Best Practices for Virtual Care: A Consensus Statement From the Canadian Rheumatology Association

Objective. To develop best practice statements for the provision of virtual care in adult and pediatric rheumatology for the Canadian Rheumatology Association\u27s (CRA) Telehealth Working Group (TWG). Methods. Four members of the TWG representing adult, pediatric, university-based, and community rheumatology practices defined the scope of the project. A rapid literature review of existing systematic reviews, policy documents, and published literature and abstracts on the topic was conducted between April and May 2021. The review informed a candidate set of 7 statements and a supporting document. The statements were submitted to a 3-round (R) modified Delphi process with 22 panelists recruited through the CRA and patient advocacy organizations. Panelists rated the importance and feasibility of the statements on a Likert scale of 1-9. Statements with final median ratings between 7-9 with no disagreement were retained in the final set. Results. Twenty-one (95%) panelists participated in R1, 15 (71%) in R2, and 18 (82%) in R3. All but 1 statement met inclusion criteria during R1. Revisions were made to 5/7 statements following R2 and an additional statement was added. All statements met inclusion criteria following R3. The statements addressed the following themes in the provision of virtual care: adherence to existing standards and regulations, appropriateness, consent, physical examination, patient-reported outcomes, use in addition to in-person visits, and complex comanagement of disease. Conclusion. The best practice statements represent a starting point for advancing virtual care in rheumatology. Future educational efforts to help implement these best practices and research to address identified knowledge gaps are planned

Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains