ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1404

Systematic Review and Appraisal of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis

Matthew Cooper1 and Claire E H Barber2, 1University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2Rheumatology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Meeting: 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 28, 2016

Keywords: quality improvement, Quality Indicators, quality measures and rheumatic disease

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 14, 2016

Title: Quality Measures and Quality of Care - Poster II

Session Type: ACR Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Quality measures are metrics health professionals can monitor to improve care delivery and patient outcomes. To be measurable they must include a specified numerator, denominator for a defined population, capture best-practices and be feasible to measure. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and quality appraisal of measures for inflammatory arthritis (IA).

Methods: A search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian using MeSH terms for IA (SpA [AS, PsA, ReA, and IBD-related arthritis], RA, and JIA) and quality measures. EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 2000 to Jan 17, 2016. A “grey literature” review of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE-II) was used to evaluate 6 domains of measure development on a 7 point Likert scale: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence and an overall quality assessment which determined inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, indicator type (process, structure, outcome) and based on 6 domains of quality (acceptability, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, safety).

Results: 3417 unique citations were found and 483 were selected for full-text review, 8 measurement sets were eligible for inclusion. An additional 2 sets were included that were published after the search and 5 sets from the grey literature review. Two sets did not meet AGREE II criteria leaving a total of 13 measurement sets. The measure sets were from 4 countries (USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands) and one European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, IA and JIA. There were a total of 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure and 5 outcome). Measures were found covering each of the 6 domains of quality. Frequent themes included assessment, management (including medications and comorbidities), wait times and education. Measure sets were developed based on systematic reviews of guidelines and measures, individual guidelines or on information from targeted literature reviews. Evaluation of development methods for the measurement sets revealed a variety of consensus techniques including: RAND-UCLA appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 62% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.

Conclusion: This review highlights that IA quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure and outcome measures across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations measure development is not standardized, highlighting the need for a standardized assessment tool for evaluation of development methods. As well, local assessment of measurement feasibility through pilot testing before implementation and use outside the original development context is recommended.


Disclosure: M. Cooper, None; C. E. H. Barber, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Cooper M, Barber CEH. Systematic Review and Appraisal of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016; 68 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/systematic-review-and-appraisal-of-quality-measures-for-inflammatory-arthritis/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/systematic-review-and-appraisal-of-quality-measures-for-inflammatory-arthritis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology