Physician participation in quality improvement work- interest and opportunity: a cross-sectional survey

Background: Lack of physician involvement in quality improvement threatens the success and sustainability of quality improvement measures. It is therefore important to assess physicians´ interests and opportunities to be involved in quality improvement and their experiences of such participation, both in hospital and general practice. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted on a representative sample of physicians in different job positions in Norway in 2019. Results: The response rate was 72.6% (1513 of 2085). A large proportion (85.7%) of the physicians wanted to participate in quality improvement, and 68.6% had actively done so in the last year. Physicians’ interest in quality improvement and their active participation was significantly related to the designated time for quality improvement in their work-hour schedule (p < 0.001). Only 16.7% reported time designated for quality improvement in their own work hours. When time was designated, 86.6% of the physicians reported participation in quality improvement, compared to 63.7% when time was not specially designated. Conclusions: This study shows that physicians want to participate in quality improvement, but only a few have designated time to allow continuous involvement. Physicians with designated time participate significantly more. Future quality programs should involve physicians more actively by explicitly designating their time to participate in quality improvement work. We need further studies to explore why managers do not facilitate physicians´ participation in quality improvement.publishedVersio

:4; Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective

Value of MRI and ultrasound for prediction of therapeutic response and erosive progression in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis managed by an aggressive treat-to-target strategy

Objectives To investigate if inflammation detected by MRI or ultrasound at rheumatoid arthritis (RA) onset is predictive of erosive progression or poor response to methotrexate monotherapy, and to investigate if subclinical inflammation in remission is predictive of future treatment escalation or erosive progression.Methods In a 2-year study, 218 patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve early RA were treated by a tight-control treat-to-target strategy corresponding to current recommendations. MRI and ultrasound were performed at regular intervals. Baseline imaging-based inflammation measures were analysed as predictors for early methotrexate failure and erosive progression using univariate and multivariate regression adjusted for clinical, laboratory and radiographic measures. In patients in remission after 1 year, imaging measures were analysed as predictors of treatment escalation and erosive progression during the second year. The added value of imaging in prediction models was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analyses.Results Baseline MRI inflammation was associated with MRI erosive progression and ultrasound with radiographic erosive progression. No imaging inflammation measure was associated with early methotrexate failure. Imaging inflammation was present in a majority of patients in clinical remission. Tenosynovitis was associated with treatment escalation, and synovitis and tenosynovitis with MRI/radiographic erosive progression during the second year. Imaging information did not improve prediction models for any of the outcomes.Conclusions Imaging-detected inflammation, both at diagnosis and in remission, is associated with elements of future disease development. However, the lack of a significant effect on prediction models indicates limited value of systematic MRI and ultrasound in management of early RA

Cardiovascular disease risk profiles in inflammatory joint disease entities

Background Patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our aim was to compare CVD risk profiles in patients with IJD, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and evaluate the future risk of CVD. Methods The prevalence and numbers of major CVD risk factors (CVD-RFs) (hypertension, elevated cholesterol, obesity, smoking, and diabetes mellitus) were estimated in patients with RA, axSpA and PsA. Relative and absolute risk of CVD according to Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) was calculated. Results In total, 3791 patients were included. CVD was present in 274 patients (7.2%). Of those without established CVD; hypertension and elevated cholesterol were the most frequent CVD-RFs, occurring in 49.8% and 32.8% of patients. Patients with PsA were more often hypertensive and obese. Overall, 73.6% of patients had a minimum of one CVD-RF, which increased from 53.2% among patients aged 30 to <45 years, to 86.2% of patients aged 60 to ≤80 years. Most patients (93.5%) had low/moderate estimated risk of CVD according to SCORE. According to relative risk estimations, 35.2% and 24.7% of patients had two or three times risk or higher, respectively, compared to individuals with no CVD-RFs. Conclusions In this nationwide Norwegian project, we have shown for the first time that prevalence and numbers of CVD-RFs were relatively comparable across the three major IJD entities. Furthermore, estimated absolute CVD risk was low, but the relative risk of CVD was markedly high in patients with IJD. Our findings indicate the need for CVD risk assessment in all patients with IJD

Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial

Objective: To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy. Design: Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial. Setting: Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015. Participants: 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded. Interventions: 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years. Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and nonprogression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set. Results: 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval −7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events. Conclusions: The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology

Development of a feasible and responsive ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis through a data-driven approach

Objective: To develop and validate a responsive and feasible ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We used data from cohorts of early RA (development) and established RA starting/switching biologic therapy (validation). 4 tendons and 36 joints were examined by a grey scale (GSUS) and power Doppler semiquantitative ultrasound (PDUS) scoring system (full score). Ultrasound score components were selected based on factor analyses of 3-month change in the development cohort. Responsiveness was assessed by standardised response means (SRMs). We assessed the proportion of information retained from the full score by linear regression. Results: 118 patients with early and 212 patients with established RA were included. The final ultrasound score included 8 joints (metacarpophalangeal 1–2–3, proximal interphalangeal 2–3, radiocarpal, metatarsophalangeal 2–3) and 1 tendon (extensor carpi ulnaris) examined bilaterally. The 6-month SRMs for the final score were −1.24 (95% CI −1.47 to −1.02) for GSUS, and −1.09 (−1.25 to −0.92) for PDUS in early RA, with 87% of total information retained for GSUS and 90% for PDUS. The new score performed somewhat better than formerly proposed scores in the validation cohort. Conclusions: The Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis 9 joint/tendon score (USRA9) inflammation score showed good responsiveness, retained most of the information from the original full score and overall performed better than previous scores in a validation cohort