Choosing wisely in daily practice: a mixed methods study on determinants of antinuclear antibody testing by rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between antinuclear antibody (ANA) overuse and rheumatologist-related factors before and after an intervention aimed at reducing ANA overuse. METHOD: In this mixed methods study we performed surveys among rheumatologists (n = 20) before and after the ANA intervention (education and feedback). We identified clinician-related determinants of ANA overuse (demographic characteristics, cognitive bias, numeracy, personality, thinking styles, and knowledge) by multivariate analysis. Two focus group meetings with rheumatologists were held 6 months after the intervention to explore self-reported determinants. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by all rheumatologists and eight participated in the focus groups. Rheumatologists with more work experience and a less extravert personality ordered more ANA tests before the intervention [ß = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.003 to 0.02, p = 0.01 and ß = -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p = 0.04, respectively; R2 = 47%]. After the intervention, female rheumatologists changed less than their male colleagues with regard to the number of ANA tests ordered (ß = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.26, p = 0.02; R2 = 25%). During the focus groups, seven themes were identified that influenced improvement in ANA overuse: determinants related to the intervention and the study, individual health professionals, patients, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organizational change, and social, political, and legal factors. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several determinants that together explained a sizable part of the variance observed in the ANA outcomes at baseline and in the change in ANA outcomes afterwards. Furthermore, the focus groups yielded additional factors suggesting a complex interplay of determinants influencing rheumatologists' ANA ordering behaviour.

Implementation of protocolized tight control and biological dose optimization in daily clinical practice: results of a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of education, guideline development, and individualized treatment advice on rheumatologist adherence to tight control-based treatment and biological dose optimization in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthropathy (SpA) patients. METHOD: This pilot study, among two rheumatologists and two specialized nurses in a general hospital, combined education, feedback, local guideline development, and individualized treatment advice. Outcomes (baseline and 1 year post-intervention) were the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) measured during the visit, mean DAS28/BASDAI, and the percentage of patients using a reduced biological dose. DAS28 outcomes only applied to RA and PsA patients, BASDAI outcomes only applied to SpA patients whereas outcomes on biological dose applied to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients (67% RA, 15% PsA, 18% SpA; 58% female, mean age 56 ± 15 years) were included in the study. The percentage of DAS28 and BASDAI measurements performed increased after the intervention [DAS28 15-51%, odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.5; BASDAI 23-50%, OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-5.5], with mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores remaining similar (DAS28: mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; BASDAI: mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.9). Use of a reduced biological dose increased from 10% to 61% (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.4-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent intervention strategy aimed at rheumatologists can lead to improved adherence to tight control-based treatment and a reduction in the use of biologicals in RA, SpA, and PsA patients.

Practice what you preach? An exploratory multilevel study on rheumatoid arthritis guideline adherence by rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in and determinants of rheumatologist guideline adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in daily practice. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, guideline adherence in the first year of treatment was assessed for 7 predefined parameters on diagnostics, treatment and follow-up in all adult patients with RA with a first outpatient clinic visit at the study centre, from September 2009 to March 2011. Variation in guideline adherence was assessed on parameter and rheumatologist level. Determinants for guideline adherence were assessed in patients (demographic characteristics, rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (aCCP) positivity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, erosive disease, comorbidity and the number of available disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment options) and rheumatologists (demographic and practice characteristics, guideline knowledge and agreement, outcome expectancy, cognitive bias, thinking style, numeracy and personality). RESULTS: A total of 994 visits in 137 patients with RA were reviewed. Variation in guideline adherence among parameters was present (adherence between 21% and 72%), with referral to the physician assistant as lowest scoring and referral to a specialised nurse as highest scoring parameter. Variation in guideline adherence among rheumatologists was also present (adherence between 22% and 100%). Patient sex, the number of DMARD options, presence of erosions, comorbidity, RF/aCCP positivity, type of patient and the rheumatologists' scientific education status were associated with adherence to 1 or more guideline parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence varied considerably among the guideline parameters and rheumatologists, showing that there is room for improvement. Guideline adherence in our sample was related to several patient and rheumatologist determinants.