Scoping review of balanced scorecards for use in healthcare settings: development and implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Balanced scorecards (BSCs) were developed in the early 1990s in corporate settings as a strategic performance management tool that emphasised measurement from multiple perspectives. Since their introduction, BSCs have been adapted for a variety of industries, including to healthcare settings. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the application of BSCs in healthcare. METHODS: Medline, Embase and CINHAL databases were searched using keywords and medical subject headings for 'balanced scorecard' and related terms from 1992 to 17/04/2020. Title and abstract screening and full text review were conducted in duplicate by two reviewers. Studies describing the development and/or implementation of a BSC in a healthcare setting were included. Data were abstracted using pilot-tested forms and reviewed for key themes and findings. RESULTS: 8129 records were identified and 841 underwent a full text review. 87 articles were included. Over 26 countries were represented and the majority of BSCs were applied at a local level (54%) in hospital settings (41%). While almost all discussed Kaplan and Norton's original BSC (97%), only 69% described alignment with a strategic plan. Patients/family members were rarely involved in development teams (3%) which typically were comprised of senior healthcare leaders/administrators. Only 21% of BSCs included perspectives using identical formatting to the original BSC description. Lessons learnt during development addressed three main themes: scorecard design, stakeholder engagement and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: BSC frameworks have been used in various healthcare settings but frequently undergo adaptation from the original description in order to suit a specific healthcare context. Future BSCs should aim to include patients/families to promote patient-centred healthcare systems. Considering the heterogeneity evident in development approaches, methodological guidance in this area is warranted.

Strategies for developing and implementing a rheumatoid arthritis healthcare quality framework: a thematic analysis of perspectives from arthritis stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain stakeholder perspectives to inform the development and implementation of a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) healthcare quality measurement framework. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews. SETTING: Arthritis stakeholders from across Canada including healthcare providers, persons living with RA, clinic managers and policy leaders were recruited for the focus groups and interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four stakeholders from nine provinces. INTERVENTIONS: Qualitative researchers led each focus group/interview using a semistructured guide; the digitally recorded data were transcribed verbatim. Two teams of two coders independently analysed the transcripts using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Perspectives on the use of different types of measurement frameworks in healthcare were obtained. In particular, stakeholders advocated for the use of existing healthcare frameworks over frameworks developed in the business world and adapted for healthcare. Persons living with RA were less familiar with specific measurement frameworks, however, they had used existing online public forums for rating their experience and quality of healthcare provided. They viewed a standardised framework as potentially useful for assisting with monitoring the care provided to them individually. Nine guiding principles for framework development and 13 measurement themes were identified. Perceived barriers identified included access to data and concerns about how measures in the framework were developed and used. Effective approaches to framework implementation included having sound knowledge translation strategies and involving stakeholders throughout the measurement development and reporting process. Clinical models of care and health policies conducive to outcome measurement were highlighted as drivers of successful measurement initiatives. CONCLUSION: These important perspectives will be used to inform a healthcare quality measurement framework for RA.

Development of a Patient-centered Quality Measurement Framework for Measuring, Monitoring, and Optimizing Rheumatoid Arthritis Care in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered quality measurement framework to address a predefined vision statement and 7 strategic objectives for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care that was developed in prior qualitative work with arthritis stakeholders. METHODS: One hundred forty-seven RA-related performance measures (PMs) were identified from a systematic review. A candidate list of 26 PMs meeting predefined criteria and addressing the strategic objectives previously defined was then assessed during a 3-round (R) modified Delphi. Seventeen panelists with expertise in RA, quality measurement, and/or lived experience with RA rated each PM on a 1-9 scale based on the items of importance, feasibility, and priority for inclusion in the framework during R1 and R3, with a moderated discussion in R2. PMs with median scores ≥ 7 on all 3 items without disagreement were included in the final set, which then underwent public comment. RESULTS: Twenty-one measures were included in the final framework (15 PMs from the Delphi and 6 published system-level measures on access to care and treatment). The measures included 4 addressing early access to care and timely diagnosis, 12 evidence-based care for RA and related comorbidities, 1 addressing patient participation as an informed partner in care, and 4 on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The proposed framework builds upon existing measures capturing early access to care and treatment in RA and adds important PMs to promote high-quality RA care and outcome measurement. In the next phase, the authors will test the framework in clinical practice in addition to addressing certain areas where no suitable PMs were identified.

