Models of Arthritis Care: A Systems-level Evaluation of Acceptability as a Dimension of Quality of Care

Abstract

Objective To describe a systems-level baseline evaluation of central intake (CI) and triage systems in arthritis care within Alberta, Canada. The specific objectives were to (1) describe a process for systems evaluation for the provision of arthritis care; (2) report the findings of the evaluation for different clinical sites that provide arthritis care; and (3) identify opportunities for improving appropriate and timely access based on the findings of the evaluation. Methods The study used a convergent mixed methods design. Surveys and semistructured interviews were the main data collection methods. Participants were recruited through 2 rheumatology clinics and 1 hip and knee clinic providing CI and triage, and included patients, referring physicians, specialists, and clinic staff who experienced CI processes. Results A total of 237 surveys were completed by patients (n = 169), referring physicians (n = 50), and specialists (n = 18). Interviews (n = 25) with care providers and patients provided insights to the survey data. Over 95% of referring physicians agreed that the current process of CI was satisfactory. Referring physicians and specialists reported issues with the referral process and perceived support in care for wait-listed patients. Patients reported positive experiences with access and navigation of arthritis care services but expressed concerns around communication and receiving minimal support for self-management of their arthritis before and after receiving specialist care. Conclusion This baseline evaluation of CI and triage for arthritis care indicates satisfaction with the service, but areas that require further consideration are referral completion, timely waiting lists, and further supporting patients to self-manage their arthritis.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

“…Waiting lists within rheumatology are forecasted to become longer in the future 24. Effective prioritisation is, therefore, key to guarantee rapid access to those patients with the most severe and active diseases.…”

“…In other situations, where diagnosis largely depends on history and imaging (eg, for axial spondyloarthritis), several parts of the prediagnostic process could be handled by telehealth, and a face-to-face visit could be scheduled when treatment is initiated. Evidence indicates that such telehealth interventions may save unnecessary visits, time and resources for patients, the healthcare system and society 24 26…”

Acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a single-arm 12-week digital behavioral health intervention in patients with knee osteoarthritis

“…Acceptability of a healthcare intervention is determined by whether it meets the needs, preferences and expectations of the patients who receive it [22,23]. For this study, acceptability was assessed by qualitative data from interviews.…”

Intended and unintended consequences of strategies to meet performance benchmarks for rheumatologist referrals in a centralized intake system

“…Operational policies, such as capacity pooling through the centralized intake (CI) for rheumatology care, have been shown to decrease patient wait-time variability among rheumatologists and urgency categories. [16][17][18][19] Our study analyses the policy that guarantees patients' wait time for their initial consultation with a rheumatologist does not exceed wait time benchmarks in a CI system. This policy is aptly called the maximum wait time guarantee (MWTG) policy, 20 which has been adopted in several OECD countries.…”