Outpatient follow-up for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in relation to New Zealand Rheumatology Association guidelines at Dunedin Hospital.
OBJECTIVE
Current treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves the use of various disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic response agents which require ongoing medical supervision. An audit was undertaken to assess the adequacy of outpatient specialist follow-up for supervision of treatment in patients with RA in the Otago region.


METHODS
The Rheumatology Service database was used to assess time between follow-up for the penultimate and last visit to rheumatology outpatient clinic for all patients who made at least two visits between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2006. Other recorded data included demographic information and clinician expectations for the timing of the next outpatient visit. Comparisons were made between actual follow-up intervals, those indicated by specialists and the follow-up intervals recommended by the New Zealand Rheumatology Association Guidelines. Patients were characterised according to four groups specified in the guidelines: Group A: patients newly started on DMARDs; Group B: patients with some change in disease management: Group C: patient stable on potent medications: Group D: patients stable on less severe medication.


RESULTS
According to the guidelines only 40% of patients were followed up within the recommended intervals. Groups A and B (76.9% and 70.6% respectively) had a significantly greater proportion of patients with follow-up at variance to guideline recommendations compared to groups C and D (50% and 45.3% respectively) (p<0.001). There were marked discrepancies between the guideline recommended follow-up intervals and those suggested by the clinicians. Compared with guideline recommendations clinicians advised less frequent follow-up for groups A and B but more frequent for patients in Groups C and D. However, an assessment of the quality of life scores amongst the patients suggested that follow-up was still appropriately targeted to those patients with lower quality of life.


CONCLUSIONS
Discrepancies in follow-up were most marked in the patient groups potentially most at risk of medication-related problems in whom guidelines suggested more intensive monitoring. Additional strategies to promote guideline-based follow-up arrangements may be indicated. Further work should examine the relationships between guideline recommended, physician intended and actual follow-up among rheumatology patients in other regions in order to assess whether modifications should occur to clinician behaviour or guideline content.
Chan
Georgina
G
Department of Orthopaedics, Timaru Hospital, Timaru.
Goh
Fern
F
Hodgson
Timothy
T
Hsu
Erica
E
Johnstone
Deborah
D
Ly
Jasen
J
Platt
Timothy
T
Rodrigues
Edrich
E
Tsai
Wendy
W
Hider
Phil
P
Gray
Andrew
A
Highton
John
J
D000368:Aged; D000553:Ambulatory Care; D018501:Antirheumatic Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001172:Arthritis, Rheumatoid / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000453:epidemiology; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D033002:Duty to Recontact / Q000941:ethics*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005260:Female; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D007155:Immunologic Factors / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009520:New Zealand; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic
D018501:Antirheumatic Agents; D007155:Immunologic Factors