Abstract
Background Rare diseases are often complex, multi-system disorders requiring specialized, lifelong care. These diseases share significant challenges in healthcare delivery, including diagnostic delays, limited access to specialists, and lack of effective treatments.
Objectives To aggregate and critically examine innovative health services interventions for rare diseases, with the goal of identifying effective, scalable strategies to improve care
Design Scoping review
Data Sources Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2022 in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Methods We sought to identify peer-reviewed original research published in English reporting results of interventions to improve guideline-concordant care, care coordination, and care transitions in rare disease populations. Using Covidence software, two researchers independently screened abstracts using pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, with conflicts resolved through consensus discussion with a third researcher. The same process was used to screen full-text research for eligibility and to extract study characteristics and results from eligible research.
Results Our search identified 2899 articles. After screening for eligibility criteria, 12 articles describing health services interventions in rare diseases were identified. Most studies were conducted in Europe and involved adult participants. Three main intervention targets were identified: 1) increasing patients’ access to multidisciplinary expertise (e.g. using expert panels/tumor boards, integrating additional disciplines into care teams, and creating a hotline for specialist advice); 2) using technology to give point-of-care physicians access to information (e.g., electronic medical record templates/decision-support), and 3) standardizing care through clinical care pathways.
Conclusions This review identified several efficacious interventions to improve healthcare delivery for individuals with a single rare disease. Testing these strategies across broader groups of rare disease patients could more efficiently improve healthcare delivery for the rare disease community, facilitating patients’ timely access to treatments, improving their health outcomes, and potentially reducing healthcare costs with economies of scale.
Why was this study done?While each rare disease is unique and affects only a small number of individuals, the rare disease community as a whole faces similar challenges seeking healthcare, such as delayed diagnosis, limited access to specialists, and insufficient treatment options. This study seeks to find innovative strategies to enhance healthcare delivery that have been tested in at least one rare disease that might be applicable across a broad spectrum of these conditions.
What did the researchers do?We reviewed public reports of research that aimed to improve guideline-concordant care, care coordination, or care transitions for people with rare diseases. At least two researchers screened each paper to assess whether it met inclusion and exclusion criteria, and all conflicts were resolved by consensus discussion.
What did we find?After searching 2899, we found 12 describing successful interventions for people with rare diseases. These interventions either 1) increased patients’ access to multidisciplinary expertise (through things like expert review panels, integrating pharmacists into the care team, or creating a specialist hotline); 2) used technology to facilitate physicians access to rare disease information (through things like electronic medical record templates and alerts); or 3) standardize care delivery through creating set clinical pathways.
What do these findings mean?These results highlight how efforts to improve access to multidisciplinary experts, implement new technology, and standardize care for rare disease could be used to develop impactful healthcare interventions that are transferable across multiple rare diseases.
Introduction
Rare diseases, which are defined in the U.S. as diseases affecting less than 200,000 Americans and in the European Union as diseases affecting no more than 1 out of 2,000 people, are often complex, multi-system disorders that require lifelong, specialized healthcare and support.1, 2 There are between 5,000 and 8,000 distinct rare diseases, affecting 6-8% of the population in total.3 Taken together, these diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, negatively impact quality of life, and can confer a tremendous social and economic burden on families and communities.4
In recent years, there have been many therapeutic advances to improve the health of patients living with rare conditions. Due to the demographic and symptomatic heterogeneity of rare diseases, these advances have often only been studied in individual diseases or closely related groups of diseases.5 But rare diseases also share many common health challenges, such as delays in diagnosis, limited access to specialists, and experience of societal stigma.6 Developing healthcare delivery interventions that could address these common challenges simultaneously across multiple rare diseases could amplify the impact of rare disease research, optimizing the often limited resources within rare disease communities while also fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to rare disease care.
However, the body of literature on rare diseases is often dispersed across specialty- or disease-specific journals, making it difficult to generalize novel health services intervention methods across a range of rare diseases to improve patient health outcomes. For this reason, we undertook a scoping review to systematically search for and analyze healthcare delivery interventions used to improve care for rare diseases, with the goal of revealing promising strategies that could potentially be adapted to address a wider spectrum of rare diseases. We focused our review on three common challenges to providing care for rare diseases: care coordination, care transitions, and receiving guideline-concordant care (or when formal guidelines are lacking, care according to expert-recommended best practices).
Care coordination is especially challenging for rare disease patients due to their need for specialized care across multiple providers and settings.7, 8 Individuals with rare diseases and their family members report often having to relay information between various health professionals, attend numerous health appointments at different locations, and encounter inadequate communication and health data sharing among healthcare providers.9 Furthermore, as more children and adolescents survive into adulthood, a related challenge arises involving transitioning from pediatric to adult clinics, and coordinating the exchange of information between these providers.10, 11 As rare disease patients transition from parent-supervised pediatric care to more independent adult models, they may face challenges taking over their complex care. For example, some patients struggle with the work involved in transferring medical records and a lack of trust in adult providers.12 Transitions of care between inpatient and outpatient settings may also be required as the disease progresses between stages or requires the involvement of different specialists.
Finally, many patients with rare disease have difficulty accessing specialists with adequate knowledge of their rare disease.13 While there is extensive literature on best practices and clinical guidelines for common diseases, recommendations targeted at rare diseases remain relatively sparse and may be hard for front-line clinicians to access and act on amidst the pressures of increasingly short healthcare visits. However, interventions to facilitate access to information on clinical best practices could help local care teams treat these complex and unfamiliar issues specific to rare diseases.14 Based on the potential for cross-disorder health services interventions to remedy these common challenges in quality of care, we undertook the following scoping review to locate proven interventions for patients with rare diseases, analyze common intervention mechanisms, and discuss the potential for interventions to be translated to other rare diseases.
Methods
After refining our objective above, we designed a scoping review protocol. Standard systematic reviews are typically designed to analyze a narrow range of studies, where relevant study designs can often be identified in advance.15 However, because we wanted to include a variety of populations, interventions, and study designs, a scoping review was deemed most appropriate. Scoping reviews also have the ability to identify possible gaps in the evidence base.15 We then refined our research question to focus on three major issues that affect access to and/or quality of treatment for rare disease: guideline-concordant/expert-recommended care, care coordination, and care transitions. From these common challenges, we aimed to systematically identify health services interventions innovating new processes of care that could apply across multiple diseases, and excluded medical, surgical, or psychological interventions focused narrowly on biologic outcomes specific to unique rare disease processes.
Identifying relevant studies (literature search)
Electronic searches for published literature were conducted by a medical librarian in April 2022 using Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to present), Embase.com (1947 to present), Web of Science Core Collection (1900 to present), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid (1991 to present) and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to present). The search strategy was designed by an experienced research librarian (ML) and incorporated controlled vocabulary and free-text synonyms for the concepts of rare diseases, care coordination, care transitions, and guideline-concordant care. The full database search strategies are documented in Appendix A. The search strategy for coordinated care was adapted from a previous search by McDonald et al.7 No restrictions on language or any other search filters were applied. All identified studies were combined and de-duplicated in a single reference manager (EndNote).
The citations were then uploaded into Covidence review software for screening.16
Study selection
Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved records to determine if the papers potentially met the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included publications if they: 1) studied a disease that is rare within the studied country (i.e. affected less than 200,000 Americans if conducted in the U.S. or had a prevalence less than 1 in 2000 in all other countries); 2) studied a health services research intervention or policy that aimed to improve guideline-concordant/expert-recommended care, care transitions (including patient navigation) and/or care coordination (including integrated care); 3) was an original research article or a clinical trial with published results; and 4) was published in the English language. We excluded articles if they: 1) studied medical, surgical, psychological, or lifestyle interventions (rather than healthcare delivery interventions); 2) focused solely on creation of disease-specific guidelines, creation of patient registries, or diagnosis of individuals with rare diseases (rather than their ongoing care/treatment); 3) were individual case reports, conference abstracts, editorials, or commentaries. All conflicts between the two researchers were discussed as a group with the senior researcher and resolved by consensus. All potentially eligible manuscripts from this stage were retrieved and advanced to full-text screening, which followed an identical process of review against inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent researchers with conflicts resolved during consensus discussion with the senior researcher.
Data Extraction and Analysis
Two researchers independently extracted data from eligible full-texts using a standardized template within Covidence. Any conflicts were reviewed and adjudicated by a third researcher. Papers were descriptively summarized by extracting the following study characteristics: study location and timing, study aim, study design, participant demographics, description of interventions, study outcome measures and study results. After data was extracted, the research team reviewed included interventions to inductively create themes describing common intervention strategies.
Results
The search strategy and study selection process are outlined in Figure 1. Of 2,899 records screened based on title and abstract, 80 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 12 articles were included in the final review. A majority of the studies included sites in Europe (n=8); studies also included sites in the United States (n=6), Asia (n=1), and Africa (n=1). Included studies assessed a wide variety of rare diseases, including sarcomas (2), blood disorders (4), lung conditions (2), autoimmune or inherited disorders (2), brain disorders (2), and cardiac disorders (1). Only one included article described a randomized controlled trial; the remaining studies included 7 prospective observational studies and 5 retrospective studies. A majority of studies included only adults (5) or both adults and children (4); two included only pediatric populations and one did not specify demographics of the study population. Seven studies focused on guideline-concordant care, six studies focused on care coordination, and two focused on care transitions (more than one focus was present in two studies). Additional details of the included studies are summarized in Table 1 and below.
