Search

Objectives: We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice., Methods: We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology's risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group., Results: The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9-3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P < 0.001). Ethnicity was not evenly distributed between the groups (chi-squared P < 0.001). Compared with White people, people of Black ethnicity were 1.9 (1.3-2.8) and Asian 1.9 (1.3-2.7) times more likely to be in the shielding group. Increased risk persisted after controlling for LN., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Secondary care rheumatology services for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) in the West Midlands were audited using Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA) standards of care. Questionnaires were analysed from 1,715 patients in 11 rheumatology departments. ARMA standards recommend full multidisciplinary team assessment; referral rates to nurse specialists (52.3%), physiotherapists (48.7%) and occupational therapists (36.5%) were, however, lower than expected. Attendance at existing hospital-led education groups was rare (8.9%), awareness of existing helplines was moderate (59.2%) but the proportion of patients reporting satisfaction with advice about their disease was high (80.5%). Significant variations were found between departments. For patients with IA < 2 years (n = 236), 84.5% were seen by a rheumatologist within the ARMA standard of 12 weeks of referral; diagnosis of a type of IA was made at the first rheumatology appointment in 66.4%; 82.8% of rheumatoid arthritis patients had commenced disease-modifying drugs, although time to commencement varied across departments. This study raises issues regarding provision of rheumatology services, prioritisation of patient referral and patient education.

Objectives: To determine the preferences of rheumatology patients for the time and location of their out-patient appointments., Methods: All patients attending the rheumatology out-patient services at Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust over a 2-week period were asked to complete a purpose-designed, scannable, previously piloted, self-administered questionnaire., Results: Four hundred and nineteen patients completed questionnaires (response rate 87%). Age ranged from 16 to 92 yr; 38% of responders were over 65 yr, 72% were female, 57% had an inflammatory arthritis, 20% had a connective tissue disease, 8% had degenerative joint disease and 15% had another diagnosis; 29% were employed, 51% retired and 20% unemployed. Fewer than 1% of patients would like to be seen at community general practice centres (99.3% would prefer a hospital site). Proximity to their home was the main determinant of hospital choice. Monday was the most popular day for appointments, and days from Tuesday to Friday received equal rankings. Only 0.5% of patients would choose a weekend clinic. Fifty-eight per cent of patients would prefer morning appointments, 24% afternoon appointments and 2% evening appointments; 16% did not mind. Only being employed predicted out-of-hours preference., Conclusions: In this predominantly suburban, industrialized area, rheumatology out-patients prefer to be seen in the hospital rather than primary care environment, ideally close to their home, with appointments in the morning and on a weekday. These results may be generalizable to other districts and other chronic disease states, but we suggest that similar surveys become part of routine service provision and inform current and future planning.

Background: Audit is an important tool in clinical governance. Combining resources from across a region may facilitate data collection and allow variation in practice between individual units to be analysed. This audit is the first such regional audit to be carried out in rheumatology in the West Midlands and the organization and value of regional audit is discussed. This audit assessed the prevention and management of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIOP)., Methods: Adult patients attending rheumatology follow-up clinics in 10 units, during a 2-week period were assessed using the 1998 National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) guidance on the prevention and management of CIOP. The audit standard adopted was that 80% of eligible patients should be on appropriate therapy., Results: Data was collected on 1766 (95.2%) of 1855 patients during the audit period. Two hundred and thirty-five (13.3%) were currently being prescribed or about to commence >or=7.5 mg daily of oral prednisolone for >or=6 months. Dual X-ray absorptiometry scans were performed in 102 patients (43.4%). Of these, 53 (52%) had a T score of -1.5 or below at the hip or spine. Of the 235 patients, 202 (86%) were receiving osteoporosis treatment. One hundred and forty-eight patients (63%) were receiving appropriate osteoporosis medication according to the NOS 1998 guidelines and 87 (37%) were inappropriately treated. Of these, 71 (81.6%) were under-treated and 16 (18.4%) were over-treated., Conclusions: Overall, the Region failed to meet the audit standard. The audit highlighted a number of differences and potential problems in the West Midlands with regard to CIOP which are currently being addressed by individual units and the West Midlands Rheumatology Services and Training Committee (WMRSTC). The Committee plan to re-audit in 2 yr.

Background: People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often have comorbidities with associated disability and complex medication regimens. Little published evidence exists about why people with RA require so many medications, although it is logical to hypothesize that this may relate to older age, longer duration of RA, more active RA, worse functional disability and a greater number of comorbidities. Objectives: We set out to quantify polypharmacy in RA and identify its predictors in an observational cohort. Methods: The case notes of 348 people receiving secondary care for RA were reviewed to record polypharmacy. The 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) was calculated and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Self-administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) were completed. Results: The mean total number of medications was 5.39, with a maximum of 16; of these, a mean of 2.41 medications were directly for RA. A mediational relationship was identified: older age and longer RA duration were significant predictors of a greater total number of medications, but these relationships were explained by the greater number of comorbidities in older participants and those with longer RA duration. Polypharmacy was not related to RA activity or functional disability. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is common among people with RA and associates with older age and longer RA duration through a greater number of comorbidities. Regular review of the full treatment plan of individuals with RA by pharmacists and other health professionals specializing in rheumatology, to weigh the benefits and risks of each medication and their interactions in light of RA activity and comorbidities, is advocated. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]