A Pilot Study of a Standardized Rheumatology Referral Form

Authors

  • C. LeBosquain McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • M. Dawes Department of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • D. Feldman Faculté de Médicine, Ecole de Réadaptation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • H.A. Menard Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • M. Baron Department of Medicine, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • J. Legaré Canadian Arthritis Network Consumers Advisory Council, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • J.L. Lee Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • B. Lou McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • S. Bernatsky Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12970/2310-9874.2014.02.02.4

Keywords:

 Rheumatology referrral, rheumatoid arthritis.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate a standardized rheumatology referral form.

Methods: Our study population consisted of all family physicians at two family medicine clinics in Montreal (66 physicians in total). We evaluated family physicians’ knowledge about RA and behavior in response to a vignette case, before and after the implementation of a standardized rheumatology referral form within the two family medicine clinics.

Results: Before the implementation of the rheumatology referral form, only 16 out of the 44 respondents (36.4%, 95% Confidence Interval, CI, 23.8 to 51.1) had a high suspicion of RA, meaning that just over a third of respondents were able to correctly identify a potential RA case. Six months after the form was introduced, 13 out of the 19 respondent (68.4%, 95% CI: 46.0 to 84.6) said they had a high suspicion of RA. This percentage remained constant as long as a year later, when 68.8% of physicians had a high suspicion of RA (11 out of the 16 respondents, 95% CI, and 44.4 to 85.8).

Conclusions: Though not definitive, our results seem to suggest that a standardized rheumatology referral form may be a practical and effective way to increase awareness of RA.

References

Feldman D, Bernatsky S, Haggerty J, et al. Delay in consultation with specialists for persons with suspected new-onset rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 1419-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.23086

Qian J, Feldman D, Bissonauth A, et al. A retrospective review of rheumatology referral wait times within a health centre in Quebec, Canada. Rheumatol Int 2010; 30: 705-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296-009-1297-5

Jack C, Hazel E, Bernatsky S. Something’s missing here: a look at the quality of rheumatology referral letters. Rheumatol Int 2010; 32: 1083-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1832-z

Bernatsky S, Feldman D, De Civita M, et al. Optimal care for rheumatoid arthritis: a focus group study. Clin Rheumatol 2010; 29: 645-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-010-1383-9

Bernatsky S, Feldman D, Shrier I, et al. Care pathways in early rheumatoid arthritis. Can Fam Physician 2006; 52: 1444-5.

Hanly JG. Canadian Council of Academic Rheumatologists. Manpower in Canadian academic rheumatology units: current status and future trends. Canadian Council of Academic Rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 1944-51.

Downloads

Published

2014-08-05

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2014)

Section

Articles