A patient-centered knowledge translation tool for treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: Patient and rheumatologist perspectives.

AIM: Implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presents many challenges and an evidence-practice gap has emerged. This study assessed clinician and patient barriers to the implementation of an RA-T2T strategy and developed a knowledge translation (KT) tool for use in "real-life" clinical settings. METHODS: Surveys of patients and rheumatologists measured agreement with RA-T2T recommendations and use in daily practice. Patient knowledge and perceptions were assessed as was clinician willingness to alter practice and barriers to RA-T2T using visual analog scales. An electronic KT-tool was developed and a two-phase usability trial undertaken to assess use in clinical interactions. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of patients had no prior knowledge of RA-T2T but agreed with the recommendations showing mean level agreement scores (8.39-9.54, SD 2.37-1.54). Ninety percent were willing to try RA-T2T, 49% felt their treatment could be improved and 28% wanted more involvement in treatment decisions. Rheumatologists agreed with RA-T2T recommendations (7.30-9.27, SD 2.59-0.91). Barriers to implementation identified by rheumatologists included time, appointment availability and perceived patient reluctance to escalate medications. Usability experiences with the KT-tool were tracked and clinicians reported it was easy to use (100%), resulted in a discussion of RA-T2T (73%) and a target being set for 63% of consults. Patients reported they read (92%) and understood (87%) the information in the KT-tool, and that a target was set in 62% of interactions. CONCLUSIONS: RA-T2T uptake in clinical practice may be improved through understanding local clinician and patient barriers and an implementation strategy utilizing a patient-driven KT-tool.

Targeted Program in an Academic Rheumatology Practice to Improve Compliance With Opioid Prescribing Guidelines for the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many state governments have issued guidelines for opioid prescribing for the treatment of chronic noncancer-associated pain. We sought to decrease practice variation and increase compliance with these guidelines in a tertiary academic rheumatology practice by developing an interdisciplinary opioid working group and using electronic health record (EHR)-integrated data feedback. METHODS: Division leadership and providers established shared goals at interdisciplinary meetings involving rheumatology, pain medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. Interventions included educational sessions on opioid prescribing guidelines and the sharing of individual de-identified prescribing patterns. An opioid dashboard page within the EHR allowed every provider to see individualized and division-wide data that tracked process measures based on CDC and state-specific guidelines. Baseline data from June to August 2017 were compared with monthly data through December 2018. RESULTS: At baseline, 40% of patients had an active opioid agreement (a Pennsylvania guideline and a New Jersey law), 25% had a urine drug screen result within 12 months of their most recent opioid prescription, and 24% had a concurrent benzodiazepine prescription. After 16 months, these percentages improved to 88%, 66%, and 16%, respectively. The average number of opioid tablets prescribed per month decreased from 59,733 to 48,966 (-18%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Shared goals developed through interdisciplinary input and readily accessible data feedback can markedly increase provider compliance with national and state-specific guidelines for opioid prescribing for the treatment of chronic noncancer-associated pain in rheumatology.

A Population-Based Approach to Reporting System-Level Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Care.

OBJECTIVE: To operationalize and report on nationally endorsed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PMs) using health administrative data for British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: All patients with RA in BC ages ≥18 years were identified between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2009 using health administrative data and followed until December 2014. PMs tested include: the percentage of incident patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit within 365 days; the percentage of prevalent patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit per year; the percentage of prevalent patients dispensed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy; and time from RA diagnosis to DMARD therapy. Measures were reported on patients seen by rheumatologists, and in the total population. RESULTS: The cohort included 38,673 incident and 57,922 prevalent RA cases. The percentage of patients seen by a rheumatologist within 365 days increased over time (35% in 2000 to 65% in 2009), while the percentage of RA patients under the care of a rheumatologist seen yearly declined (79% in 2001 to 39% in 2014). The decline was due to decreasing visit rates with increasing follow-up time rather than calendar effect. The percentage of RA patients dispensed a DMARD was suboptimal over follow-up (37% in 2014) in the total population but higher (87%) in those under current rheumatologist care. The median time to DMARD in those seen by a rheumatologist improved from 49 days in 2000 to 23 days in 2009, with 34% receiving treatment within the 14-day benchmark. CONCLUSION: This study describes the operationalization and reporting of national PMs using administrative data and identifies gaps in care to further examine and address.

