Department of Rheumatology and Institute for Physical Medicine,University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Clinical quality management (CQM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aims to reduce inflammatory activity and pain in the short term, and damage, and consequently disability, in the long term. Within CQM as used in Switzerland rheumatologists are provided with a measurement feedback system with which they can regularly follow their patients. Inflammatory activity is measured with the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index questionnaire (RADAI), damage with an X-ray score and disability with the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Feedback is used to optimize therapy, which in the short term allows the activity of the inflammatory process to be adjusted or titrated. In the long term, the therapy result for the individual patient is monitored by the course of disability and damage. In this paper we present a series of cases to illustrate the usefulness of the CQM system in the management of individual RA patients. CQM in RA may be helpful when making decisions about adjustment of treatment, and to document and communicate these decisions based on quantitative data.
KEY WORDS: Rheumatoid arthritis, Disease activity, Damage, Disability, Quality management, Outcome, Case studies, Rheumatology.
Quality management focusing on improving health outcomes may be defined as clinical quality management (CQM) [1]. While effectiveness research examines what works in medicine, CQM applies this knowledge to improve care. It aims at a permanent improvement or optimization of health outcomes by modifying the process of care in an ongoing learning process [1].
The basis for CQM is the construction of a measurement improvement system using standardized assessments to be applied in a pre-defined way. However, there are obstacles to be overcome if CQM methods are to become common practice [1]. Practical obstacles, apart from the availability, are: time cost, unfamiliarity with standardized assessments and the meaningful interpretation of measures [2]. The measurement improvement system should be useful for both clinicians and their patients. Thus, a key issue for successful implementation is that clinicians and patients experience an advantage from measuring standardized clinical and patient-oriented parameters. Most beneficial to the clinician is to have the data at hand when deciding about the therapy of individual patients, and therefore to make immediate use of such data.
The fundamental problem in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is systemic inflammation. The assumptions of the current therapeutic approach are: (1) control of systemic inflammation reduces disease impact to the patient in the short term, and (2) control of inflammation reduces damage, and consequent disability, in the long term [35]. However, there is now increasing evidence that destruction of the joints can progress even in the absence of inflammation. Therefore, efficient control of inflammation may not prevent joint destruction completely [6].
As inflammation is suppressed with potentially toxic drugs, it is critical to find the optimal efficacious dose without introducing intolerable side-effects. Especially if a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) has to be stopped and another drug has to be installed, precious time in which the inflammation is not sufficiently suppressed may be lost [7]. Therefore, the expected beneficial effects to the patient have to be monitored with the same conscientiousness as the surveillance for side-effects. Nowadays in rheumatology there are measures available for disease impact, damage and disability, and there are response criteria, of which the methodological properties are known [8]. While these measures are now essential when conducting clinical trials [9], they may also be used in daily practice. Using these measures to optimize management in clinical practice leads to a decision on treatment that can be supported by quantitative data, rather than on personal experience and overall impression alone.
As a consequence, the activity of the inflammatory process, the primary target of medical therapy, can be adjusted or titrated, similarly to blood glucose in diabetics or blood pressure in hypertensives.
In this paper we present a series of cases to illustrate the use of a practical CQM system in RA that was introduced to Switzerland in 1997. The CQM allows not only for single patient feedback, but also for provider feedback and health service research.
Methods
Measures
The CQM in RA aims to reduce inflammatory activity and pain in the short term and damage, and consequently disability, in the long term. Within this framework, inflammatory activity and damage are intermediate clinical outcomes, while pain and disability are primarily patient-oriented outcomes (see Table 1).
|
Damage was measured with X-rays of the hands and feet, that were scored according to a new method proposed by Rau et al., the so-called Ratingen score, which concentrates on damage to the joint surface [12]. The score was expressed as a percentage from the maximal possible score.
Pain was measured with the self-administered Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) questionnaire, which also includes stiffness and global assessment of disease activity [13]. Disability was assessed with the modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) [14, 15].
Physicians were provided with manuals about the use of these scores, including information about their validity, reliability, sensitivity to change, and minimal clinical important differences. An extract of this information is given in Table 2.
|
Data collection
The physician was provided with a single page record sheet showing two mannequins to mark swollen and tender joints, and space to fill in the ESR and medication information, while patients were provided with questionnaires. The sheets were sent together with the X-ray files to the co-ordination centre. The data were fed into a computer and a feedback report produced, including graphical displays and tables, which was sent back to the physician. A full example of a feedback report is given in Fig. 1; in Figs 2
4
only the graphical part of the feedback report is presented.
|
|
|
|
Cases
The cases were selected out of the Swiss CQM database to show the use and caveats of the CQM tool. All cases were out-patients, attending on self-admission and had an established diagnosis of RA [17].
Cases
Case history 1
Case 1 illustrates how periods of increased inflammatory activity (flares) are presented in graphs and figures, and how the principle of titration of inflammatory activity works in practice.
