AbstractThe objective is to describe the spectrum of the health professional (HP) treatment approach for systemic sclerosis (SSc) from the perspective of Dutch HPs, including alignment of treatment... Show moreAbstractThe objective is to describe the spectrum of the health professional (HP) treatment approach for systemic sclerosis (SSc) from the perspective of Dutch HPs, including alignment of treatment goals set by HPs with self-reported referral reasons, coverage of patient-reported unmet care needs, and quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Dutch HPs were invited through their patients with SSc to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey covered referral reasons, treatment goals, and interventions of the last patient treated, as well as the perceived quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Referral reasons and treatment targets were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Seventy-nine HPs from 8 professions (including 58 physiotherapists, 73%) completed the survey. One hundred and thirty-three different referral reasons were reported, yielding 58 different ICF codes, with 41 (70.7%) being linked to the ICF domain “body structures and functions.” The reported interventions focused on body functions/structures (27.9%), training of daily activities (25.6%), education and advice (26.3%), and psychosocial interventions (20.2%). The quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists was perceived as low. Our findings revealed numerous treatment options offered by Dutch HPs addressing the unmet care needs of patients with SSc. There is an overlap in the content of the various HP disciplines, and HP treatment goals are not sufficiently aligned with referrals of rheumatologists. HP treatment offer seemed inefficiently organized, possibly precluding rheumatologists from making targeted referrals. Communication between rheumatologists and HPs should be improved. Show less
Spierings, J.; Schriemer, R.; Dittmar, S.; Pundert, L. de; Vries-Bouwstra, J. de; Ende, E. van den; ... ; ARCH Study Grp 2020
Introduction: Systemic sclerosis is a rare and complex disease. Optimal management of patients requires knowledge and experience and, importantly, intensive collaboration between hospitals and... Show moreIntroduction: Systemic sclerosis is a rare and complex disease. Optimal management of patients requires knowledge and experience and, importantly, intensive collaboration between hospitals and multidisciplinary teams. Definition and recognition of expert centres in systemic sclerosis is currently lacking, which complicates collaboration between centres and leaves patients poorly informed. The aim of this study was to develop a set of requirements for two types of systemic sclerosis centres in order to establish a nationwide structure for an optimal and transparent organization of care. Methods: A three-round Delphi study was conducted among a panel of rheumatologists working at university or regional hospitals across the Netherlands. Prior to the final consensus round, a session with a patient panel (N = 22) was held. The results of this meeting were described in the last round for rheumatologists. Criteria were divided into five categories: (1) medical care, (2) case load, (3) collaboration, (4) research, (5) training of staff, and (6) other. In the first round, criteria derived from literature were proposed and participants could add criteria that were missing. For every item, participants could indicate if they thought the item should be included for two types of systemic sclerosis centres: (1) systemic sclerosis expert centre or (2) systemic sclerosis treatment centres. Consensus was reached when more than 85% of the panel agreed. Results: In total, 47 rheumatologists participated in Delphi round 1, 35 in round 2 and 43 in round 3. Additional suggestions were added by the patient panel (n = 22). Consensus was reached for the requirements of systemic sclerosis expert centres (45 items) and systemic sclerosis treatment centres (29 items) including minimal caseloads of annual suspected systemic sclerosis cases and total patients in care. Conclusion: Requirements of centres for systemic sclerosis care in the Netherlands were established in this study. Feasibility of certification should be evaluated next. Our proposed list can serve as a model for other countries. Show less
Spierings, J.; Ende, C.H.M. van den; Schriemer, R.M.; Moens, H.J.B.; Bijl, E.A. van der; Bonte-Mineur, F.; ... ; ARCH Study Grp 2020
Objectives. To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.Methods. An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived... Show moreObjectives. To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.Methods. An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals.Results. Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators.Conclusion. The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc. Show less