The treatment journey for patients with axial spondyloarthritis in North Africa and the Middle East: From diagnosis to management.

The management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is challenging worldwide, and the particular challenges shared by North Africa and the Middle East are mainly related to early diagnosis and standardized management. We believe there are several reasons for these challenges, including: (a) limited awareness of the disease manifestations and prevalence in the region among physicians; (b) the concept of nonradiographic axSpA, while accepted with some difficulty by the rheumatology community, may not be well understood by the referring primary care physicians; (c) access to, and training in magnetic resonance imaging varies greatly between countries in the North Africa and Middle East region, and this may have a large impact on early diagnosis; (d) country-specific treatment guidelines are unavailable; and (e) economic and cultural factors influence patients' attempts to seek and continue treatment. In this review, we will discuss the prevalence of axSpA in North Africa and the Middle East, as well as the challenges to diagnose and treat patients in this region. As rheumatologists practicing in North Africa and the Middle East, we also provide suggestions to assist physicians, other healthcare professionals, and researchers in facilitating early, accurate diagnosis and treatment of axSpA.

COVID-19: a primer for the rheumatologist: management of patients and care settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are currently many unanswered questions surrounding the management of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and several 'rapid' guidelines have been released, although are subject to be updated and changed in the near future. The purpose of this review is to discuss the approach to management of patients with immune-mediated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: At present, there is little evidence to suggest an increased risk of COVID-19 infection or its complications in patients with immune-mediated diseases or associated with conventional or biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; however, glucocorticoid use does appear to have negative associations. SUMMARY: Currently, conventional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs can be continued in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. In the case of exposure, with the exception of hydroxyhcloroquine and sulfasalazine, immunosuppression should be held for 2 weeks. Our recommendations and the guidelines we discuss here are based on C-level recommendations but help provide a framework for how to counsel our patients during this pandemic.

Should coronavirus disease 2019 concern rheumatologists?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) is an infectious disease that became a global health emergency. This review focuses on the aspects of COVID­19 pertaining to rheumatology, including signs and symptoms akin to those observed in rheumatic disorders, risk of infection or severe course of the disease in patients with a pre­ existing rheumatic disease and those receiving antirheumatic or immunosuppressive medication, as well as potential use of antirheumatic or anticytokine therapeutic strategies that are already applied in rheumatology (among others, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and baricitinib) in patients with COVID­19.

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all. CONCLUSION: Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

Experience of musculoskeletal ultrasound scanning improves physicians' physical examination skills in assessment of synovitis.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) is more sensitive than physical examination in detecting synovitis and helps physicians to understand its pathophysiology. In this study, we aimed to determine if the experience in musculoskeletal US scanning is independently associated with improved physical examination skills to detect synovitis. METHOD: Seventy patients with rheumatoid arthritis and twenty-three physicians were enrolled. Patients were first assessed by multiple physicians with a range of clinical/sonographic experience for the swelling of the wrist, metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and next underwent US assessment performed by another physician experienced in musculoskeletal US. We then calculated the positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of joint swelling to identify US-detected synovial hypertrophy. Finally, the factors independently associated with the accuracy of clinical assessment were identified by using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred forty joints were assessed 6116 times in total for swelling. Overall, PPV and NPV of joint swelling were 51.7% and 88.3%, respectively. Multivariate analyses identified wrist joint, tenderness, male and greater patients' age as the factors significantly associated with higher PPV. In addition, there was a trend that longer experience in rheumatology clinical practice was associated with higher PPV (p = 0.058). On the other hand, longer experience in musculoskeletal US, PIP joint and positive rheumatoid factor were identified as the significant factors for higher NPV, while wrist joint, tenderness, presence of osteophyte and obesity as those for lower NPV. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the experience in musculoskeletal US improves physical examination skills particularly to avoid overestimation.Key Points• Physicians with longer US experience are less likely to overestimate synovitis by physical examination.• Musculoskeletal US is a useful tool for rheumatologists to improve their physical examination skill.• Presence of osteophytes, joint tenderness and obesity influence the accuracy of physical examination of joints.

Abordaje práctico de la espondiloartritis / Practical approach to spondyloarthritis

Introducción: la espondiloartritis, es una forma de artritis inflamatoria que, generalmente comienza entre los 17 y los 45 años. La inflamación sistémica es una característica clave que ayuda a distinguirla de otros tipos de artritis, incluida la artritis por desgaste y desgarro, como la osteoartritis. Objetivo: brindar información sobre el abordaje práctico de la espondiloartritis para contribuir a esclarecer puntos que, a juicio de los autores de este trabajo, son importantes para el manejo de la misma. Desarrollo: en poco tiempo han tenido lugar inusitados avances que abarcan todos los aspectos de su manejo, incluidos el diagnóstico y el seguimiento, pero sobre todo en su tratamiento. Algunas presentaciones engañosas son propias del comienzo retardado, como la espondiloartritis periférica de inicio tardío (LOPS), que se caracteriza por una oligoartritis inflamatoria que contrasta con los signos generales, un importante síndrome inflamatorio y, a veces, edema asimétrico de las extremidades inferiores. Conclusiones: el papel de los reumatólogos es esencial en el manejo de esta enfermedad, pues son los especialistas mejor calificados para tener a su cargo a estos pacientes, mientras que los generalistas participan más en la detección de la misma(AU)

Introduction: spondyloarthritis, or SpA, is a form of inflammatory arthritis that usually begins between 17 and 45 years. Systemic inflammation is a key feature that helps distinguish it from other types of arthritis, including arthritis by tearing and tearing, such as osteoarthritis. Objective: to provide information on the practical approach of spondyloarthritis to help clarify points that, in the opinion of the authors of this work, are important for the management of it. Development: in a short time, there have been unusual advances that cover all aspects of its management, including diagnosis and monitoring, but especially in its treatment. Some deceptive presentations are typical of delayed onset, such as late-onset peripheral spondyloarthritis (LOPS), which is characterized by an inflammatory oligoarthritis that contrasts with the general signs, an important inflammatory syndrome and, sometimes, asymmetric edema of the lower extremities. Conclusions: the role of rheumatologists is essential in the management of this disease, as they are the best qualified specialists to be in charge of these patients, while the generalists participate more in the detection of it(AU)

Update of French society for rheumatology recommendations for managing rheumatoid arthritis.

The 2014 French Society for Rheumatology (Société Française de Rheumatologie, SFR) recommendations about the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been updated by a task force composed of 12 expert rheumatologists, 2 patient self-help group representatives, and an occupational therapist. The material used by the task force included recent EULAR recommendations, a systematic literature review, and expert opinion. Four general principles and 15 recommendations were developed. The general principles emphasize the need for shared decision-making between the rheumatologist and the patient and for a global management program including both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. The recommendations deal with the diagnostic strategy for RA, treatment targets, management organization, drug selection based on the treatment line and prognostic factors, management of remissions, and global patient management. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy should be started as early as possible. Validated composite scores should be determined at regular intervals to assess disease activity - according to the tight disease control concept - to achieve the treatment target, i.e., a remission. Methotrexate is the recommended first-line DMARD. The treatment should be optimized when methotrexate is poorly tolerated or inadequately effective. While waiting for conventional synthetic DMARDs to take effect, glucocorticoid therapy can be used, for a brief period to keep the cumulative dose low. When a sustained remission without structural progression is achieved in a patient who is not taking glucocorticoid therapy, targeted therapy de-escalation according to tight disease control principles should be considered. Patients should be periodically screened for comorbidities and their risk factors, which should be evaluated and treated.

Evaluating the Perception Among Rheumatologists of Maintenance of Board Certification in the US.

