Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Review ArticleReview

Quality of Care for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Mind the Knowledge Gap

Vera Golder, Eric F. Morand and Alberta Y. Hoi
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2017, 44 (3) 271-278; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.160334
Vera Golder
From the Monash University School of Clinical Sciences, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: vera.golder@monash.edu
Eric F. Morand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alberta Y. Hoi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototypical chronic multiorgan autoimmune disorder that can lead to significant burden of disease and loss of life expectancy. The disease burden is the result of a complex interplay between genetic, biologic, socioeconomic, and health system variables affecting the individual. Recent advances in biological understanding of SLE are yet to translate to transformative therapies, and genetic and socioeconomic variables are not readily amenable to intervention. In contrast, healthcare quality, a variable readily amenable to change, has been inadequately addressed in SLE, despite evidence in other chronic diseases that quality of care is strongly associated with patient outcomes. This article will analyze the available literature on the quality of care relevant to SLE, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest ways to address this in future research.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
  • PHYSICIAN PRACTICE PATTERNS
  • PATIENT SATISFACTION
  • OUTCOMES
  • PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic multisystem autoimmune disease resulting in significant morbidity and loss of life expectancy1. Advances in the understanding of disease pathogenesis have identified new therapeutic targets, but negative randomized controlled studies have stalled translation to clinical use2. Progress has been made in defining treatment goals, which will potentially lead to the implementation of treatment strategies for SLE3. For the present, however, a significant knowledge gap exists regarding the optimization of treatment regimens4, such that evidence-based guidelines for treatment escalation or de-escalation are not in place. While molecular and strategic advances in the treatment of SLE are anticipated, patients continue to experience significant disease burden because of active disease and treatment-related morbidity5. Patient-reported outcome studies have also shown considerable adverse effects of SLE on patients’ perception of health, daily activities, and disability6.

Similar to other chronic diseases, SLE requires frequent interaction with the healthcare system even in asymptomatic patients7. Disease outcomes in SLE, whether considered in terms of mortality, disease activity, end-organ manifestations, or patient-reported measures, are the result of a complex interplay between genetic, biological, socioeconomic, and environmental variables8. In other chronic diseases9,10, research into quality of care has attracted much interest because of the demonstration of a relationship between better quality care and improved patient outcomes. In contrast, the study of healthcare quality has been largely overlooked in SLE, despite it being an area that is potentially highly amenable to intervention (Figure 1). Identifying deficiencies in quality of care can pave the way for strategies, such as the development of evidence-based chronic disease management programs, that can significantly affect patient outcomes even in the absence of new drugs. Our review analyzed the available literature on the quality of care in SLE, identified key knowledge gaps in application of healthcare quality approaches to SLE, and addressed ways to bridge these gaps in future studies.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Effect of genetic, socioeconomic, and care-related variables on outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). There are many determinants of outcome in SLE that can be broadly grouped into genetic, biologic, socioeconomic, and health system variables. Genetic variables (e.g., ethnicity or gene polymorphisms) and socioeconomic and environmental variables (e.g., household income and education) are largely irremediable. In contrast, certain biological variables (e.g., cytokines) and healthcare delivery variables can be modified. Some SLE outcomes can be conceptualized as linear, such as disease activity leading to disease damage and consequent mortality. Other outcomes such as changes in quality of life, employment, disability, and cost have a more complex relationship, may not develop sequentially, and can influence each other.

Defining and measuring healthcare quality

Healthcare quality can be defined as a measure of practice patterns that may affect health outcomes. It takes into consideration the characteristics of the physicians and other healthcare providers, hospital and other healthcare settings, as well as the interactions between healthcare providers and patients in different stages of a patient’s journey. Given its multifaceted design, different frameworks have been used to understand the broad dimensions that healthcare quality covers. The Donabedian framework, for example, is most commonly used, and describes a linear relationship between healthcare structures, processes of care, and health-related outcomes (Figure 2 and Table 1)7,11–20,21–30,31,32,33,34,35,36.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Healthcare quality assessment. * Areas or dimensions of healthcare performance that can be quantitatively assessed and improved36. ** Levels of healthcare measurement based on Donabedian’s framework, which describes a linear relationship between healthcare structure, processes, outputs, and outcomes35.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of selected studies assessing quality of care in SLE. Table demonstrates the range of healthcare quality topics studied and how they link to different aspects and levels of quality measurement described in Figure 2.

Improvement in quality of care in chronic diseases can be conceptualized according to areas such as access, efficiency, effectiveness, appropriateness, acceptability, and safety (Figure 2 and Table 1)36. The McColl Institute Chronic Care Model (CCM), a multidirectional framework of quality of care, has been applied to several chronic diseases in primary care with resultant improvements in preventive care and reduction in hospitalizations10. Models of care for the prevention and management of disability have resulted in improved patient outcomes in several musculoskeletal conditions, such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), chronic back pain, and osteoporosis37. SLE has a lower prevalence than other musculoskeletal conditions, but is more complex, and its management within the healthcare system is complicated and costly. Therefore, it seems likely that improvements in healthcare quality in SLE have the potential to improve patient outcomes and potentially reduce cost.

Research on healthcare quality has lagged other areas of research. Qualitative health quality research, such as gathering information about the healthcare system from focus groups, can often shed light on factors that are worthy of pursuit38. Interview- or observation-based methods can examine the priorities of patients and caregivers, and identify potential obstacles to improvement.

Quantitative health quality research can complement qualitative research. The development of quality indicators, sometimes referred to as performance indicators, allows the assessment of practice variation based on evidence-based practice and expert opinion. Disease-specific quality indicators are available in a few rheumatological conditions such as RA39, OA40, and systemic sclerosis41. Successful use of quality indicator performance data allows identification of gaps between guidelines and actual practice. It highlights areas where there may be variability between different healthcare settings, and the results may lead to a reassessment of the effectiveness of interventions as laid out in published guidelines42.

Healthcare quality needs to be distinguished from quality of life. Patients with SLE report reduced health-related quality of life compared with the general population, with measures similar to those of patients with coronary artery disease, endstage airways disease, human immunodeficiency virus, and RA6,43. As a group, these diseases have been recognized as among the leading causes of the global disability burden from chronic disease44. While they are distinct concepts, improved healthcare quality can improve quality of life.

Quality of care in SLE — the worldwide experience

Healthcare structure

The literature on the effect of healthcare structure in SLE, summarized in Table 1, is dominated by studies in the United States that largely report issues related to access to care. Vast disparities in access are described45, heavily skewed by patients’ medical insurance status, which plays a crucial role in access to and therefore receipt of appropriate care11. Patients lacking insurance have infrequent specialist care12, travel farther to see a specialist, and are more likely to attend the emergency department for care of their SLE13. Insurance status has been shown to have a significant effect on delivery of preventive care17, hospital admission30,31, morbidity22,27,28,46, and mortality32,33.

The effect of insurance status on the quality of care in SLE suggests that this is not only a significant factor in outcomes, but a major research confounder. In contrast to the literature on the effect of health insurance on quality of care in the United States, there are very few data on other structural aspects of the healthcare system, such as issues relating to access to specialists from countries with universal healthcare. In a Canadian cross-sectional questionnaire of patients with SLE and physicians, barriers to healthcare were identified by both, particularly access to medications, which are not universally covered in Canada14. Interestingly, patients identified more barriers than did physicians. Studies from Germany and Russia have shown that patients with SLE wait long periods to receive specialist care47 and continue to accrue significant damage48.

Processes of care

Processes of care, as described by the Donabedian framework, include all the interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. Processes of care are thought to be more sensitive to change than structural components in healthcare quality research, and variation in practice has been shown in different disease models to lead to differences in outcomes49.

Quality indicators in SLE management have mostly been focused on processes of care. There are at least 2 sets of SLE quality indicators that have been developed based on rigorous methodology established by Mosca, et al50 and Yazdany, et al51. Evidence-based quality indicators were used to assess performance in categories such as immunization and sun avoidance, osteoporosis and drug monitoring, renal and cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention, and pregnancy care by reporting the proportion of eligible patients receiving the care advocated by each quality measure51. In some areas such as counseling for sun avoidance and vitamin D supplementation, performance was high (83%–90%), whereas management of hypertension in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) and assessment of traditional CV risk factors was received by only 54% and 29% of patients, respectively18. This large variation in the delivery of evidence-based care highlights an urgent need to revise healthcare processes to improve implementation of care.

