Development of key performance indicators to evaluate centralized intake for patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Centralized intake is integral to healthcare systems to support timely access to appropriate health services. The aim of this study was to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate centralized intake systems for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Phase 1 involved stakeholder meetings including healthcare providers, managers, researchers and patients to obtain input on candidate KPIs, aligned along six quality dimensions: appropriateness, accessibility, acceptability, efficiency, effectiveness, and safety. Phase 2 involved literature reviews to ensure KPIs were based on best practices and harmonized with existing measures. Phase 3 involved a three-round, online modified Delphi panel to finalize the KPIs. The panel consisted of two rounds of rating and a round of online and in-person discussions. KPIs rated as valid and important (≥7 on a 9-point Likert scale) were included in the final set. RESULTS: Twenty-five KPIs identified and substantiated during Phases 1 and 2 were submitted to 27 panellists including healthcare providers, managers, researchers, and patients in Phase 3. After the in-person meeting, three KPIs were removed and six were suggested. The final set includes 9 OA KPIs, 10 RA KPIs and 9 relating to centralized intake processes for both conditions. All 28 KPIs were rated as valid and important. CONCLUSIONS: Arthritis stakeholders have proposed 28 KPIs that should be used in quality improvement efforts when evaluating centralized intake for OA and RA. The KPIs measure five of the six dimensions of quality and are relevant to patients, practitioners and health systems.

Continuous quality improvement program for hip and knee replacement.

Improving quality of care and maximizing efficiency are priorities in hip and knee replacement, where surgical demand and costs increase as the population ages. The authors describe the integrated structure and processes from the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Program for Hip and Knee Replacement Surgical Care and summarize lessons learned from implementation. The Triple Aim framework and 6 dimensions of quality care are overarching constructs of the CQI program. A validated, evidence-based clinical pathway that measures quality across the continuum of care was adopted. Working collaboratively, multidisciplinary experts embedded the CQI program into everyday practices in clinics across Alberta. Currently, 83% of surgeons participate in the CQI program, representing 95% of the total volume of hip and knee surgeries. Biannual reports provide feedback to improve care processes, infrastructure planning, and patient outcomes. CQI programs evaluating health care services inform choices to optimize care and improve efficiencies through continuous knowledge translation.

Performance management tools motivate change at the frontlines.

Performance management tools commonly used in business, such as incentives and the balanced scorecard, can be effectively applied in the public healthcare sector to improve quality of care. The province of Alberta applied these tools with the Institute for Health Improvement Learning Collaborative method to accelerate adoption of a clinical care pathway for hip and knee replacements. The results showed measurable improvements in all quality dimensions, including shorter hospital stays and wait times, higher bed utilization, earlier patient ambulation, and better patient outcomes.

Evaluating the primary-to-specialist referral system for elective hip and knee arthroplasty.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Persistently long waiting times for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) specialist consultations have been identified as a problem. This study described referral processes and practices, and their impact on the waiting time from referral to consultation for TJA. METHODS: A mixed-methods retrospective study incorporating semi-structured interviews, patient chart reviews and observational studies was conducted at three clinic sites in Alberta, Canada. A total of 218 charts were selected for analysis. Standardized definitions were applied to key event dates. Performance measures included waiting times percentage of referrals initially accepted. Voluntary (patient-related) and involuntary (health system-related) waiting times were quantified. RESULTS: All three clinics had defined, but differing, referral processing rules. The mean time from referral to consultation ranged from 51 to 139 business days. Choosing a specific surgeon for consultation rather than a next available surgeon lengthened waits by 10-47 business days. Involuntary waiting times accounted for at least 11% of total waiting time. Approximately 40-80% of the time patients with TJA wait for surgery was in the consultation period. Fifty-four per cent of new referrals were initially rejected, prolonging patient waits by 8-46 business days. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that variation in referral processing led to increased waiting times for patients. The large proportion of total wait attributable to waiting for a surgical consultation makes failure to measure and evaluate this period a significant omission. Improving referral processes and decreasing variation between clinics would improve patient access to these specialist referrals in Alberta.

Voluntary versus involuntary waiting for joint replacements: new Alberta wait times rules for hip and knee arthroplasties, with provincial consensus.

Despite various health system improvements across Alberta, the wait times benchmark was not being met for all patients requiring hip or knee arthroplasty. Alberta Health Services Bone and Joint Clinical Network working groups, in collaboration with other provincial organizations, gained consensus on the development and implementation of a set of provincial Wait Times Rules. These rules standardize the definition and measurement of data elements specific to joint replacement and distinguish between voluntary (patient-related) versus involuntary (healthcare system-related) wait times. Collectively, this information will help identify trends in wait times and more accurately show where wait times can be reduced.