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: 1350

Practice What You Preach? Suboptimal Guideline Adherence By Rheumatologists in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Nienke Lesuis1, Ronald van Vollenhoven2, Marlies Hulscher3 and Alfons den Broeder1, 1Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2Unit for Clinical Therapy Research, Inflammatory Diseases (ClinTRID), The Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 3IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Meeting: 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: guidelines, quality of care and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Title: Quality Measures and Quality of Care

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Tight control based treatment principles of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are superior to usual care and therefore recommended in many (inter)national guidelines.1-3 Unfortunately guideline adherence to these guidelines has often been shown to be suboptimal in clinical practice.4,5 As this is mainly described in clinical trials and pre-defined cohorts, we aim to assess RA guideline adherence in daily practice. In addition, we will also explore potential determinants of guideline adherence.

Methods: In this retrospective, single-center observational study, all adult RA patients with a first outpatient clinic visit at the Sint Maartenskliniek (SMK) between September 2009 and March 2011 were included, either new RA patients or second opinions. Data from all visits in the first year of treatment were collected by manual chart revision. Afterwards, for every single visit guideline adherence to 7 indicators was assessed. The indicators were based on evidence-based national and local RA guideline recommendations (issued in 2009) and concerned diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up decisions. To assess potential determinants of guideline adherence, all rheumatologists working at the SMK in March 2011 received a set of questionnaires about personality traits, propensity towards cognitive bias, thinking styles and knowledge about guideline content. Furthermore, demographic and disease characteristics of the patients were collected during the chart revision.

Results: A total of 994 patient visits for 137 RA patients were reviewed (mean age 59 years ± 14.1; 67% female; disease duration 4.9 years ± 8.5; 85% rheumatoid factor and/or anti-CCP positive). Guideline adherence varied between 21 and 72%, with referral to the physician assistant as worst scoring indicator and referral to a specialized nurse as best scoring one (see table 1). Both are routine measures implemented at our centre in order to facilitate frequent systematic follow-up. Patients and physician characteristics were analysed for relations with guideline adherence, preliminary analyses found two associations. In patients never seen by a rheumatologist before intervals between visits were more often correct and X-rays were more frequently made if more treatment options were available.

Table 1: Guideline adherence percentages

Indicator

Adherence percentages [lowest – highest score rheumatologists]

Diagnostics

1)

X-rays of hands, feet and thorax within the first three visits

54.7           [29.0 – 100.0]

Treatment

2)

Therapy change in case of moderate to high disease activity

65.6           [46.7 – 84.4]

3)

Prescription of conventional and biological DMARDs in agreement with the local preferential sequence

23              [0 – 50.0]

Follow-up and shared care

4)

Referral to a specialized nurse within the first three visits

71.5           [43.0 – 100.0]

5)

Referral to a physician assistant (PA) or nurse practitioner (NP) within the first year of treatment

21.2           [0 – 50.0]

6)

Regular outpatient clinic visits combined with a nurse visit for DAS28 assessment (clinimetric center)

35.5           [9.3 – 70.5]

7)

Correct intervals between regular outpatient clinic visits

21.3          [11.1 – 44.3]

Conclusion: Guideline adherence to the seven recommendations varied between 21 and 72%. This indicates that there is still room for improvement with regard to guideline adherence. Guideline adherence seems only marginally related to factors on patient- or clinician level. Therefore, adherence is more likely to be guided by a complex interplay of facilitators and barriers.

References: 1van Riel et al. Van Zuiden Communications 2009. 2Singh et al. Arthritis Care Res 2012. 3Peters et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2010. 4van Hulst et al. Rheumatology 2010. 5Vermeer et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2012.


Disclosure:

N. Lesuis,
None;

R. van Vollenhoven,
None;

M. Hulscher,
None;

A. den Broeder,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/practice-what-you-preach-suboptimal-guideline-adherence-by-rheumatologists-in-patients-with-rheumatoid-arthritis/

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