Search

Objective: Not much is known regarding musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) practices of rheumatologists in the United States. We sought to determine the current use of MSUS among past participants of the Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists (USSONAR) training program and, by extension, MSUS practicing rheumatologists and to understand barriers to its MSUS use., Methods: An online survey was sent to 374 participants in the 8-month USSONAR blended course (Fundamentals in MSUS and Train the Trainer) between 2009 and 2020. Each respondent had a unique identifier linked to their total number of submitted practice scans and examination scores during training., Results: The survey response rate was 28.1% (105/374), comprising 82% adult and 18% pediatric rheumatologists. Of the respondents, 71% were MSUS certified: 86.7% performed and/or interpreted diagnostic MSUS, 81.0% performed/interpreted procedural MSUS, 59.8% billed for at least 50% of diagnostic studies, and 78.8% billed for at least 50% of procedural studies. The top reasons for not doing diagnostic and procedural ultrasonography were lack of administrative support and limited time, respectively. For 25% of diagnostic ultrasonography and 12.9% of procedural ultrasonography, billing was done less than 50% of the time. Of the respondents, 78.0% reported that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists., Conclusion: Most USSONAR-trained rheumatologists are certified, practicing both diagnostic and procedural MSUS and billing for most of their work. However, a substantial number of studies are not being billed due to time constraints, limited administrative support, and legal liability. Participants agreed that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Telehealth is an essential facet of care delivery for patients with rheumatic diseases. The Association of American Medical College's (AAMC) telehealth competencies (TCs) define the skills required for delivering general telehealth care across the range of clinician experience. In this study, the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) TCs working group aimed to adapt the AAMC TCs to rheumatology, outlining the skills acquisition unique to rheumatology with a focus on knowledge, skills, and behaviors expected of recent rheumatology fellowship graduates., Methods: Through a collaborative process, the working group adapted the AAMC TCs to the training structure and practice of rheumatology. The rheumatology TCs underwent peer review among recipients of the Clinician Scholar Educator Award and attendees at the ACR 2021 Convergence conference., Results: The rheumatology TCs define 24 essential skills required for synchronous telehealth care of patients with rheumatic diseases. The working group adapted the AAMC's 20 TCs organized within 6 domains, added 2 skills to the AAMC's domains of patient safety and appropriate use, and data collection and assessment, and created a novel domain of systems-based requirements with 2 competencies. The rheumatology TCs define expected skill levels for recent rheumatology fellowship graduates and experienced rheumatology clinicians., Conclusion: The rheumatology TCs represent the first adaptation of the AAMC TCs to subspecialty care, expanding the scope to include rheumatology fellowship graduates and additional domains of rheumatology practice. These competencies can guide curricular innovations and measurements of proficiency in telehealth care delivery among rheumatology trainees and experienced clinicians, enhancing the care provided to patients with rheumatic diseases., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Finding a balance between clinical and scholarly productivity is a challenge for many academic clinician-educator rheumatologists. An examination of workload and downstream revenue determines if the financial value generated by services rendered by rheumatologists are proportionate to the financial value created for a health system. A 2005 study found that academic rheumatologists generate $10.02 for every $1.00 they receive for an office visit., Methods: A retrospective analysis of ordering and billing practices of 5 full-time clinician-educator rheumatologists from August 2017 to February 2019 was conducted. Individual workload is defined as averaged full-time equivalent workload based on time spent on clinical and academic duties. Academic productivity was reviewed. Revenue-generating activities that benefited the division directly and downstream revenue were collected. Revenue was extrapolated based on volumes of referrals, publicly available drug costs, and estimated Medicare reimbursement values (average sales price) of representative drugs., Results: The total revenue by physician that benefited the division directly was $597,203, with evaluation and management codes accounting for $174,456. Downstream revenue by physician totaled $2,119,437. The largest contributor was from referrals to the hospital-based infusion center, at $1,287,496. The downstream revenue generated by rheumatologist per dollar of evaluation and management services was found to be $12.14 ($9.37 in 2005 dollars)., Conclusion: For every $1 generated though office visits by 5 practicing academic rheumatologists at our institution, $12.14 was generated through downstream revenue, which, when adjusted for inflation, shows stability in the value generated by academic rheumatologists ($10.02 versus $9.37)., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Since 2014, rheumatology fellows have been assessed not only based on their ability to provide patient care and possession of medical knowledge but also on their skill in serving as patient advocates, navigators of health systems, and members of a health care team. Such assessments have been carried out through the use of competency-based milestones from the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). However, a needs assessment has demonstrated interest in more context validity and subspecialty relevance since the development of the ACGME internal medicine (IM) subspecialty reporting milestones. The ACGME thus created a milestones working group, and the present study was undertaken to develop Rheumatology Milestones 2.0 as well as a supplemental guide to assist with implementation., Methods: The working group, consisting of 7 rheumatology program directors, 2 division directors, a community practice rheumatologist, a rheumatology fellow in training, and a public member who is a rheumatology patient, was overseen by the ACGME vice president for milestones development and met through three 12-hour, in-person meetings to compose the rheumatology specialty milestones and supplemental guide within the ACGME Milestones 2.0 project., Results: Informed by the needs assessment data and stakeholders, the working group revised and adapted the ACGME IM subspecialty reporting milestones to create a rheumatology-specific set of milestones and a supplemental guide for their implementation., Conclusion: The Rheumatology Milestones 2.0 provides a specialty-specific, competency-based evaluation tool that can be used by program directors, clinical competency committees, and others to assess the competencies of rheumatology fellows during training and help measure readiness for independent practice., (© 2020 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: European rheumatology and radiology-determined standards have largely driven the execution of ultrasound in rheumatology (RhUS). How this translates to American rheumatologic practice has not been examined. A rheumatology-driven consensus on documentation, scanning conventions, and tiered-mastery designation for anatomic region views was developed in 2011 and served as the framework for training and clinical research validation. The present study was undertaken to update this consensus to reflect current utilization of musculoskeletal RhUS evaluation in the US., Methods: A 3-round Delphi method study was conducted using a 96-item questionnaire sent via Qualtrics survey software to 101 respondents experienced in RhUS education and scholarship. The target participant number was 38. High agreement was defined as ≥85% agreement on each item. McNemar's chi-square test was used to analyze changes in agreement in the responses. Comments were reviewed for content analysis., Results: A total of 46 respondents completed all 3 rounds. Of documentation and scanning convention statements, 80% and 100%, respectively, reached high agreement. Comments reflected the need for rheumatology-defined and disease-specific complete scan and limited scan definitions, separate from radiology-defined definitions., Conclusion: Many scanning conventions from 2011 remain relevant in current practice. There is a need to determine rheumatology-defined descriptions for common procedural terminology codes for complete and limited scans that accurately reflect the current state of RhUS., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) in rheumatology in the US has advanced by way of promotion of certifications and standards of use and inclusion of core fellowship curriculum. In order to inform endeavors for curricular integration, the objectives of the present study were to assess current program needs for curricular incorporation and the teaching methods that are being employed., Methods: A needs-assessment survey (S1) was sent to 113 rheumatology fellowship program directors. For programs that taught MSUS, a curriculum survey (S2) was sent to lead faculty. Programs were stratified according to program size and use of a formal written curriculum., Results: S1 (108 of 113 respondents; response rate 96%) revealed that 94% of programs taught MSUS, with 41% having a curriculum. Curricular implementation was unaffected by program size. Formal curricular adoption of MSUS was favored by 103 directors (95.3%), with 65.7% preferring such adoption to be optional. S2 (74 of 101 respondents; response rate 73%) showed that 41% of programs utilized a formal curriculum. Multiple teaching strategies were used, with content that was generally similar. Use of external courses, including the Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists course, was prevalent. Fewer barriers were noted compared to past surveys, but inadequate time, funding, and number of trained faculty still remained. Lack of divisional interest (P = 0.046) and interest of fellows (P = 0.012) were noted among programs without a formal curriculum., Conclusion: MSUS is taught by a significantly larger number of rheumatology fellowship programs today. Multiple teaching strategies are used with common content, and barriers still remain for some programs. Most program directors favor inclusion of a standardized MSUS curriculum, with many favoring inclusion to be optional., (© 2017, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) predominantly affects women. Clinical phenotype and outcomes in SLE may vary by sex and are further complicated by unique concerns that are dependent upon sex-defined roles. We aimed to describe sex differences in disease-specific quality of life (QoL) assessment scores using the Lupus Patient-Reported Outcome (LupusPRO) tool in a large international study., Methods: Cross-sectional data from 1,803 patients with SLE on demographics, self-identified sex status, LupusPRO, and disease activity were analyzed. The LupusPRO tool has 2 constructs: health-related QoL (HRQoL) and non-HRQoL. Disease activity and damage were evaluated using the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, respectively. Nonparametric tests were used to compare QoL and disease activity by sex., Results: A total of 122 men and 1,681 women with SLE participated. The mean age was similar by sex, but the damage scores were greater among men. Men fared worse on the non-HRQoL social support domain than women (P = 0.02). When comparing disease and QoL among men and women ages ≤45 years, men were found to have greater damage and worse social support than women. However, women fared significantly worse on lupus symptoms, cognition, and procreation domains with trends for worse functioning on physical health and pain-vitality domains., Conclusion: In the largest study of a diverse group of SLE patients, utilizing a disease-specific QoL tool, sex differences in QoL were observed on both HRQoL and non-HRQoL constructs. Although men performed worse in the social support domain, women (especially those in the reproductive age group) fared worse in other domains. These observations may assist physicians in appropriately addressing QoL issues in a sex-focused manner., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)