Rheumatic disorders in primary care. A study of two primary care centres and a review of previous Swedish reports on primary care

Diagnostic Agreement Among General Practitioners, Residents, and Senior Rheumatologists for Rheumatic Diseases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the diagnoses made by senior rheumatologists and those made by residents in rheumatology and by general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

In this cohort, 497 patients referred by GPs from August 1, 2018 to December 16, 2019 were evaluated first by a second-year resident in rheumatology. After clinical rounds, the diagnoses by senior rheumatologists were assumed as the criterion standard and defined the prevalence of the rheumatic diseases, divided into 5 groups: rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, other connective tissue diseases and vasculitis, nonautoimmune rheumatic diseases, and nonrheumatic diseases. The follow-up ended on November 30, 2020. We calculated sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and κ coefficient of the diagnosis by GPs and residents.

RESULTS

The diagnoses were changed for 58% of the referral letters. Diseases of low complexity, such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, accounted for 50% of the diagnoses. Compared with senior rheumatologists, residents in rheumatology had κ > 0.6 for all the groups, whereas GPs had κ < 0.5, with the worst performance for nonautoimmune rheumatic disease (κ = -0.18) and nonrheumatic disease (κ = 0.15). In terms of level of complexity, 46% of the letters were inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a poor level of diagnostic agreement between GPs and the rheumatology team. General practitioners had difficulties diagnosing and treating rheumatic diseases, referring patients that should be treated in the primary level of health care. One year of training in rheumatology made residents' skills comparable to those of senior rheumatologists.

Development of a Multidimensional Additive Points System for Determining Access to Rheumatology Services

OBJECTIVE

In many countries, including New Zealand, the demand for rheumatology services exceeds their supply, resulting in some patients experiencing long delays or being denied access. The principal aim of this work was to create a validated, transparent, and fair system for determining access to rheumatology services.

METHODS

A panel of 5 rheumatologists, 6 primary care physicians, and 4 nurse specialists ranked a series of 25 clinical scenarios in order of priority to see a rheumatologist. Important determining factors were weighted in an iterative process to generate a multidimensional additive point score to determine access to rheumatology service.

RESULTS

The score comprises 6 domains of 2 to 4 items weighted to give a total score out of 100. The effect of the problem on the patient's life and role, the presence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease, appropriateness of current treatment, and the ability of the rheumatologist to influence the current symptoms and future prognosis were felt to be critical factors in determining access to the service. The score showed a strong correlation with the rankings agreed by the clinical panel, and the overall intraclass correlation coefficient for the rheumatologists was 0.698.

CONCLUSIONS

Our score has face validity, is easy to perform, and has been assessed by an independent panel of rheumatologists as providing a fair system for determining access to rheumatology services. The system is acceptable to primary care physicians and has been adopted by our local primary care organizations.

Comprehensive arthritis referral study -- phase 2: analysis of the comprehensive arthritis referral tool

OBJECTIVE

Rheumatologists triage referrals to assess those patients who may benefit from early intervention. We describe a referral tool and formally evaluate its sensitivity for urgent and early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) referrals.

METHODS

All referrals received on a standardized referral tool were reviewed by a rheumatologist and, based on the information conferred, assigned a triage grade using a previously described triage system. Each referral was also dichotomized as suspected EIA or not. After the initial rheumatologic assessment, the diagnosis was recorded and a consultation grade, blinded to referral grade, was assigned to each case. Agreement between referral and consultation grades was assessed. A regression analysis was performed to determine factors that predicted truly urgent referrals including EIA.

RESULTS

We evaluated 696 referrals. A total of 210 (30.2%) were categorized as urgent at the time of consultation. The referral tool was able to successfully detect 169 of these referrals (sensitivity 80.5%, specificity 79.4%). EIA occurred in 95 (13.6%); of those referrals, 86 were correctly classified as urgent at the time of triage (sensitivity 90.5%, specificity 69.6%). Items that helped correctly discriminate urgent or EIA referrals included patient age < 60, duration of disease, morning stiffness, patient-reported joint swelling, a personal or family history of psoriasis, urgency as rated by referring physician, prior assessment by a rheumatologist, elevated C-reactive protein, and a positive rheumatoid factor.

CONCLUSION

A 1-page referral tool that includes parts completed by the referring physician and patient has good sensitivity to detect urgent referrals including EIA.

[Criterios utilizados por médicos de atención primaria para el diagnóstico y derivación al reumatólogo del paciente con artritis reumatoide]

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an important cause of disability, affects 1% of the population. Early diagnosis and referral to a rheumatologist are positive prognostic factor but diagnosis in many cases is in the hands of primary care physicians (PCP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the criteria used by PCP for diagnosis of RA and referral of these patients to a rheumatologist; to evaluate how many cases can be classified as RA according to the ACR.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 530 patients referred by PCP and seen as outpatients at a rheumatology clinic in 2002. Patients with referral diagnosis of RA were identified and symptoms, signs, functional capacity and ACR criteria for RA were evaluated by 2 rheumatologists.

RESULTS

302 patients had a referral diagnosis of RA, 33 male (10.9%) and 269 female (89.1%), median age 50.5 years, with a median time since diagnosis of 45.2 months. 57.9% had FC stage II. 100% of cases had "generalized" joint pain, 67.5% arthritis of 3 or more joints and 51.7% arthritis of hand joints. Arthritis was symmetrical in 58.9% and 77.2% of the patients had morning stiffness (> 30 min). 49.7% of the cases had positive rheumatoid factor, 19.2% had a negative RF and 31.1% had none reported. In 2% ESR was measured. X-ray erosions were reported in 6.6% of cases. When using the ACR criteria, 17.8% of patients had 1, 28.7% had 2 and 53.5% had 3 or more criteria. In only 59 cases (20%) did the rheumatologist agree with the referral diagnosis of RA.

CONCLUSIONS

80% of PCP referrals of RA to the rheumatologist were another disease. A poor clinical evaluation and little support from laboratory and x-rays was noticed. The delay in diagnosis and referral was 3 years, worsening prognosis. A vigorous effort in educating PCP is needed to achieve early diagnosis and referral of RA cases.

The utility of trained arthritis patient educators in the evaluation and improvement of musculoskeletal examination skills of physicians in training

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of examination skills of internal medicine residents and to assess whether an intervention by trained persons with arthritis could have a greater impact on their examination skills than participation in an ambulatory care training experience.

METHODS

Twenty-seven residents attended a 6-week ambulatory care rotation that included didactic teaching as well as attendance at an outpatient arthritis clinic with supervision by rheumatologists. Sixteen residents were randomly assigned to have a training encounter with an arthritis educator along with the standard experience in the arthritis clinic, whereas 11 residents received training in the arthritis clinic only. Arthritis educators evaluated the musculoskeletal examination skills of each resident during the first week of the rotation. The 16 residents in the intervention group received instruction on joint examination techniques by the arthritis educator immediately following their evaluation. At the end of the 6-week rotation, the groups were re-evaluated by a different arthritis educator. A group of 21 rheumatologists was also asked to perform a comprehensive musculoskeletal examination on individual arthritis educators. The arthritis educators assessed the examination of the rheumatologists using the same evaluation instrument that was used to assess the residents.

RESULTS

Initially, internal medicine residents carried out the musculoskeletal examination poorly (34.2 +/- 0.09% correct, n = 27). By contrast, the rheumatologists carried out a significantly greater amount of the examination correctly (54.5 +/- 0.05%). The musculoskeletal examination skills of the residents who received additional training from an arthritis educator were significantly greater at the end of the rotation than the group who did not receive this intervention (50.5 +/- 0.10% versus 41.9 +/- 0.14% correct, P = 2.15 x 10(-5).

CONCLUSION

Internal medicine residents carried out the musculoskeletal examination poorly. However, an intervention by arthritis educators improved the musculoskeletal examination skills of internal medicine residents significantly and more effectively than the standard clinical teaching in a rheumatology outpatient clinic. The impact of the arthritis educator intervention persisted for at least 5 weeks.

Specialist management: needs and benefits

In increasingly cost-conscious, accountable and integrated health-care systems, the appropriate role of speciality care is under scrutiny. The data on the impact of rheumatologist care on outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited and inconclusive. However, based on a review of processes of care known to be related to superior patient outcomes it is suggested that rheumatologists should be the lead physicians in patients with RA. Rheumatologists but usually not generalists have the experience necessary to make an early diagnosis and to initiate appropriate disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. Rheumatologists have an in-depth understanding of new assessment methods to optimize medical treatment and to make best use of and co-ordinate multi-disciplinary care. To avoid delay of diagnosis and initiation of treatment, patients with polyarthritis should be referred to rheumatologists as soon as possible. This requires that access to rheumatologist care is guaranteed.

