ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 288

Evaluating the Performance of a Single-site Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Clinic Associated with an Academic Rheumatology Practice: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Impact on Patient Care and Survey of Patient and Physician Satisfaction

Nasha Nensey1 and Sobia Hassan 1, 1Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

Meeting: 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

Keywords: inflammatory arthritis and Patient Satisfaction, Ultrasound

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 10, 2019

Title: Imaging Of Rheumatic Diseases Poster I

Session Type: Poster Session (Sunday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Growing utilization of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for the management of rheumatologic disorders has led to integration of dedicated MSUS clinics in many rheumatology practices. However, there is limited published data on patient/physician satisfaction with such clinics and their clinical impact. This study aimed to analyze the performance of our MSUS clinic by assessing (1) reasons for referral, (2) patient/physician satisfaction and (3) subsequent diagnostic and therapeutic impact.

Methods: Patients (pts) and referring rheumatologists anonymously completed and returned a single written in-office questionnaire-based survey, at the end of the visit or study, respectively. For all pts seen for diagnostic MSUS, a retrospective chart review was conducted, and post-MSUS diagnosis and management were documented. Positive MSUS findings, indicative of inflammatory arthritis (IA), were defined as synovitis, tenosynovitis, dactylitis, erosions, synovial thickening or crystal deposition.

Results: Of 48 total pts, seen over 5 months, 23% (n=11) received US guided joint injections and 77% (n=37) had diagnostic US for disease monitoring/management of established IA (n=9) or assessment of subclinical/suspected IA (n=28). Of the 28 pts with suspected IA, 46% (n=13) had MSUS findings of IA, prompting initiation of DMARD (n=8) or prednisone (n=3). Remaining 54% of pts (n=15) had no inflammation on MSUS, leading to de-escalation (n=1) or no escalation of management (n=14). Of 9 pts with established IA, 78% (n=7) showed no active synovitis, with no consequent escalation of management (figure ).  
The patient survey had 100% response rate, 9.6 mean satisfaction score (1-10 scale) and > 75% positive feedback (strongly agree or agree) for every question (Q); 89-98% explanation of procedure/results (Q1, 3, 5), 89% appointment wait time (Q2), 95% comfort (Q4), 90% benefit to care (Q6), 77% reassurance (Q7). Of pts who received injections, 82% had minimal to no pain, and 100% had similar to improved overall experience, compared to prior injections (figure 2).  
Of the 83% (n=10) physician survey response, 100% indicated plan for future referral (figure 3). The most frequent reason given for referral was assessment of subclinical/suspected IA (n=10), followed by US injections (n=9) and disease monitoring (n=4). The majority of physicians (75%, n=3) with experience performing MSUS referred most often ( >10 pts/12 months). However, in regards to perceived impact on clinical decision making or benefit to patient care, there was no statistical difference between physicians with more MSUS or rheumatology experience, compared to their less experienced colleagues.

Conclusion: The MSUS clinic was most impactful in the evaluation of patients with subclinical/suspected IA. This group of patients comprised the most referrals to the clinic and 46% of patients had positive US findings, which helped to confirm a new diagnosis of IA. Overall, the MSUS clinic received high patient and physician satisfaction scores and was perceived as beneficial to patient care by both patients and referring rheumatologists.

Figure 1. Diagnostic and therapeutic impact of the musculoskeletal ultrasound clinic on patient care.

Figure 2. Summary of patient satisfaction questionnaire of the musculoskeletal ultrasound clinic.

Figure 3. Summary of physician questionnaire on satisfaction and perceived utility of the musculoskeletal ultrasound clinic.


Disclosure: N. Nensey, None; S. Hassan, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Nensey N, Hassan S. Evaluating the Performance of a Single-site Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Clinic Associated with an Academic Rheumatology Practice: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Impact on Patient Care and Survey of Patient and Physician Satisfaction [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/evaluating-the-performance-of-a-single-site-musculoskeletal-ultrasound-clinic-associated-with-an-academic-rheumatology-practice-diagnostic-and-therapeutic-impact-on-patient-care-and-survey-of-patient/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/evaluating-the-performance-of-a-single-site-musculoskeletal-ultrasound-clinic-associated-with-an-academic-rheumatology-practice-diagnostic-and-therapeutic-impact-on-patient-care-and-survey-of-patient/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology