Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Rheumatoid Arthritis Practice Performance Project Spots Problems in RA Management

Erin Arnold, MD, William Arnold, MD, Douglas Conaway, MD, Gary Crump, MD, Edmund LaCour, MD, James Mossell, DO, Glen Parris, MD, Kathleen Thomas, DO, David Sikes, MD, Anne Winkler, MD, PhD, MACP, Timothy Harrington, MD, & James Bower, MPA  |  Issue: June 2015  |  June 15, 2015

For most rheumatologists and patients, the first two options are nonstarters. The third option is fraught with obstacles, including a shortage of rheumatologists in many locales.8 Most RAPP clinicians now agree that the fourth option, changing how we assess disease activity, is a breakthrough opportunity for improving our efficiency, costs and quality of care.

What is clear to us is that population management is the key to resolving the visit capacity bottleneck. Evidence for this has been generated by exemplar practices in other medical specialties that also manage chronic diseases in diverse practice environments.9 Population management enables clinicians to provide timely disease activity measurement and recommended care. It requires adopting better-defined systems of care that include:

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE
  • Disease registries to track required work, performance and disease outcomes;
  • Clinical workflow standardization and care algorithms;
  • Standardized disease activity measures; and
  • A team approach within health systems and practices.

Of the 168 busy rheumatology practices participating in the RAPP Project, about 90 to date are implementing population-management capabilities, and the number continues to grow as clinicians are able to resolve practice- and system-level barriers.

To begin, we are each fully enrolling our RA population into a disease registry and subsequently identifying all of our patients who are overdue for disease activity assessments. Then to further address the bottleneck, many of us are reorganizing our practice care teams and assessments in innovative ways. Here are a few examples:

Figure 4: Proposed scope of work for nurse RA assessment visits.

(Click for larger image) Figure 4: Proposed scope of work for nurse RA assessment visits.

  • Some practices are scheduling assessment visits with nurses and/or mid-level providers at least two weeks before physician visits to collect each physician’s preferred disease activity data and medication safety data (see Figure 4). These visits provide a more complete, consistent and well-organized dataset for the physician-patient encounter.
  • Based on these disease activity data, rheumatologists, mid-level providers, and nurses are determining at the point of service who will see which patients. Physicians focus on more complex patients, other team members provide care for established patients with less complicated needs, and the practice’s total visit capacity increases significantly.
  • In fact, once this division of effort is implemented, some physicians are hiring additional mid-level providers to right size their teams.
  • Once a patient’s lab results are returned (see first bullet above), some care teams are reviewing their assessment visit data and deciding whether the patient requires a provider visit at all. Patients with well-controlled RA and no other problems are being rescheduled instead for a future assessment visit. This is freeing physician visit slots, enabling the physician to promptly see patients with high disease activity and other pressing management needs. (These reviews can be completed in batches rather than one patient at a time.)
  • Embedding a pharmacist as an additional provider within the practice team is one highly intriguing option being implemented by some RAPP physicians. By managing medications, solving medication-related problems, and educating patients the pharmacist further reduces the physician’s workload.

As a result of these improvements, RAPP practices are beginning to report positive revenue impacts through an increase in visits and other services that address previously unmet patient needs. Moreover, some are adding technician-performed ultrasound and other clinical and educational services as individual patients require.

Removing the Physician Visit Bottleneck Enables Treat-to-Target Care

Many RAPP physicians, our practice teams, and most importantly our RA patients are enthusiastic about the benefits population management is providing for care and disease outcomes. We are now able to say with confidence, “My team manages this number of RA patients, their assessments are up to date, their treatments are necessary and safe, and their disease activity reflects the best we can possibly do for them.”

Page: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:ConditionsPractice SupportQuality Assurance/ImprovementRheumatoid Arthritis Tagged with:patient carePractice ManagementQualityRheumatoid Arthritis Practice Performancerheumatologist

Related Articles

    9 Steps to Transform Your Rheumatology Practice

    August 12, 2020

    The ACR position statement on access to care proposes the goal that “… all patients have timely access to expert rheuma­tology care … .”1 The reality is that new and established rheumatology patient wait times are often prolonged, causing delays in necessary diagnosis and treatment. The 2005 and 2015 ACR Workforce studies document intractable and…

    workforce

    Addressing the Rheumatology Workforce Shortage

    May 13, 2016

    In 2008, the American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study Advisory Group published a comprehensive rheumatology workforce analysis.1 It concluded: Based on assessment of supply and demand under current scenarios, the demand for rheumatologists is expected to exceed supply in the coming decades. Strategies for the profession to adapt to this changing health care landscape include…

    2015 ACR Workforce Study Report Offers Rheumatologists Chance to Improve Patient Care, Financial Outlook

    December 13, 2016

    I read the 2015 ACR Workforce Study Report with great interest as one who served on the 2005 Manpower Taskforce.1,2 I found it disappointing that the deficit in rheumatologist FTEs that we predicted a decade ago has become a fact. Of even greater concern, the strategies we proposed to address this problem have not been…

    Letter: Tips to Improve Osteoporosis Screening Rates

    October 16, 2017

    Osteoporosis Screening The aphorism, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it,” applies to The Rheumatologist August 2017 article that documents the continued low screening rates for those at high risk for osteoporosis-related fragility fractures, in particular people older than 65 and those who have suffered a fracture already. So here’s a…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences