2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient-Initiated Follow-Up (PIFU) as reorganized support for increased patient involvement – focus group discussions among patients’ with inflammatory arthritis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Inflammatory Arthritis is characterized by lifelong medical treatment and an unpredictable trajectory because of the fluctuating nature of the diseases. Proactive disease management is recommended, which includes close monitoring of disease activity that traditionally has been ensured by outpatient visits to rheumatologists at various fixed intervals. Internationally, there is a growing interest in how healthcare systems can be more flexible, individual-oriented and increasingly involve patients with lifelong diseases in their own treatment and care. We aimed to explore how patients with Inflammatory Arthritis with low disease activity or remission (DAS-CRP < 2.9) experience patient involvement in a reorganized follow-up care based on flexibility and patient-initiated contact.

          Methods

          We conducted a qualitative study based on four mixed group discussions focused on patients with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis [ n = 21], axial spondyloarthritis [ n = 3] and psoriatic arthritis [ n = 1]) participating in a reorganized follow-up care. Changes in follow-up included access to a nurse and patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). The analysis was based on content analysis. The reporting adheres to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).

          Results

          In total, 25 patients (20 females (80%), mean age 61.8 [range 28–79]) participated. We identified three categories. 1) Patient-Initiated Follow-Up do not affect patients’ perceived support in disease control; this refers to patients’ experience of more time available through better resource utilization, as well as trust that access to professional support would be available whenever needed. The category 2) Information is valued by patients to delineate responsibilities in a new patient role reflects patients’ uncertainty in the transition to PIFU, combined with confusion about the distribution of responsibilities. 3) Patients need both extended perspectives of their arthritis and focused dialogue is about expanding patients’ understanding of their arthritis by interaction over time with both a rheumatologist and a rheumatology nurse in a focused dialogue to involve the patient.

          Conclusions

          Patients participating in PIFU welcome the flexibility and involvement. However, patients need relevant information to act adequately within a new patient role. Interaction with both rheumatologists and nurses, combined with sufficient time for dialogue, broaden patients’ perspective, make opportunities for action visible, and contribute to patients’ ability to participate in follow-up care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Self-management support from the perspective of patients with a chronic condition: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

          Receiving adequate support seems to be crucial to the success of self-management. Although different empirical studies separately examined patients' preferences for self-management support (SMS), an overview is lacking.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Danish nationwide clinical register for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: DANBIO

            Introduction DANBIO is a research register and a data source for rheumatologic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis) for monitoring clinical quality at the national, regional, and hospital levels. Study population The register includes patients with rheumatologic diseases who are treated at a hospital or a private rheumatologic clinic. Registration is mandatory for all patients with RA regardless of treatment and also for patients with other diagnoses if treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Since 2006, the registration has been done electronically, including patient-reported outcome measures registered electronically by the patients with the use of touch screens. Main variables Core variables such as diagnosis, year of diagnosis, age, and sex are registered at the beginning. Data entered at later visits included the following: patient-reported outcomes for disease activity, pain, fatigue, functional status, and physician-reported objective measures of disease activity, treatment, C-reactive protein, and, when indicated, imaging. For subgroups of patients, the variables such as quality of life, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle, and comorbidity are also registered. Descriptive data The DANBIO cohort comprised ∼26,000 patients with RA, 3,200 patients with axial spondyloarthritis, and 6,200 patients with psoriatic arthritis in 2015. DANBIO has high nationwide coverage and completeness on key data variables. More than 60 original papers as well as annual reports of clinical quality (since 2005) have been published. Conclusion DANBIO is a powerful register for research in rheumatologic diseases and furthermore serves as a Clinical Quality Register with the aim of monitoring treatment quality in patients with RA in Denmark.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies.

              While the use of PROs in research is well established, many challenges lie ahead as their use is extended to other applications. There is consensus that health outcome evaluations that include PROs along with clinician-reported outcomes and administrative data are necessary to inform clinical and policy decisions. The initiatives presented in this paper underline evolving recognition that PROs play a unique role in adding the patient perspective alongside clinical (e.g., blood pressure) and organizational (e.g., admission rates) indicators for evaluating the effects of new products, selecting treatments, evaluating quality of care, and monitoring the health of the population. In this paper, we first explore the use of PRO measures to support drug approval and labeling claims. We critically evaluate the evidence and challenges associated with using PRO measures to improve healthcare delivery at individual and population levels. We further discuss the challenges associated with selecting from the abundance of measures available, opportunities afforded by agreeing on common metrics for constructs of interest, and the importance of establishing an evidence base that supports integrating PRO measures across the healthcare system to improve outcomes. We conclude that the integration of PROs as a key end point within individual patient care, healthcare organization and program performance evaluations, and population surveillance will be essential for evaluating whether increased healthcare expenditure is translating into better health outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                biancabech@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Rheumatol
                BMC Rheumatol
                BMC Rheumatology
                BioMed Central (London )
                2520-1026
                30 June 2020
                30 June 2020
                2020
                : 4
                : 44
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre for Head and Orthopaedics, , Rigshospitalet, ; Valdemar Hansens Vej 17, Indgang 5, stuen, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark
                [2 ]GRID grid.475435.4, Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, , Rigshospitalet, ; Glostrup, Denmark
                [3 ]Patient Research Partner, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [4 ]GRID grid.5254.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0674 042X, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, , University of Copenhagen, ; Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3424-2107
                Article
                143
                10.1186/s41927-020-00143-6
                7325086
                32613158
                ec58d7f8-cffc-4588-b394-f65b70f07ad8
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 14 February 2020
                : 1 June 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005275, Region Hovedstaden;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                dialogue,disease management,nurse-led outpatient clinic,nurse’s role,open-access,patient experiences,pifu,practice patterns,responsibility,rheumatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article