Other studies in SLE have also shown poor performance on osteoporosis and CV disease care19,20, as well as reproductive health measures such as counseling about teratogenic medications21,52. Likewise, recommended primary care preventive services such as immunizations and cancer screening were received by less than a third of patients with SLE in the southeastern United States53. In these studies, predictors of poor performance on quality indicators were younger age, non-white ethnicity, and fewer physician visits; the results suggest a lack of adequate health insurance was again a major driver of these discrepancies18,21,30,53. A further US study of quality indicator performance in LN found that among patients without insurance, only a third had received any immunosuppression by 12 months post-diagnosis, and 13% relied on the emergency department for routine care of their SLE22. Risk factors for suboptimal care of LN included endstage renal disease54, non-white ethnicity, and a lack of insurance29.

Appropriate medication use can also be measured by relevant quality indicators, with cost-effectiveness studies of immunosuppressive treatment showing vast potential savings to health systems and patients24,25. Even the use of antimalarial medication, known to have a protective effect on survival55, is still suboptimal in some studies, with reported use ranging from 57%–73%23,56. Routine measurement of hydroxychloroquine and other immunosuppressive treatment drug levels has been suggested as a method to improve adherence4, but to be effective this must coincide with improved physician-patient communication57, something that can potentially be achieved through improved models of care for SLE.

Other quality indicators may also be developed based on our understanding of SLE as a chronic disease. Using the CCM framework, quality indicators in relation to clinical information systems, decision support, self-management support, and community linkages can also be studied and validated. To date, there has been no study to examine the application of CCM framework in SLE and its relationship with disease or patient outcomes, but it has been suggested in a review to be highly applicable to SLE58.

Healthcare outputs and outcomes

There have been few quality-of-care studies examining healthcare outputs and outcomes in SLE. Avoidable hospitalizations for conditions such as pneumonia, congestive cardiac failure, and cellulitis occur in 12.7% of patients with SLE in 1 study31, and readmission rates within 30 days can be as high as 16.5%30. In-hospital mortality has been examined in relation to physician or hospital experience, that is, the collective experience of the treating physician or hospital in dealing with patients with complicated SLE. Patients who present themselves to highly experienced hospitals are less likely to die32,33. In the Lupus Outcomes study, better performance on quality indicators was associated with improved longterm outcomes such as damage accrual, confirming the validity of using performance on quality indicators to improve patient outcomes26.

The patient perspective

Healthcare system performance, including structure, process, and outcomes, can also be measured through indices of patient experience, providing an assessment that is complementary to measures obtained from clinical record reviews. Certain components of the patient experience can be quantitatively measured, for example, waiting time, doctor communication, and availability of patient information59. Patients with SLE are able to identify their perceived unmet needs for care15,60, and inadequate education, lack of support at the time of diagnosis, emotional and physical barriers to care, and difficulty navigating the health system have been documented among these needs61. Evidence suggests that patients with SLE feel misunderstood by their families, the community, and even the specialists treating them62, with the result that patients feel that their quality of life needs are not met by treating teams63.

While some variables can be measured directly, patient experience is inherently multifaceted, influenced by disease severity, previous care experience, and inherent patient values. One US study showed that satisfaction with SLE care was higher among patients at tertiary centers compared with regional centers, despite care being provided by the same physicians16. There is a strong association between patient interaction with providers and the health system and performance on technical quality of care, although further study is required to clarify cause and effect in this relationship64. Nevertheless, satisfied patients have been shown to be more treatment-adherent and allegiant to healthcare providers, 2 factors associated with better clinical outcomes and quality of life65.

Are we doing enough to measure and improve healthcare quality in SLE?

Measuring performance on quality indicators in SLE could lead to the identification of addressable deficiencies in healthcare, and in turn to redesigning the current model of care. Little is known regarding whether interventions that improve performance on quality indicators will translate into an improvement in outcomes, but the positive relationship between higher quality of care and lower damage accrual in the Lupus Outcome Study is encouraging26. In addition, there are limited data on the relationship between healthcare quality and health economic burden in SLE. Interventions to improve healthcare quality do not necessarily mean additional cost. Savings can be made if improvement in healthcare quality results in a substantial improvement in productivity, quality of life, or survival. Much remains to be done.

Unlike diseases such as RA, few evidence-based models of care exist for SLE, despite a burden of pain, functional limitation, and reduced health status equivalent to that of patients with RA66. A treat-to-target approach has been proposed to improve outcomes in SLE, and achievement of such a target was recently reported to be associated with improved SLE outcomes67. While many large observational cohorts of patients with SLE monitor clinical and biological variables, very little is known about healthcare quality in these cohorts, despite performance on quality indicators being potentially just as important for disease outcomes26.

The first step in improving healthcare quality in SLE must therefore be developing systems that routinely measure quality of care, and correlate these against important patient outcomes (Figure 3). A variety of data sources are available including direct reporting by patients, medical record reviews, or administrative data. Performance on quality indicators can then be used to determine whether improvement can be made at the structural or process level. For example, in Australia, specialist care for SLE is provided by rheumatologists, nephrologists, and immunologists in any combination of solo private practice, public hospital general clinics, or specialized SLE clinics68, each of which has been established without data on the benefits or otherwise of that particular structure. Clinicians should take a leadership role in gathering data that will provide the backbone of better clinical governance and healthcare quality research.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Conceptual quality assessment and improvement strategy using processes of care. Aspects of healthcare quality can be measured and changed at multiple levels. The most commonly measured aspect of quality is the process of care, documenting the actual care the patient receives. Quality indicators are disease-specific measures of processes of care, designed as a benchmark for the minimally acceptable standard of care based on evidence. Using these to assess the process of care allows for the identification of deficiencies, and therefore of targets for improvement. Addressing these deficiencies is done through process redesign, ensuring that the desired care needs are met. Improvements in care quality in turn have the potential to translate to better patient outcomes. Top row is adapted from Donabedian’s framework35.

Conclusions and recommendations for future research

Much of the current research on SLE outcomes focuses on the effect of biological determinants, even though many of these are not modifiable with current treatments (Figure 1). In contrast, health system variables such as quality of care are highly amenable to change, but have been comparatively neglected in SLE. Policy change and the implementation of new programs are challenging, but experience in other chronic diseases suggests that significant benefits may result if healthcare quality can be improved. Assessment of quality of care in SLE should no longer be ignored. Using conceptual models of chronic disease management as a roadmap, current practice can be reconfigured to an evidence-based approach that meets the needs of individual patients with SLE. The first step, analyzing deficiencies in quality of care, can happen in any SLE clinic today; we advocate that it should.

  • Accepted for publication November 9, 2016.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ippolito A,
    2. Petri M
    . An update on mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008;26 Suppl 51:S72–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Leone A,
    2. Sciascia S,
    3. Kamal A,
    4. Khamashta M
    . Biologicals for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: current status and emerging therapies. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2015;11:109–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Franklyn K,
    2. Hoi A,
    3. Nikpour M,
    4. Morand EF
    . The need to define treatment goals for systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2014;10:567–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Croyle L,
    2. Morand EF
    . Optimizing the use of existing therapies in lupus. Int J Rheum Dis 2015;18:129–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Zonana-Nacach A,
    2. Barr SG,
    3. Magder LS,
    4. Petri M
    . Damage in systemic lupus erythematosus and its association with corticosteroids. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1801–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kiani A,
    2. Petri M
    . Quality-of-life measurements versus disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2010;12:250–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Ibañez D,
    3. Ruiz I,
    4. Urowitz MB
    . Recommendations for frequency of visits to monitor systemic lupus erythematosus in asymptomatic patients: data from an observational cohort study. J Rheumatol 2013;40:630–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Alarcón GS,
    2. McGwin G Jr,
    3. Bartolucci AA,
    4. Roseman J,
    5. Lisse J,
    6. Fessler BJ,
    7. et al;
    8. LUMINA Study Group
    . Lupus in Minority Populations, Nature versus Nurture. Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. IX. Differences in damage accrual. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2797–806.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Tricco AC,
    2. Antony J,
    3. Ivers NM,
    4. Ashoor HM,
    5. Khan PA,
    6. Blondal E,
    7. et al.
    Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2014;186:E568–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Coleman K,
    2. Austin BT,
    3. Brach C,
    4. Wagner EH
    . Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium. Health Aff 2009;28:75–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Gillis JZ,
    3. Trupin L,
    4. Katz P,
    5. Panopalis P,
    6. Criswell LA,
    7. et al.
    Association of socioeconomic and demographic factors with utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:593–600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Tonner C,
    2. Trupin L,
    3. Yazdany J,
    4. Criswell L,
    5. Katz P,
    6. Yelin E
    . Role of community and individual characteristics in physician visits for persons with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:888–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gillis JZ,
    2. Yazdany J,
    3. Trupin L,
    4. Julian L,
    5. Panopalis P,
    6. Criswell LA,
    7. et al.
    Medicaid and access to care among persons with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:601–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Law G,
    2. Pope J,
    3. Lalani S,
    4. Silverman E,
    5. Cooper G,
    6. Fortin P,
    7. et al.
    Barriers to healthcare in a multiethnic cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients: patient and physician perceptions. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2009;2:1–8.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Moses N,
    2. Wiggers J,
    3. Nicholas C,
    4. Cockburn J
    . Prevalence and correlates of perceived unmet needs of people with systemic lupus erythematosus. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:30–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Dua AB,
    2. Aggarwal R,
    3. Mikolaitis RA,
    4. Sequeira W,
    5. Block JA,
    6. Jolly M
    . Rheumatologists’ quality of care for lupus: comparison study between a university and county hospital. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1261–4.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Tonner C,
    3. Trupin L,
    4. Panopalis P,
    5. Gillis JZ,
    6. Hersh AO,
    7. et al.
    Provision of preventive health care in systemic lupus erythematosus: data from a large observational cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Trupin L,
    3. Tonner C,
    4. Dudley RA,
    5. Zell J,
    6. Panopalis P,
    7. et al.
    Quality of care in systemic lupus erythematosus: application of quality measures to understand gaps in care. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1326–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Schmajuk G,
    2. Yelin E,
    3. Chakravarty E,
    4. Nelson LM,
    5. Panopolis P,
    6. Yazdany J
    . Osteoporosis screening, prevention, and treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus: application of the systemic lupus erythematosus quality indicators. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:993–1001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Demas KL,
    2. Keenan BT,
    3. Solomon DH,
    4. Yazdany J,
    5. Costenbader KH
    . Osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease care in systemic lupus erythematosus according to new quality indicators. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2010;40:193–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Quinzanos I,
    2. Davis L,
    3. Keniston A,
    4. Nash A,
    5. Yazdany J,
    6. Fransen R,
    7. et al.
    Application and feasibility of systemic lupus erythematosus reproductive health care quality indicators at a public urban rheumatology clinic. Lupus 2015;24:203–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Feldman CH,
    3. Liu J,
    4. Ward MM,
    5. Fischer MA,
    6. Costenbader KH
    . Quality of care for incident lupus nephritis among Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:617–24.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Tsang-A-Sjoe MW,
    2. Bultink IE,
    3. Voskuyl AE
    . Long-term evaluation of antimalarials in a Dutch SLE cohort: intolerance and other reasons for non-use. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32:95–100.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. McInnes PM,
    2. Schuttinga J,
    3. Sanslone WR,
    4. Stark SP,
    5. Klippel JH
    . The economic impact of treatment of severe lupus nephritis with prednisone and intravenous cyclophosphamide. Arthritis Rheum 1994;37:1000–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Nee R,
    2. Rivera I,
    3. Little DJ,
    4. Yuan CM,
    5. Abbott KC
    . Cost-utility analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine based regimens for maintenance therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Int J Nephrol 2015;2015:917567.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Trupin L,
    3. Schmajuk G,
    4. Katz PP,
    5. Yelin EH
    . Quality of care in systemic lupus erythematosus: the association between process and outcome measures in the Lupus Outcomes Study. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:659–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Medical insurance, socioeconomic status, and age of onset of endstage renal disease in patients with lupus nephritis. J Rheumatol 2007;34:2024–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Access to care and the incidence of endstage renal disease due to systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1158–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Plantinga LC,
    2. Drenkard C,
    3. Patzer RE,
    4. Klein M,
    5. Kramer MR,
    6. Pastan S,
    7. et al.
    Sociodemographic and geographic predictors of quality of care in United States patients with end-stage renal disease due to lupus nephritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:761–72.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Marafino BJ,
    3. Dean ML,
    4. Bardach NS,
    5. Duseja R,
    6. Ward MM,
    7. et al.
    Thirty-day hospital readmissions in systemic lupus erythematosus: predictors and hospital- and state-level variation. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:2828–36.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Avoidable hospitalizations in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:162–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Hospital experience and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: which patients benefit most from treatment at highly experienced hospitals? J Rheumatol 2002;29:1198–206.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Association between physician volume and in-hospital mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1646–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Lawson EF,
    2. Yazdany J
    . Healthcare quality in systemic lupus erythematosus: using Donabedian’s conceptual framework to understand what we know. Int J Clin Rheumatol 2012;7:95–107.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Donabedian A
    . The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Institute of Medicine; Committee on Quality of Health Care in America
    . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Speerin R,
    2. Slater H,
    3. Li L,
    4. Moore K,
    5. Chan M,
    6. Dreinhöfer K,
    7. et al.
    Moving from evidence to practice: Models of care for the prevention and management of musculoskeletal conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:479–515.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Pope C,
    2. van Royen P,
    3. Baker R
    . Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:148–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. MacLean CH,
    2. Saag KG,
    3. Solomon DH,
    4. Morton SC,
    5. Sampsel S,
    6. Klippel JH
    . Measuring quality in arthritis care: methods for developing the Arthritis Foundation’s quality indicator set. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:193–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Edwards JJ,
    2. Khanna M,
    3. Jordan KP,
    4. Jordan JL,
    5. Bedson J,
    6. Dziedzic KS
    . Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:490–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Khanna D,
    2. Kowal-Bielecka O,
    3. Khanna PP,
    4. Lapinska A,
    5. Asch SM,
    6. Wenger N,
    7. et al.
    Quality indicator set for systemic sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011;29 Suppl 65:S33–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Chassin MR,
    2. Hannan EL,
    3. DeBuono BA
    . Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. N Engl J Med 1996;334:394–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Jolly M
    . How does quality of life of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus compare with that of other common chronic illnesses? J Rheumatol 2005;32:1706–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. March L,
    2. Smith EU,
    3. Hoy DG,
    4. Cross MJ,
    5. Sanchez-Riera L,
    6. Blyth F,
    7. et al.
    Burden of disability due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:353–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. Demas KL,
    2. Costenbader KH
    . Disparities in lupus care and outcomes. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009;21:102–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Maynard JW,
    2. Fang H,
    3. Petri M
    . Low socioeconomic status is associated with cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2012;39:777–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Albrecht K,
    2. Huscher D,
    3. Richter J,
    4. Backhaus M,
    5. Bischoff S,
    6. Kötter I,
    7. et al.
    Changes in referral, treatment and outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in Germany in the 1990s and the 2000s. Lupus Sci Med 2014;1:e000059.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Nasonov E,
    2. Soloviev S,
    3. Davidson JE,
    4. Lila A,
    5. Togizbayev G,
    6. Ivanova R,
    7. et al.
    Standard medical care of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in large specialised centres: data from the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Republic of Kazakhstan (ESSENCE). Lupus Sci Med 2015;2:e000060.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Brook RH,
    2. McGlynn EA,
    3. Cleary PD
    . Measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 1996;335:966–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Mosca M,
    2. Tani C,
    3. Aringer M,
    4. Bombardieri S,
    5. Boumpas D,
    6. Cervera R,
    7. et al.
    Development of quality indicators to evaluate the monitoring of SLE patients in routine clinical practice. Autoimmun Rev 2011;10:383–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Panopalis P,
    3. Gillis JZ,
    4. Schmajuk G,
    5. MacLean CH,
    6. Wofsy D,
    7. et al;
    8. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Quality Indicators Project Expert Panels
    . A quality indicator set for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:370–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Yazdany J,
    2. Trupin L,
    3. Kaiser R,
    4. Schmajuk G,
    5. Gillis JZ,
    6. Chakravarty E,
    7. et al.
    Contraceptive counseling and use among women with systemic lupus erythematosus: a gap in health care quality? Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:358–65.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Drenkard C,
    2. Rask KJ,
    3. Easley KA,
    4. Bao G,
    5. Lim SS
    . Primary preventive services in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: study from a population-based sample in Southeast U.S. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013;43:209–16.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Plantinga LC,
    2. Patzer RE,
    3. Drenkard C,
    4. Pastan SO,
    5. Cobb J,
    6. McClellan W,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of quality-of-care measures in U.S. patients with end-stage renal disease secondary to lupus nephritis vs. other causes. BMC Nephrol 2015;16:39.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    1. Alarcón GS,
    2. McGwin G,
    3. Bertoli AM,
    4. Fessler BJ,
    5. Calvo-Alén J,
    6. Bastian HM,
    7. et al;
    8. LUMINA Study Group
    . Effect of hydroxychloroquine on the survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: data from LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA L). Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1168–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Fernández M,
    2. McGwin G Jr,
    3. Bertoli AM,
    4. Calvo-Alén J,
    5. Vilá LM,
    6. Reveille JD,
    7. et al.
    Discontinuation rate and factors predictive of the use of hydroxychloroquine in LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA XL). Lupus 2006;15:700–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Koneru S,
    2. Kocharla L,
    3. Higgins GC,
    4. Ware A,
    5. Passo MH,
    6. Farhey YD,
    7. et al.
    Adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Rheumatol 2008;14:195–201.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Williams EM,
    2. Ortiz K,
    3. Browne T
    . Social determinants of health, the chronic care model, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Int J Chronic Dis 2014;2014:361792.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Ahmed F,
    2. Burt J,
    3. Roland M
    . Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods. Patient 2014;7:235–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Moses N,
    2. Wiggers J,
    3. Nicholas C
    . Persistence of unmet need for care among people with systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study. Qual Life Res 2008;17:867–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Feldman CH,
    2. Bermas BL,
    3. Zibit M,
    4. Fraser P,
    5. Todd DJ,
    6. Fortin PR,
    7. et al.
    Designing an intervention for women with systemic lupus erythematosus from medically underserved areas to improve care: a qualitative study. Lupus 2013;22:52–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Sutanto B,
    2. Singh-Grewal D,
    3. McNeil HP,
    4. O’Neill S,
    5. Craig JC,
    6. Jones J,
    7. et al.
    Experiences and perspectives of adults living with systemic lupus erythematosus: thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:1752–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    1. Hale ED,
    2. Treharne GJ,
    3. Lyons AC,
    4. Norton Y,
    5. Mole S,
    6. Mitton DL,
    7. et al.
    “Joining the dots” for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: personal perspectives of health care from a qualitative study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:585–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Yelin E,
    2. Yazdany J,
    3. Tonner C,
    4. Trupin L,
    5. Criswell LA,
    6. Katz P,
    7. et al.
    Interactions between patients, providers, and health systems and technical quality of care. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:417–24.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    1. Epstein RM,
    2. Fiscella K,
    3. Lesser CS,
    4. Stange KC
    . Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff 2010;29:1489–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Zink A,
    2. Fischer-Betz R,
    3. Thiele K,
    4. Listing J,
    5. Huscher D,
    6. Gromnica-Ihle E,
    7. et al;
    8. German Collaborative Arthritis Centers
    . Health care and burden of illness in systemic lupus erythematosus compared to rheumatoid arthritis: results from the National Database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres. Lupus 2004;13:529–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Franklyn K,
    2. Lau CS,
    3. Navarra SV,
    4. Louthrenoo W,
    5. Lateef A,
    6. Hamijoyo L,
    7. et al;
    8. Asia-Pacific Lupus Collaboration
    . Definition and initial validation of a Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS). Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:1615–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. Morand EF,
    2. Leech MT
    . Successes, challenges and developments in Australian rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2015;11:430–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 44, Issue 3
1 Mar 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality of Care for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Mind the Knowledge Gap
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Quality of Care for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Mind the Knowledge Gap
Vera Golder, Eric F. Morand, Alberta Y. Hoi
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2017, 44 (3) 271-278; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.160334

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Quality of Care for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Mind the Knowledge Gap
Vera Golder, Eric F. Morand, Alberta Y. Hoi
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2017, 44 (3) 271-278; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.160334
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
PHYSICIAN PRACTICE PATTERNS
PATIENT SATISFACTION
OUTCOMES
PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Propensity Score Methods in Rare Disease: A Demonstration Using Observational Data in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy
  • Imaging Techniques: Options for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Treatment of Enthesitis in Psoriatic Arthritis
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • systemic lupus erythematosus
  • physician practice patterns
  • PATIENT SATISFACTION
  • outcomes
  • PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire