Influences on the decision to use an osteoarthritis diagnosis in primary care: a cohort study with linked survey and electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may record patients presenting with osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms with joint pain rather than an OA diagnosis. This may have implications for OA research studies and patient care. The objective was to assess whether older adults recorded with joint pain are similar to those with a recorded OA diagnosis. METHOD: A study of adults aged ≥50 years in eight United Kingdom general practices, with electronic health records linked to survey data. Patients with a recorded regional OA diagnosis were compared to those with a recorded joint pain symptom on socio-demographics, risk factors, body region, pain severity, prescribed analgesia, and potential differential diagnoses. A sub-group was compared on radiographic knee OA. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-one survey responders consented to record review. One thousand four hundred and twenty-seven (10%) received an OA (n = 616) or joint pain (n = 811) code with wide practice variation. Receiving an OA diagnosis was associated with age (75+ compared to 50-64 OR 3.25; 95% Credible intervals (CrI) 2.36, 4.53), obesity (1.72; 1.22, 2.33), and pain interference (1.45; 1.09, 1.92). Analgesia management was similar. Radiographic OA was common in both groups. A quarter of those with a joint pain record received an OA diagnosis in the following 6 years. CONCLUSION: Recording OA diagnoses are less common than recording a joint pain symptom and associated with risk factors and severity. OA studies in primary care need to consider joint pain symptoms to understand the burden and quality of care across the spectrum of OA. Patients recorded with joint pain may represent early cases of OA with need for early intervention.

Education and benchmarking among physicians may facilitate sick-listing practice.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing work ability and sickness certification are considered problematic by many physicians and education and implementation of guidelines to improve knowledge and skills has been requested. Our aim was to study the association between such interventions and physicians' sick-listing practices. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to all physicians working in primary care, psychiatry, orthopedics/rheumatology in the southern region of Sweden before (in 2007 to 1,063 physicians) and after (in 2009 to 1,164 physicians) educational interventions in insurance medicine were offered. RESULTS: With a response rate of 58%, half of the physicians (51%) reported to work at a clinic with a sick-listing policy in 2009 compared with 31% in 2007. Primary care physicians (OR 12.4) and physicians who had participated in educational interventions in insurance medicine (OR 2.4) more often had a sick-listing policy at the clinic. Physicians with a longer medical experience (OR 0.7) and those with support at the clinic (OR 0.3) and the possibility to extend time if needed (OR 0.4) were less likely to report of problematic cases while primary care physicians were (OR 2.9). On the contrary, physicians who reported to rarely have the possibility to extend time when handling problematic cases were more likely to issue a higher number of sickness certificates. CONCLUSIONS: The sick-listing process is often viewed as problematic and more often by primary care physicians. Benchmarking and education in insurance medicine together with the possibility to allocate extra time if encountering problematic cases may facilitate sick-listing practice.