Premium
Benefits and Sustainability of a Learning Collaborative for Implementation of Treat‐to‐Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Cluster‐Randomized Controlled Phase II Clinical Trial
Author(s) -
Solomon Daniel H.,
Lu Bing,
Yu Zhi,
Corrigan Cassandra,
Harrold Leslie R.,
Smolen Josef S.,
Fraenkel Liana,
Katz Jeffrey N.,
Losina Elena
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
arthritis care and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.032
H-Index - 163
eISSN - 2151-4658
pISSN - 2151-464X
DOI - 10.1002/acr.23508
Subject(s) - medicine , rheumatoid arthritis , physical therapy , randomized controlled trial , intervention (counseling) , cluster randomised controlled trial , phase (matter) , nursing , chemistry , organic chemistry
Objective We conducted a 2‐phase randomized controlled trial of a learning collaborative to facilitate implementation of treat‐to‐target (T2T) to manage rheumatoid arthritis ( RA ). We found substantial improvement in implementation of T2T in phase I. Here, we report on a second 9 months (phase II ), where we examined the maintenance of response in phase I and predictors of greater improvement in T2T adherence. Methods We recruited patients from 11 rheumatology sites and randomized them to either receive the learning collaborative during phase I or to a wait‐list control group that received the learning collaborative intervention during phase II . The outcome was change in T2T implementation score (0–100, where 100 = best) from pre‐ to postintervention. The T2T implementation score was defined as a percent of components documented in visit notes. Analyses examined the extent to which the phase‐I intervention teams sustained improvement in T2T, as well as predictors of T2T improvement. Results The analysis included 636 RA patients. At baseline, the mean T2T implementation score was 11% in phase I intervention sites and 13% in phase II sites. After the intervention, T2T implementation score improved to 57% in the phase I intervention sites and to 58% in the phase II sites. Intervention sites from phase I sustained the improvement during the phase II (52%). Predictors of greater T2T improvement included having only rheumatologist providers at the site, academic affiliation of the site, having fewer providers per site, and the rheumatologist provider being a trainee. Conclusion Improvement in T2T remained relatively stable over a postintervention period.