Arthritis patient as an emergency case at a university hospital

During a 6-month period in 1994-1995, 0.7% of patient visits (51 visits of 47 patients) at the emergency unit of the Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, were due to joint symptoms. Infection seemed to play an important role as the etiologic factor for the joint complaints. Acute joint exacerbation in pre-existing arthritis was the reason for 11.7%, and suspected Baker's cyst for 3.9% of the visits. Confirmed (12.8%) or suspected reactive arthritis (10.6%), septic arthritis/spondylitis (6.4%), arthritis with inflammatory bowel disease (6.4%), and gout (14.9%) were the most common final diagnoses for the patients. In a quarter of the patients, the etiology for joint symptoms could not be confirmed. In conclusion, joint symptoms very seldom lead to visits to an emergency unit. In such cases, infection seems to be an important contributing factor. Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases only occasionally have to seek help at an emergency unit.

Critical appraisal of continuing medical education in the rheumatic diseases for primary care physicians

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise evidence of the effectiveness of continuing medical education (CME) in rheumatic diseases for primary care physicians.

METHODS

Three physicians independently applied preset criteria to evaluated CME interventions published between January 1966 and August 1993.

RESULT

Eight of 166 articles identified were critically appraised, 7 of which had positive results. Marked heterogeneity in educational interventions, evaluative methods, and outcomes was noted.

CONCLUSION

Despite generally positive results, weak methodology precludes drawing firm conclusions about the effectiveness of CME in rheumatic diseases.

Ageing and disorders of the locomotor system

Many aspects of rheumatic disorders are specific for the elderly population. The prevalence of many chronic disorders increases with age and the incidence of some rheumatic disorders is highest in the elderly. The spectrum of rheumatic disorders of age-specific groups varies between levels of the health care system. The onset of many inflammatory rheumatic diseases is different and the clinical appearance may be further modified by other concomitant diseases in the elderly. Therapeutic approaches have to consider changes of drug metabolism and multipharmacy. Finally, the variation of organ function increases with age making "normality" more difficult to evaluate in the elderly. Decline of function may result in both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis.

Do oral contraceptives reduce the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis? A pilot study using the Stockholm County medical information system

The Stockholm County medical information system was used to select cases for a pilot study on the association between oral contraceptive (OC) use and the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A selection procedure is described by which we obtained 76 cases of RA. These were compared in a case-control study with 152 healthy controls with regard to OC use prior to the onset of RA. For all women who had used OCs for more than one year the relative risk of RA was 0.70 (0.40, 1.24). The relative risk decreased with advancing age at onset of RA, being 0.40 (0.10, 1.65) for women with age at onset over 40. Although the material is small, and there are some inconsistencies in the results, our findings are compatible with the hypothesis that the use of OCs is associated with a reduced incidence of RA.

Total care for rheumatic disorders in an integrated health care system

Utilization of care for rheumatic disorders (chapt XIII of ICD) was studied in an area of Sweden during 1978. In the total health care system, approximately 16 to 18% of the population with a rheumatic disorder were seen. The majority (12% of the population) of these patients were treated at the primary care centres. Only 1% were registered as in-patients, 1/4 of whom were admitted to the rheumatology department. Cases with back disorders constituted the largest diagnostic group of rheumatic disorders, both in primary care and in the departments of internal medicine, at the district level as well as in the regional hospital. The most important contribution of the rheumatology department was the care of a select group of patients--those with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic rheumatic diseases. However, primary care saw more patients also within the whole group of inflammatory rheumatic diseases. In the department of orthopaedic surgery, osteoarthritis was the major diagnosis among rheumatic disorders, totalling 38% of their rheumatic in-patients. Selection of patients for specialized care depended upon diagnosis, age, sex and distance to the hospital.

Health care for rheumatic disorders in a Swedish county

Utilization of rheumatological care by individual patients was studied in a Swedish county at all levels of the health care system. Calculated per population at risk, 0.6--0.8% per year were seen for rheumatoid arthritis. Of these, 35--81% were patients at the rheumatology department, varying according to distance of residence from the university hospital. The number of patients with other inflammatory diseases was, however, larger in primary care than in the specialist department. Only a minor part of the total care for rheumatic disorders (Chapt. XIII of ICD) in the county was provided by the rheumatology department. Back disorders constituted the largest diagnostic group of rheumatic disorders in primary care. During a period of one year a total of 12--14% of the population had contact with primary care, of the district hospital and/or the rheumatology department, because of rheumatic disorders. The results show the value of epidemiological studies to follow the development of and to define the future objectives of rheumatological care.