Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management

Ted R Mikuls, Catherine H. MacLean, Jason Olivieri, Fausto Patino, Jeroan J. Allison, John T. Farrar, Warren B. Bilker, Kenneth G. Saag

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

128 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. Despite the significant health impact of gout, there is no consensus on management standards. To guide physician practice, we sought to develop quality of care indicators for gout management. Methods. A systematic literature review of gout therapy was performed using the Medline database. Two abstractors independently reviewed each of the articles for relevance and satisfaction of minimal inclusion criteria. Based on the review of the literature, 11 preliminary quality indicators were developed and then reviewed and refined by an initial feasibility panel of community and academic rheumatologists. A twelfth indicator was added at the request of the first panel. Using a modification of the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method (bridging telleconference and white-board Internet technology were added), a second expert panel rated each of the proposed indicators for validity using a 9-point scale, in which ratings of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 were considered "invalid," "indeterminate," and "highly valid," respectively. Indicators were considered valid if the median panel rating was ≥7 and there was no evidence of panel disagreement (defined to occur when 2 of 6 panelists provided a validity rating of 1-3 and 2 panelists provided a validity rating of 7-9). Results. Ten of the 12 draft indicators were rated to be valid by our second expert panel. Validated indicators pertained to 1) the use of urate-lowering medications in chronic gout, 2) the use of antiinflammatory drugs, and 3) counseling on lifestyle modifications. Conclusion. Using a combination of evidence and expert opinion, 10 indicators for quality of gout care were developed. These indicators represent an important initial step in quality improvement initiatives for gout care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)937-943
Number of pages7
JournalArthritis and rheumatism
Volume50
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2004

Fingerprint

Gout
Quality of Health Care
Los Angeles
Expert Testimony
Quality Improvement
Uric Acid
Internet
Life Style
Counseling
Consensus
Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Databases
Technology
Physicians
Health
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Rheumatology
  • Immunology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Mikuls, T. R., MacLean, C. H., Olivieri, J., Patino, F., Allison, J. J., Farrar, J. T., ... Saag, K. G. (2004). Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management. Arthritis and rheumatism, 50(3), 937-943. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20102

Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management. / Mikuls, Ted R; MacLean, Catherine H.; Olivieri, Jason; Patino, Fausto; Allison, Jeroan J.; Farrar, John T.; Bilker, Warren B.; Saag, Kenneth G.

In: Arthritis and rheumatism, Vol. 50, No. 3, 01.03.2004, p. 937-943.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mikuls, TR, MacLean, CH, Olivieri, J, Patino, F, Allison, JJ, Farrar, JT, Bilker, WB & Saag, KG 2004, 'Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management', Arthritis and rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 937-943. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20102
Mikuls TR, MacLean CH, Olivieri J, Patino F, Allison JJ, Farrar JT et al. Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management. Arthritis and rheumatism. 2004 Mar 1;50(3):937-943. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20102
Mikuls, Ted R ; MacLean, Catherine H. ; Olivieri, Jason ; Patino, Fausto ; Allison, Jeroan J. ; Farrar, John T. ; Bilker, Warren B. ; Saag, Kenneth G. / Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management. In: Arthritis and rheumatism. 2004 ; Vol. 50, No. 3. pp. 937-943.
@article{ecfaeef4671743debcb37814805a2d65,
title = "Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management",
abstract = "Objective. Despite the significant health impact of gout, there is no consensus on management standards. To guide physician practice, we sought to develop quality of care indicators for gout management. Methods. A systematic literature review of gout therapy was performed using the Medline database. Two abstractors independently reviewed each of the articles for relevance and satisfaction of minimal inclusion criteria. Based on the review of the literature, 11 preliminary quality indicators were developed and then reviewed and refined by an initial feasibility panel of community and academic rheumatologists. A twelfth indicator was added at the request of the first panel. Using a modification of the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method (bridging telleconference and white-board Internet technology were added), a second expert panel rated each of the proposed indicators for validity using a 9-point scale, in which ratings of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 were considered {"}invalid,{"} {"}indeterminate,{"} and {"}highly valid,{"} respectively. Indicators were considered valid if the median panel rating was ≥7 and there was no evidence of panel disagreement (defined to occur when 2 of 6 panelists provided a validity rating of 1-3 and 2 panelists provided a validity rating of 7-9). Results. Ten of the 12 draft indicators were rated to be valid by our second expert panel. Validated indicators pertained to 1) the use of urate-lowering medications in chronic gout, 2) the use of antiinflammatory drugs, and 3) counseling on lifestyle modifications. Conclusion. Using a combination of evidence and expert opinion, 10 indicators for quality of gout care were developed. These indicators represent an important initial step in quality improvement initiatives for gout care.",
author = "Mikuls, {Ted R} and MacLean, {Catherine H.} and Jason Olivieri and Fausto Patino and Allison, {Jeroan J.} and Farrar, {John T.} and Bilker, {Warren B.} and Saag, {Kenneth G.}",
year = "2004",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/art.20102",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "937--943",
journal = "Arthritis and Rheumatology",
issn = "2326-5191",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of Care Indicators for Gout Management

AU - Mikuls, Ted R

AU - MacLean, Catherine H.

AU - Olivieri, Jason

AU - Patino, Fausto

AU - Allison, Jeroan J.

AU - Farrar, John T.

AU - Bilker, Warren B.

AU - Saag, Kenneth G.

PY - 2004/3/1

Y1 - 2004/3/1

N2 - Objective. Despite the significant health impact of gout, there is no consensus on management standards. To guide physician practice, we sought to develop quality of care indicators for gout management. Methods. A systematic literature review of gout therapy was performed using the Medline database. Two abstractors independently reviewed each of the articles for relevance and satisfaction of minimal inclusion criteria. Based on the review of the literature, 11 preliminary quality indicators were developed and then reviewed and refined by an initial feasibility panel of community and academic rheumatologists. A twelfth indicator was added at the request of the first panel. Using a modification of the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method (bridging telleconference and white-board Internet technology were added), a second expert panel rated each of the proposed indicators for validity using a 9-point scale, in which ratings of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 were considered "invalid," "indeterminate," and "highly valid," respectively. Indicators were considered valid if the median panel rating was ≥7 and there was no evidence of panel disagreement (defined to occur when 2 of 6 panelists provided a validity rating of 1-3 and 2 panelists provided a validity rating of 7-9). Results. Ten of the 12 draft indicators were rated to be valid by our second expert panel. Validated indicators pertained to 1) the use of urate-lowering medications in chronic gout, 2) the use of antiinflammatory drugs, and 3) counseling on lifestyle modifications. Conclusion. Using a combination of evidence and expert opinion, 10 indicators for quality of gout care were developed. These indicators represent an important initial step in quality improvement initiatives for gout care.

AB - Objective. Despite the significant health impact of gout, there is no consensus on management standards. To guide physician practice, we sought to develop quality of care indicators for gout management. Methods. A systematic literature review of gout therapy was performed using the Medline database. Two abstractors independently reviewed each of the articles for relevance and satisfaction of minimal inclusion criteria. Based on the review of the literature, 11 preliminary quality indicators were developed and then reviewed and refined by an initial feasibility panel of community and academic rheumatologists. A twelfth indicator was added at the request of the first panel. Using a modification of the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method (bridging telleconference and white-board Internet technology were added), a second expert panel rated each of the proposed indicators for validity using a 9-point scale, in which ratings of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 were considered "invalid," "indeterminate," and "highly valid," respectively. Indicators were considered valid if the median panel rating was ≥7 and there was no evidence of panel disagreement (defined to occur when 2 of 6 panelists provided a validity rating of 1-3 and 2 panelists provided a validity rating of 7-9). Results. Ten of the 12 draft indicators were rated to be valid by our second expert panel. Validated indicators pertained to 1) the use of urate-lowering medications in chronic gout, 2) the use of antiinflammatory drugs, and 3) counseling on lifestyle modifications. Conclusion. Using a combination of evidence and expert opinion, 10 indicators for quality of gout care were developed. These indicators represent an important initial step in quality improvement initiatives for gout care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1542313924&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1542313924&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/art.20102

DO - 10.1002/art.20102

M3 - Article

C2 - 15022337

AN - SCOPUS:1542313924

VL - 50

SP - 937

EP - 943

JO - Arthritis and Rheumatology

JF - Arthritis and Rheumatology

SN - 2326-5191

IS - 3

ER -