Flare Rate Thresholds for Patient Assessment of Disease Activity States in Gout.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between gout flare rate and self-categorization into remission, low disease activity (LDA), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). METHODS: Patients with gout self-categorized as remission, LDA, and PASS, and reported number of flares over the preceding 6 and 12 months. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the association between being in each disease state (LDA and PASS were combined) and flare count, and self-reported current flare. A distribution-based approach and extended Youden index identified possible flare count thresholds for each state. RESULTS: Investigators from 17 countries recruited 512 participants. Remission was associated with a median recalled flare count of zero over both 6 and 12 months. Each recalled flare reduced the likelihood of self-perceived remission compared with being in higher disease activity than LDA/PASS, by 52% for 6 months and 23% for 12 months, and the likelihood of self-perceived LDA/PASS by 15% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. A threshold of 0 flares in preceding 6 and 12 months was associated with correct classification of self-perceived remission in 58% and 56% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Flares are significantly associated with perceptions of disease activity in gout, and no flares over the prior 6 or 12 months is necessary for most people to self-categorize as being in remission. However, recalled flare counts alone do not correctly classify all patients into self-categorized disease activity states, suggesting that other factors may also contribute to self-perceived gout disease activity.

2019 EULAR points to consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Striving for harmonisation of specialty training and excellence of care in rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) established a task force to develop points to consider (PtCs) for the assessment of competences during rheumatology specialty training. METHODS: A systematic literature review on the performance of methods for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training was conducted. This was followed by focus groups in five selected countries to gather information on assessment practices and priorities. Combining the collected evidence with expert opinion, the PtCs were formulated by the multidisciplinary task force, including rheumatologists, medical educationalists, and people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The level of agreement (LoA) for each PtC was anonymously voted online. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and 10 PtCs were formulated. The overarching principles highlighted the importance of assessments being closely linked to the rheumatology training programme and protecting sufficient time and resources to ensure effective implementation. In the PtCs, two were related to overall assessment strategy (PtCs 1 and 5); three focused on formative assessment and portfolio (PtCs 2-4); three focused on the assessment of knowledge, skills or professionalism (PtCs 6-8); one focused on trainees at risk of failure (PtC 9); and one focused on training the trainers (PtC 10). The LoA (0-10) ranged from 8.75 to 9.9. CONCLUSION: These EULAR PtCs provide European guidance on assessment methods throughout rheumatology training programmes. These can be used to benchmark current practices and to develop future strategies, thereby fostering continuous improvement in rheumatology learning and, ultimately, in patient care.

Assessment of competences in rheumatology training: results of a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature on the assessment of competences in postgraduate medical training. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed within a EULAR taskforce on the assessment of competences in rheumatology training and other related specialities (July 2019). Two searches were performed: one search for rheumatology and one for related medical specialities. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on assessment methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the medical education research study quality instrument. RESULTS: Of 7335 articles in rheumatology and 2324 reviews in other specialities, 5 and 31 original studies were included, respectively. Studies in rheumatology were at variable risk of bias and explored only direct observation of practical skills (DOPS) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). OSCEs, including clinical, laboratory and imaging stations, performed best, with a good to very good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.83-0.92), and intrarater reliability (r=0.80-0.95). OSCEs moderately correlated with other assessment tools: r=0.48 vs rating by programme directors; r=0.2-0.44 vs multiple-choice questionnaires; r=0.48 vs DOPS. In other specialities, OSCEs on clinical skills had a good to very good inter-rater reliability and OSCEs on communication skills demonstrated a good to very good internal consistency. Multisource feedback and the mini-clinical evaluation exercise showed good feasibility and internal consistency (reliability), but other data on validity and reliability were conflicting. CONCLUSION: Despite consistent data on competence assessment in other specialities, evidence in rheumatology is scarce and conflicting. Overall, OSCEs seem an appropriate tool to assess the competence of clinical skills and correlate well with other assessment strategies. DOPS, multisource feedback and the mini-clinical evaluation exercise are feasible alternatives.

Strategies for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training across Europe: results of a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence assessment. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach through online focus groups (FGs) of rheumatology trainers and trainees, separately. The study included five countries-Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. A summary of current practices of assessment of competences was developed, modified and validated by the FGs based on an independent response to a questionnaire. A prioritising method (9 Diamond technique) was then used to identify and justify key assessment priorities. RESULTS: Overall, 26 participants (12 trainers, 14 trainees) participated in nine online FGs (2 per country, Slovenia 1 joint), totalling 12 hours of online discussion. Strong nationally (the Netherlands, UK) or institutionally (Spain, Slovenia, Denmark) standardised approaches were described. Most groups identified providing frequent formative feedback to trainees for developmental purposes as the highest priority. Most discussions identified a need for improvement, particularly in developing streamlined approaches to portfolios that remain close to clinical practice, protecting time for quality observation and feedback, and adopting systematic approaches to incorporating teamwork and professionalism into assessment systems. CONCLUSION: This paper presents a clearer picture of the current practice on the assessment of competences in rheumatology in five European countries and the underlying rationale of trainers' and trainees' priorities. This work will inform EULAR Points-to-Consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology training across Europe.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis facing sick leave or work disability meet varying regulations: a study among rheumatologists and patients from 44 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explore differences in formal regulations around sick leave and work disability (WD) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as perceptions by rheumatologists and patients on the system's performance, across European countries. METHODS: We conducted three cross-sectional surveys in 50 European countries: one on work (re-)integration and social security (SS) system arrangements in case of sick leave and long-term WD due to RA (one rheumatologist per country), and two among approximately 15 rheumatologists and 15 patients per country on perceptions regarding SS arrangements on work participation. Differences in regulations and perceptions were compared across categories defined by gross domestic product (GDP), type of social welfare regime, European Union (EU) membership and country RA WD rates. RESULTS: Forty-four (88%) countries provided data on regulations, 33 (75%) on perceptions of rheumatologists (n=539) and 34 (77%) on perceptions of patients (n=719). While large variation was observed across all regulations across countries, no relationship was found between most of regulations or income compensation and GDP, type of SS system or rates of WD. Regarding perceptions, rheumatologists in high GDP and EU-member countries felt less confident in their role in the decision process towards WD (ß=-0.5 (95% CI -0.9 to -0.2) and ß=-0.5 (95% CI -1.0 to -0.1), respectively). The Scandinavian and Bismarckian system scored best on patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions of regulations and system performance. CONCLUSIONS: There is large heterogeneity in rules and regulations of SS systems across Europe in relation to WD of patients with RA, and it cannot be explained by existing welfare regimes, EU membership or country's wealth.

Cardiovascular risk of patients with gout seen at rheumatology clinics following a structured assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Gout-associated cardiovascular (CV) risk relates to comorbidities and crystal-led inflammation. The aim was to estimate the CV risk by prediction tools in new patients with gout and to assess whether ultrasonographic carotid changes are present in patients without high CV risk. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Consecutive new patients with crystal-proven gout underwent a structured CV consultation, including CV events, risk factors and two risk prediction tools-the Systematic COronary Evaluation (SCORE) and the Framingham Heart Study (FHS). CV risk was stratified according to current European guidelines. Carotid ultrasound (cUS) was performed in patients with less than very high CV risk. The presence of carotid plaques was studied depending on the SCORE and FHS by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating curves. RESULTS: 237 new patients with gout were recruited. CV stratification by scores showed a predominance of very high (95 patients, 40.1%) and moderate (72 patients, 30.5%) risk levels. cUS was performed in 142 patients, finding atheroma plaques in 66 (46.5%, 95% CI 37.8 to 54.2). Following cUS findings, patients classified as very high risk increased from 40.1% up to 67.9% (161/237 patients). SCORE and FHS predicted moderately (AUC 0.711 and 0.683, respectively) the presence of atheroma plaques at cUS. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients presenting with gout may be at very high CV risk, indicating the need for initiating optimal prevention strategies at this stage. Risk prediction tools appear to underestimate the presence of carotid plaque in patients with gout.