Theme 1: Increasing Access to Multidisciplinary Experts
Five studies assessed the impact of multi-disciplinary expert panels to review diagnosis and treatment recommendations.17–21 These expert panels, which could be held in-person or virtually, helped experts from multiple disciplines and institutions come together to review patient cases and coordinate patient management plans. These expert panels often recommended therapeutic strategies for patients, which many times involved adjustments to the local care team’s original plans.17, 18 These recommendations could increase compliance with clinical best practices21, as well as identify patients requiring treatment earlier in the disease process, reduce the time to receive treatment once identified, and increase the number of patients completing treatment.20 Expert boards were found to improve relapse-free survival in patients with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas and overall survival in patients with metastatic Ewing’s sarcoma patients, but did not improve overall survival in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma.
Two studies assessed the implementation of clinical pharmacy services in the management of patients. One engaged pharmacists in managing sickle cell disease through in-person services like drug monitoring, patient education, and health counseling.22 They handled prescription refills, vaccine orders, and follow-up calls for medication adjustments based on lab results. The program noted improved outcomes in hydroxyurea dose escalation, immunization completion rates, and screenings for microalbuminuria and sickle cell retinopathy due to increased pharmacist interactions. Similarly, another study involved pharmacists in hemophilia management, encompassing interdisciplinary education, clinical oversight, and continuity of care.23 Pharmacists developed educational materials, assessed patients daily, and participated in weekly team rounds, aiding in devising drug therapies and patient transitions. The program efficiently reduced clotting factor use and costs by $2.7 million, without major changes to the average length of stay.
One study took a slightly different approach that was more directly targeted towards patient access to a specialist by implementing a new national level hotline. It introduced the SOS-HAE intervention, which is a call center offering 24/7 access to specialized advice for patients.24 The call center was staffed by emergency physicians trained in hereditary angioedema management. The ending result was a decrease in hospital admissions for hereditary angioedema attacks. This study offers perspective and lays a foundation for other rare diseases studies in the sense that it suggests that call centers may be effective, depending on the rare diseases, in mitigating patient risk and reducing healthcare costs while still improving patient outcomes.
Theme 2: Leveraging Technology to Provide Information to Clinicians at Point of Care
Two studies evaluated the use of electronic medical record templates/decision-support tools to improve the quality of care for patients. One introduced an electronic medical record template accessible to physicians for direct inclusion in patient notes.25 This template, aligned with institutional best practices, streamlined the evaluation and management of infantile spasms, reducing treatment and diagnostic delays and repetitions. All 16 residents using the template reported full comprehension of the treatment plan and accurate medication ordering. Another study implemented a clinical decision support intervention to enhance adult sickle cell disease care.26 The tool, activated upon opening a patient’s electronic health record, prompted providers to inquire about recent red blood cell transfusions and consider ordering a ferritin level test, displaying the latest five ferritin level results. Its introduction led to an increased proportion of ferritin test orders in the intervention group, with no change observed in the control group.
Theme 3: Standardizing Rare Disease Care
Two studies emphasized a clinical pathway standardizing evaluations to undertake (pregnancy in lupus) or transition process milestones (hemophilia) to achieve certain goals. One involved two patient cohorts, one of which followed a structured pathway involving recommendations such as postponing conception.27 The pathway cohort led to a reduction in disease-related events, especially a significant reduction in SLE flares. The reduction in thrombotic events in primary APS pregnancies however was not statistically significant. Overall, this study emphasized that the structured clinical pathway with pre-pregnancy counseling can improve pregnancy outcomes for patients with SLE/APS. Similarly, another study implemented a quality improvement initiative for care transitions for patients with rare bleeding disorders like hemophilia.28 By implementing and documenting a longitudinal transition process, specifically the HEMO-Milestones tool, patient knowledge and skills related to hemophilia could be assessed. Overall, both studies introduced a pathway to assess patient transition and involved multidisciplinary teams. Both pathways also consider age-appropriate milestones, the first study emphasizes infancy to young adulthood and the second study outlines goals for both pediatric and adult patients. Finally, both studies consider the significance of documenting patient progress and measuring milestone achievement.
