Search

Objective Our objective was to characterize Canadian workforce attributes of extended role practitioners (ERPs) in arthritis care. Methods We used an exploratory, mixed-methods study that was based on the Canadian Rheumatology Association's Stand Up and Be Counted Rheumatologist Workforce Survey (2015). An anonymous online survey was deployed to groups of non-physician health care professionals across Canada who potentially had post-licensure training in arthritis care. Demographic and practice information were elicited. Qualitative responses were analyzed using grounded theory techniques. Results Of 141 respondents, 91 identified as practicing in extended role capacities. The mean age of ERP respondents was 48.7; 87% were female, and 41% of ERPs planned to retire within 5 to 10 years. Respondents were largely physical or occupational therapists by profession and practiced in urban/academic (46%), community (39%), and rural settings (13%). Differences in practice patterns were noted between ERPs (64.5%) and non-ERPs (34.5%), with more ERPs working in extended role capacities while retaining activities reflective of their professional backgrounds. Most respondents (95%) agreed that formal training is necessary to work as an ERP, but only half perceived they had sufficient training opportunities. Barriers to pursuing training were varied, including personal barriers, geographic barriers, patient-care needs, and financial/remuneration concerns. Conclusion To our knowledge, no previous studies have assessed the workforce capacity or the perceived need for the training of ERPs working in arthritis and musculoskeletal care. Measurement is important because in these health disciplines, practitioners' scopes of practice evolve, and ERPs integrate into the Canadian health care system. ERPs have emerged to augment provision of arthritis care, but funding for continuing professional development opportunities and for role implementation remains tenuous.

Vandana Ahluwalia,1 Tiffany L H Larsen,2 Carol A Kennedy,3 Taucha Inrig,3 Katie Lundon4 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, William Osler Health System, Brampton, ON, Canada; 2Department of Physiotherapy, Headwaters Health Care Center, Orangeville, ON, Canada; 3Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4Office of Continuing Professional Development and the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, ON, Canada Objective: To facilitate access and improve wait times to a rheumatologist’s consultation, this study aimed to 1) determine the ability of an advanced clinician practitioner in arthritis care (ACPAC)-trained extended role practitioner (ERP) to triage patients with suspected inflammatory arthritis (IA) for priority assessment by a rheumatologist and 2) determine the impact of an ERP on access-to-care as measured by time-to-rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision.Materials and methods: A community-based ACPAC-trained ERP triaged new referrals for suspected IA. Patients with suspected IA were booked to see the rheumatologist on a priority basis. Diagnostic accuracy of the ERP to correctly identify priority patients; the level of agreement between ERP and rheumatologist (Kappa coefficient and percent agreement); and the time-to-treatment-decision for confirmed cases of IA were investigated. Retrospective chart review then compared time-to-rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision in the solo-rheumatologist versus the ERP-triage model.Results: One hundred twenty-one patients were triaged. The ERP designated 54 patients for priority assessment. The rheumatologist confirmed IA in 49/54 (90.7% positive predictive value [PPV]). Of the 121 patients, 67 patients were designated as nonpriority by the ERP, and none were determined to have IA by the rheumatologist (100% negative predictive value [NPV]). Excellent agreement was found between the ERP and the rheumatologist (Kappa coefficient 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84–0.99). In the ERP-triage model, time-from-referral-to-treatment-decision for patients with IA was 73.7 days (SD 40.4, range 12–183) compared with 124.6 days (SD 61.7, range 26–359) in the solo-rheumatologist model (40% reduction in time-to-treatment-decision).Conclusion: A well-trained and experienced ERP can shorten the time-to-Rheumatologist-assessment and time-to-treatment-decision for patients with suspected IA. Keywords: rheumatology, health services accessibility, interprofessional relations, community health services, integrated delivery systems