Priorities for High-quality Care in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of Patient, Health Professional, and Policy Maker Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the essential elements of high-quality rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care in order to develop a vision statement and a set of strategic objectives for a national RA quality framework. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers using a semistructured interview or focus group guide with healthcare professionals, patients, clinic managers, healthcare leaders, and policy makers to obtain their perspectives on elements essential to RA care. Purposive sampling provided representation of stakeholder types and regions. Recorded data was transcribed verbatim. Two teams of 2 coders independently analyzed the deidentified transcripts using thematic analysis. Strategic objectives and the vision statement were drafted based on the overarching themes from the qualitative analysis and finalized by a working group. RESULTS: A total of 54 stakeholders from 9 Canadian provinces participated in the project (3 focus groups and 19 interviews). Seven strategic objectives were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the following themes: (1) early access and timeliness of care; (2) evidence-informed, high-quality care for the ongoing management of RA and comorbidities; (3) availability of patient self-management tools and educational materials for shared decision making; (4) multidisciplinary care; (5) patient outcomes; (6) patient experience and satisfaction with care; and (7) equity, the last of which emerged as an overarching theme. The ultimate vision obtained was "ensuring patient-centered, high-quality care for people living with rheumatoid arthritis." CONCLUSION: The 7 strategic objectives that were identified highlight priorities for RA quality of care to be used in developing the National RA Quality Measurement Framework.

Implementation and Evaluation of Audit and Feedback for Monitoring Treat-to-Target (T2T) Strategies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Performance Measures.

INTRODUCTION: In collaboration with the Alberta Medical Association's Physician Learning Program we developed individualized physician reports and held a group feedback session on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PM) to facilitate treat-to-target (T2T) strategies and evaluated physician experiences with this process. METHODS: 5 PMs addressing T2T concepts from an established Canadian quality framework were operationalized for physician practice reports at 2 university-affiliated rheumatology clinics. Rheum4U, a quality improvement and research platform, was the data source. The audit results were reviewed in a facilitated group feedback session. Rheumatologists provided experiential feedback on the process through survey and/or an interview. Transcripts from interviews were analyzed using a 6-step thematic analysis. RESULTS: 11 of 12 eligible rheumatologists consented to receive practice reports and provided feedback through surveys (n = 5) and interviews (n = 6). The practice reports from Rheum4U (n = 448 patients) revealed high rates of yearly follow-up (> 85%, PM1) and 100% performance on documentation of disease activity at ≥ 50% of visits (PM2). Only 34% of patients were seen within 3 months if not in remission (PM3) with 62% (2017) and 69% (2018) of those with active RA achieving a LDA state within 6 months (PM4). Approximately 70% of patients were in remission at any time point (PM5). All survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed comparison to peers was valuable and helped them reflect on their practice. Several strategies for improvement were identified, including but not limited to, leveraging of electronic records for future audit and feedback reports, providing additional granularity of results, additional stratification of results, and using high-performing peers as the comparator rather than the group mean. CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback was perceived by clinicians as a useful strategy for evaluating T2T efforts in RA. Future work will focus on longitudinal evaluation of the clinical impact of this quality improvement initiative.

2019 American College of Rheumatology Recommended Patient-Reported Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for patient-reported Functional Status Assessment Measures (FSAMs) for use in routine clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We convened a workgroup to conduct a systematic review of published literature through March 16, 2017 and abstract FSAM properties. Based upon initial search results and clinical input, we focused on the following FSAMs appropriate for routine clinical use: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and derived measures and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool. We used the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point scoring method to evaluate each FSAM, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. We identified FSAMs fulfilling a predefined minimum standard and, through a modified Delphi process, selected preferred FSAMs for regular use in most clinic settings. RESULTS: The search identified 11,835 articles, of which 56 were included in the review. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 7 measures fulfilled the minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 3 measures were recommended: the PROMIS physical function 10-item short form (PROMIS PF10a), the HAQ-II, and the Multidimensional HAQ. CONCLUSION: This work establishes ACR recommendations for preferred RA FSAMs for regular use in most clinic settings. These results will inform clinical practice and can support future ACR quality measure development as well as highlight ongoing research needs.

Are All Stroke Patients Eligible for Fast Alteplase Treatment? An Analysis of Unavoidable Delays.

OBJECTIVES: The National Quality Forum recently endorsed a performance measure for time to intravenous thrombolytic therapy which allows exclusions for circumstances in which fast alteplase treatment may not be possible. However, the frequency and impact of unavoidable patient reasons for long door-to-needle time (DNT), such as need for medical stabilization, are largely unknown in clinical practice. As part of the Hurry Acute Stroke Treatment and Evaluation-2 (HASTE-2) project, we sought to identify patient and systems reasons associated with longer DNT. METHODS: From June 2012 to June 2013 we collected data on DNT and potential reasons for delays from 102 consecutive patients presenting directly to the emergency department who were treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. RESULTS: Mean age was 71 years, 56/113 (54%) were women, median NIH Stroke Scale score was 13, and median DNT was 53 minutes. Potential delays were noted in 59/102 (58%), of which 31/102 (31%) were unavoidable patient-related or eligibility reasons. Median DNT was longer when patient-related or eligibility reasons for delay were present (60 minutes) than when absent (45 minutes, p = 0.005). Multivariable modeling showed that need for urgent medical stabilization, presentation with seizure and inability to confirm eligibility were associated with 35%-50% longer DNT times. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 31% of patients have delays due to medical or eligibility-related causes that may be legitimate reasons for providing alteplase later than the benchmark time of 60 minutes.