Discussion
The objective of this scoping review was to identify health services interventions that were aimed at increasing rare disease patients’ quality of care by improving care coordination, care transitions, and adherence to care guidelines and best practices. Despite the high unmet need to improve healthcare delivery for individuals with rare disease, only 12 full-text, peer reviewed studies with published results were identified using our search terms focused on rare diseases generally. However, we were still able to identify common intervention techniques across studies with high potential to improve care across rare diseases more broadly.
Across interventions, we recognized three main trends that contributed to more efficient healthcare delivery. First, research frequently aims to improve patient access to specialists and to involve team members with the necessary knowledge to elevate the quality of care. This addresses a primary challenge in rare disease treatment: the scarcity of specialists equipped with the training and understanding required for these complex conditions.29 Telehealth solutions and call centers, which are increasingly trialed in interventional studies, tend to reduce geographical barriers and quickly increase access to medical expertise. Research concluded in several countries have pointed towards a need for more training for health professionals in order for information to be communicated effectively.30
The second trend in retrieved articles was providing point-of-care or attending physicians with integrated technology, such as electronic medical records, was vital for advancing the care they delivered. The second trend addresses the critical need for the integration and utilization of technology, which is essential for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy in the realm of rare diseases.31 Now more than ever, with the boom in AI, research points towards a path to speed up rare disease diagnoses as well as create decision support systems. The advancement of technology has and will continue to make a substantial positive impact on the lives of patients with rare diseases when implemented in an ethical manner. Patients with rare diseases deserve not only quality care, but also rapid care– technology can speed up the process of creating personalized treatment plans after expert consultations.32
The third trend across studies was the need to standardize care practices to minimize variations in treatment quality, ensuring all care meets the highest standards. This trend underscores the significance of establishing standardized care protocols, particularly vital in a field where consistency, structured approaches, and comprehensive disease knowledge are often lacking.33 The highlighted intervention trends emphasize the challenges patients with rare diseases face in accessing specialized expertise and receiving appropriate care. Moreover, the studies emphasized that the quality of life for children and adults with rare diseases must also be improved through standardization of care. By reducing variation across rare diseases, patients will consistently receive evidence-based treatments. This will require boosting coordination of care among healthcare providers. Overall, standardization ensures that the correct treatments are given based on recommendations from experts in their respective fields.34
The findings of common themes underlying multiple, successful rare disease health services interventions identified in this scoping review suggest a high likelihood of the transferability and scalability of these intervention approaches. However, our study does have several limitations. The primary limitation is that we employed “rare disease” as a key term for feasibility purposes rather than compiling a list of individual rare diseases. This may have resulted in the omission of some studies that did not explicitly mention that they were addressing a “rare disease” or relevant synonym. However, since our review aim was to
identify interventions that could be translated across rare diseases, we expect the most relevant papers would include these terms. Further limitations on the generalizability of our findings arises from the fact that most of the included studies were conducted in Western, high-income countries. Our inclusion of only English-language papers could have unintentionally excluded papers from other countries, including lower resource settings that may require other intervention methodologies. Lastly, another potential limitation is the presence of publication bias. It is likely that interventions with negative or inconclusive outcomes may not be published, thereby skewing the representation of effective interventions in our review. This bias could limit our understanding of the full spectrum of interventions and their outcomes for rare diseases.
Despite these limitations, this was a rigorous review of health services interventions for rare diseases that identified several efficacious interventions that could be spread to other rare disease contexts. This review, while likely not exhaustive of every rare disease health services intervention, still underscores the significance and need for more research focused on addressing common barriers to rare disease care. Collaborative research to improve healthcare delivery systems is imperative to increase rare disease patients’ access to high-quality care and new therapeutic advances. While all studies identified in this scoping review studied a single rare disease or a group of closely related diseases, designing studies that encompass individuals with a variety of rare diseases may offer a more effective strategy for identifying broadly applicable solutions across diverse patient demographics.35 Adopting this cross-disorder approach to healthcare delivery innovation could enable transformative advancements in the care and treatment of the rare disease community as a whole.
Data Availability
As a scoping review, no new data was generated. A full list of retrieved studies assessed for inclusion/exclusion in the review is available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
As a scoping literature review without study participants, no ethics approval or consent was required.
Consent for publication
N/A.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: LVI, SA, VM. Data curation: ML. Methodology: ML, VM. Supervision: VM. Investigation: CC, SW, LVI, AT, SA, VM. Formal Analysis, Visualization, and Writing – original draft: CC, SW, VM. Writing – review and editing: LVI, AT, SA, ML.
Funding
None.
Competing Interests
Dr. Merker’s institution has received funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program to develop a health services intervention that seeks to improve care for the rare disease neurofibromatosis 1. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Acknowledgements
N/A
Appendix A. Search Strategy
Footnotes
↵† University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045
References
