Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMikuls, Ted R.
dc.contributor.authorMacLean, Catherine H.
dc.contributor.authorOlivieri, Jason
dc.contributor.authorPatino, Fausto G.
dc.contributor.authorAllison, Jeroan J.
dc.contributor.authorFarrar, John T.
dc.contributor.authorBilker, Warren B.
dc.contributor.authorSaag, Kenneth G.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:43.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:17:35Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:17:35Z
dc.date.issued2004-03-17
dc.date.submitted2010-08-05
dc.identifier.citationArthritis Rheum. 2004 Mar;50(3):937-43. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.20102">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0004-3591 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/art.20102
dc.identifier.pmid15022337
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47660
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: 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 teleconference 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 > or =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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15022337&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.20102
dc.subjectGout
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectQuality Indicators, Health Care
dc.subjectBioinformatics
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titleQuality of care indicators for gout management
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleArthritis and rheumatism
dc.source.volume50
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/788
dc.identifier.contextkey1426262
html.description.abstract<p>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.</p> <p>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 teleconference 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 > or =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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/788
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages937-43


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record