risk status (e.g., pharmacological treatment). Two additional reviewers verified all data extraction. A total of 112 guidelines were listed on the IOF website, of which 94 were located either through the provided link or through a PubMed search. Of 70 guidelines written in English, 63 guidelines discussed the concept of fracture risk of which, 39 endorsed FRAX. Twenty-eight guidelines defined fracture risk categories or thresholds which determined recommendations. In total, 26 provided a risk category or threshold which constituted an indication for pharmacotherapy. Twelve guidelines reported a moderate, medium, or intermediate risk category which was associated with variable recommendations for testing and treatment. Despite the generally accepted international shift to fracture risk as a basis for treatment decisions, the majority of guidelines in English did not provide treatment recommendations based on fracture risk status. In guidelines with recommendations based on fracture risk status, thresholds and recommendations varied making international comparisons of treatment difficult.

Objective: Analysis of clinical documents such as bone mineral density (BMD) reports is an important component of program evaluation because it can provide insights into the accuracy of assessment of fracture risk communicated to patients and practitioners. Our objective was to compare fracture risk calculations from BMD test reports to those based on the 2010 Canadian guidelines. Methods: We retrieved BMD reports from fragility fracture patients screened through a community hospital fracture clinic participating in Ontario’s Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Fracture risk was determined according to the 2010 Canadian guidelines using age, sex, and T-score at the femoral neck, in addition to three clinical factors. Three researchers classified patients’ fracture risk until consensus was achieved. Results: We retrieved reports for 17 patients from nine different BMD clinics in the Greater Toronto Area. Each patient had a different primary care physician and all BMD tests were conducted after the 2010 Canadian guidelines were published. The fracture risk of 10 patients was misclassified with 9 of the 10 reports underestimating fracture risk. Nine reports acknowledged that the prevalence of a fragility fracture raised the risk category by one level but only four of these reports acknowledged that the patient had, or may have sustained, a fragility fracture. When we raised fracture risk by one level according to these reports, eight patients were still misclassified. Fracture risk in the majority of these patients remained underestimated. Inconsistent classification was found in the majority of cases where reports came from the same clinic. Four reports described risk levels for two different types of risk. Conclusions: More than half of patients received BMD reports which underestimated fracture risk. Bone health management recommendations based on falsely low fracture risk are likely to be sub-optimal.

Background: Patients’ perception of outcomes is not always defined by the absence of limitations/symptoms (resolution), but can also be characterized by behavioral adaptation and cognitive coping arising in cases with residual deficits. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) are designed to measure levels of function or symptoms, largely missing whether patients are coping with ongoing limitations. This study aimed to broaden the conventional definition of a “satisfactory” outcome following ankle reconstruction by comparing patient-reported outcomes of patients with and without residual symptoms and limitations. Methods: The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey of ankle arthroplasty (n = 85) and arthrodesis (n = 15) patients. Outcome measures included the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, Short Form-12, and EuroQol-5 Dimension. Patients also completed measures of pain (0-10), stiffness (0-10), satisfaction (0-3), and ability to complete activities of daily living (ADL) (0-6). Based on a self-reported question regarding recovery and coping, patients were categorized as “Recovered-Resolved” (better with no symptoms or residual effects), “Recovered, not Resolved” (RNR, better with residual effects), or “Not Recovered” (not better). Recovery groups were compared across measures. Results: Only 15% of patients were categorized Recovered-Resolved. Most were RNR (69%), leaving 14% Not Resolved. Recovered-Resolved experienced lower rates of pain (1.4 ± 2.3), stiffness (1.1 ± 2.6), and difficulty performing ADLs (0.9 ± 1.2). Overall, outcome measure scores were high (ie, better health) for Recovered-Resolved patients, midrange for RNR patients, and low for Not Recovered patients, thus confirming predefined hypotheses. Recovered-Resolved and RNR patients had similarly high satisfaction summary scores (3.0 ± 0.0 vs 2.6 ± 0.6). Conclusion: Most patients reported positive outcomes, but few (15%) experienced resolution of all symptoms and limitations. Current PROs focus on achieving low levels of symptoms and limitations, but miss an important achievement when patients are brought to a level of residual deficits with which they can cope. Patients’ perceptions of satisfactory outcomes were not predicated on the resolution of all limitations; thus, the conventional definition of “satisfactory” outcomes should be expanded accordingly. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective cohort study.