This 65-yr-old woman, with a 14-yr history of mild RA, treated initially with chloroquine and since 1995 with methotrexate, was followed using standardized assessment since November 1995 (Fig. 1).
In 1995, when she volunteered in a trial comparing methotrexate with collagen [18], she developed a flare. With re-installation of methotrexate, disease activity decreased (February 1996), but only with the increase to 10 mg methotrexate (November 1996) was disease activity, as measured with the DAS28 (= 1.9) and the RADAI (= 0.3), adequately controlled. When methotrexate was stopped in July 1997, 1 week prior to foot surgery and not re-installed for 6 weeks, the patient had a flare again, with both a high RADAI (= 4.9) and DAS (= 6.3). With re-installation of methotrexate, disease activity could be titrated at the target of DAS28 (= 3.2).
This case illustrates that with DMARD therapy, systemic inflammation can be virtually titrated within several weeks, similar to the titration of blood glucose in a diabetic within hours. It shows that a remission may be best understood as an often temporary state, at the lower end of the continuum of disease activity, which needs to be aimed at continuously through a consequent monitoring and adjustment of treatment. In our case remission with a DAS28 of <2.0 could be achieved once, and a low disease activity with a DAS28 <3.2 was achieved at four time points [10, 11]. Cumulated disease activity did not result in damage or disability, as measured with X-rays and the HAQ. Joint destruction is unlikely if the disease activity is low over time [1921].
Keeping patients on continuous adequate treatment is a challenge to the rheumatologist [22]. The graphical display of the clinical status and disease scores is a language that patients can understand and may help to improve compliance. In communication, the use of quantitative data may finally convince our surgical colleagues of the importance of stopping DMARDs for just a short period of time with major surgery, or to avoid stopping DMARD treatment at all with minor surgery [23, 24].
Case history 2
This case illustrates that while in mild to moderate RA titration of disease activity towards a DAS28 below 3.2 or 2.0 [10] may be achieved using a single DMARD, patients with more severe RA may require more aggressive treatment, for instance combination therapy.
The 61-yr-old female patient suffered from RA for 13 yr and has been treated with virtually all currently available DMARDs, including parenteral gold, D-penicillamine, methotrexate, sulphasalazine and cyclosporine. Despite these treatments damage progressed, requiring several orthopaedic interventions and leading to a considerable disability, with a HAQ score of 2.3.
With the use of standardized assessments starting in April 1996, it soon became evident that with her current methotrexate therapy alone, in a dose acceptable to the patient (unbearable nausea above the dosage of 17.5 mg weekly), disease activity could not be titrated below 3.2 or even 2.0 over a longer period of time (Fig. 2). There was an increase in radiological damage from April 1996 to October 1997. An attempted combination therapy with salazopyrine in an increasing dosage over the period of 6 months from February to October 1997 was considered not successful. Only the combination with low-dose cyclosporine resulted in an acceptable control of systemic inflammation (DAS28 = 2.4).
It is illustrated that when faced with figures telling us about a poor prognosis, with ongoing unacceptably high disease activity and damage, the physician is consequently challenged systematically to try more aggressive treatment options [25, 26]. Trying to attempt acceptable levels of disease activity may be worthwhile, even in patients with long-standing RA and a long history of insufficient treatment.
In terms of measurement this case shows the often congruent course of the semi-objective DAS and the subjective RADAI. In some instances, such as the flare in autumn 1997, the DAS28 but not the RADAI pointed initially to the flare. Having information from both sources at hand may help to clarify an unclear case, or to ascertain in the case of a congruent course of the indices.
Case history 3
This case, as well as the next case, illustrates some regularly encountered situations requiring individualized interpretation of measures, reminding us that treatment of RA is still an art rather than a cookbook approach.
The 58-yr-old woman suffered from RA for 7 yr. She was first treated with parenteral gold, which had to be stopped because of the development of an allergic rash, then with chloroquine, which was stopped because of inefficacy, and finally, since 1993, with methotrexate.
She was first seen in our clinic in January 1996 when she developed a flare after the cessation of methotrexate treatment. With re-installation of methotrexate, the initially high DAS28 of 7.3 (Fig. 3) receded to just 5.8, which is a response in terms of change (greater than 1.2), but not in terms of the level to be achieved, which should be lower than 3.2 (low disease activity), or even <2.0 (remission) [10].
As can be seen from Fig. 5, where the DAS28 and its components are shown, the number of swollen joints and the ESR decreased, but in the meantime the number of tender joints stayed at a very high level.
|
Indeed this patient did not only suffer from RA, but also from fibromyalgia with a low pain threshold. The discrepancy between the high HAQ as compared with the X-ray score, which was normal, is consistent with a previous report [27]. Patients with fibromyalgia had a higher perceived physical functional disability that was not explained by damage measures. It is also important to note that the DAS includes the number of tender joints, and in this case not only reflects systemic inflammation, but is also driven by a low pain threshold.
It is clear that using standardized assessment and indices requires a cautious look and individualized interpretation [28]. In this patient, disease activity needs to be adjusted based on ESR and the number of swollen joints, rather than the number of tender joints of the DAS.
Case history 4
In this case we will show that there are situations where one may choose to follow a patient using the course of swollen joints in combination with tender joints and pain.
This 51-yr-old female patient suffered from RA for 13 yr and was successfully treated from 1987 to 1996 with D-penicillamine, and since April 1996 with methotrexate. As the treatment with methotrexate alone did not result in prolonged reduction of disease activity, combination therapy was started. First with hydroxychloroquine, which was insufficient to control disease activity (flare in November 1996, see Fig. 4). Therefore, a triple therapy [26], with additional sulphasalazine was installed in 1997, which induced remission.
It is remarkable in this case that there was no elevation of the ESR above 15 in the three flares, but the values for ESR seem to deviate similarly to DAS, RADAI and pain. In other words, the ESR remained within the normal range, which may have led to an underestimation of true disease activity by the DAS28 in this patient. A low ESR in active RA could be found in some patients [29].
In Fig. 6 there is a congruency seen between swollen joint count and tender joint count, the same congruency is seen in Fig. 4
with pain and the DAS28. As in the previous case, the possibility of having an overall picture including information from both the physician and from the patient perspective allows for an ongoing adequate titration of disease activity.
|
Discussion
Our cases illustrate the use of a set of standardized assessments within a measurement improvement system to optimize treatment. As demonstrated, CQM may be helpful when making decisions on the adjustment of treatment, and to document and communicate these decisions based on quantitative data.
The tables and graphs used in the feedback report allow the physician a quick overview of the status and course of the disease. The graphs are generally easily understood by the patient, which may enhance compliance with treatment.
Positive experiences with the use of the CQM system have been made in Switzerland since 1997. With the participation of all university and large hospital rheumatology units and an increasing number of private rheumatology practices, the CQM concept has gained acceptance.
However, the use of CQM is not trivial and there are some burdens to overcome [2, 30]. A problem of standardized assessment for daily practice is the time cost. With the inclusion of patient questionnaires, the effort made is shared by physician and patient [31]. It is important to limit the time costs for the physician to an acceptable level. In our experience, the time costs of the clinical assessments by the physician are regained by the time saved with the availability of useful data. But the meaningful interpretation of such data requires familiarity with scores, which has to be achieved by regular practice [31, 32]. In addition, reference data from clinical studies may help to interpret the clinical status or disease course of a patient. However, the use of such data in clinical practice has not had wide attention. The measures used in the CQM are primarily developed for use in groups, not for individuals. The validity in application for individuals is enhanced by the inclusion of several measures and the inclusion of both clinical and patient-oriented outcomes.
In addition to the demonstrated use of the CQM to adjust drug treatment in individual patients, the cumulated data can be used for provider feedback and group analysis. Rheumatologists are free to use measures at self-defined time points to adjust treatment; however, they are asked to repeat a complete assessment yearly, including X-rays. The yearly visits serve cohort analysis. The CQM thus allows for the identification of problem areas in treatment, for instance where a high degree of variation in treatment is seen. This may help professional societies focus on the development of practice guidelines where most benefit can be expected. With a CQM programme the implementation of practice guidelines can be monitored. It can be studied whether practice patterns change, and whether, and for whom, this results in hypothesized gains in health outcomes.
CQM in RA is not a kind of cookbook, but a complementary tool to support decision-making by the experienced rheumatologist, thus participation has been restricted to rheumatologists only. From a political perspective the concept may thus contribute to establish further the central role of the rheumatologist in the management of RA patients [33, 34].
Last but not least, it seems critical that CQM stays within the medical community (here the rheumatology societies) and that the data are confidential. It may be successful only if CQM is not imposed from the top down and if physicians may be sure that their practice will not be scrutinized by third parties. Otherwise it is likely to produce fear, behaviour to protect one's own position, and discrediting of the information and its source.
In conclusion, CQM is a potentially useful tool for continuous improvement of patient care. The successful integration into clinical practice is the cornerstone for long-term implementation of CQM. Studies on whether the use of CQM results in improved health outcomes in the short and long term for patients with RA need to be carried out.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Leanne Pobjoy for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. The SCQM project is supported by grants from the Swiss Health Authorities (BAG) and the Swiss Academy for the Medical Sciences (SAMW).
Notes
Correspondence to: J. Fransen, Universitätsspital, Rheumaklinik und Institut für Physikalische Medizin, Gloriastrasse 25, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Members of the Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis are: A.-M. Chamot, G. Dalvit, A. Forster, P-A. Guerne, P. Hasler, D. Van Linthoudt, B. A. Michel, L. Schmid, H. Schwarz, M. Seitz, K. L. So, R. Theiler, P. Villiger and P. Wüest.
References