OBJECTIVE: There continues to be a debate about the value and purpose of maintenance of certification (MOC) programs in the US. The goal of this study is to assess the impact, value, and purpose of MOC programs in rheumatology. METHODS: A survey was sent to 3,107 rheumatologists in the US. The survey addressed how rheumatologists perceive the value and impact of MOC programs on rheumatology practice and patient care. RESULTS: A total of 515 rheumatologists completed this survey. The majority (74.8%) believed there was no significant value in MOC, beyond what is already achieved from continuing medical education. Most rheumatologists did not believe MOC was valuable in improving patient care (63.5%), and the majority felt that the primary reason for creating MOC was either the financial well-being of board-certifying organizations (43.4%) or to satisfy administrative requirements in health systems (30%). Although 65.6% perceived that staying current with new medical knowledge was a positive impact of MOC programs, the MOC was perceived to result in time away from providing patient care (74.6%) and time away from family (74%). When asked about potential effects of requiring MOC, 77.7% reported physician burnout, 67.4% early physician retirement, and 63.9% anticipated an effect on reducing the overall number of practicing rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: The majority of rheumatologists do not believe there is significant value for MOC programs. There is evidence for lack of trust in board-certifying organizations, and rheumatologists believe MOC programs contribute to physician burnout, early retirement, and loss in the rheumatology workforce.

Treatment consensus for management of polymyositis and dermatomyositis among rheumatologists, neurologists and dermatologists.

Although rheumatologists, neurologists and dermatologists see patients with polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM), their management appears to vary depending on the physician's specialty. The aim of the present study was to establish the treatment consensus among specialists of the three fields to standardize the patient care. We formed a research team supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan. Clinical questions (CQ) on the management of PM and DM were raised. A published work search on CQ was performed primarily using PubMed. Using the nominal group technique, qualified studies and results in the published work were evaluated and discussed to reach consensus recommendations. They were sent out to the Japan College of Rheumatology, Japanese Society of Neurology and Japanese Dermatological Association for their approval. We reached a consensus in 23 CQ and made recommendations and a decision tree for management was proposed. They were officially approved by the three scientific societies. In conclusion, a multidisciplinary treatment consensus for the management of PM and DM was established for the first time.

Use of prognostic factors of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice and perception of their predictive capacity before and after exposure to evidence.

The aim of the study is to benchmark the use and attributed importance of well-established prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, and to contrast the use of factors with their ability to predict outcome. Medline was searched (inception-Sep. 2016) for systematic reviews on factors predicting death, disability, structural damage or remission in RA. All factors identified were compiled in a matrix of factors × outcomes, and scoping reviews for each cell were then performed. A survey to 42 rheumatologists randomly selected explored the use of the list of prognostic factors and inquired about the perceived strength of association with poor prognosis. In a second round, participants were exposed to evidence from the matrix and to responses from other participants. Change on perceived strength of association was evaluated. Rheumatologists report using prognostic factors in clinical practice on a daily basis. Very young onset, joint counts at diagnosis, rheumatoid factor, ACPA, and radiographic erosions are used frequently and correctly recognized as strong predictors. Comorbidities and other associated problems, such as obesity, low bone mineral density, cardiovascular disease, or extra-articular manifestations, are perceived as moderately associated to prognosis but, nevertheless, rheumatologists also use them profusely. Genetic and other biomarkers and osteitis by magnetic resonance are less accessible in daily practice and they obtained better results on second round (probably after knowing the strength of association with prognosis). Rheumatologists use widely most prognostic factors with a strong predictive value. However, factors with low evidence of prognostic value are also used and some factors are not used despite good evidence.

Standardization of red flags for referral to rheumatologists and ophthalmologists in patients with rheumatic diseases and ocular involvement: a consensus statement.

Ocular involvement is a common manifestation of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, often requiring a multidisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and ophthalmologists. The aim of this study was to standardize "red flags" for referral for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists using a Delphi consensus for the management of rheumatic diseases with ocular involvement. The scientific board comprised 11 Italian hospital-based rheumatologists (N = 6) and ophthalmologists (N = 5). A systematic review identified potential red flags for referral. The panel developed 19 statements consisting of (a) referral from ophthalmologist to rheumatologist (b) referral from rheumatologist to ophthalmologist and (c) overarching principles relating to multidisciplinary roles/goals and management. Voting was performed anonymously using an online Delphi method. Each participant expressed a level of agreement on each statement using a 5-point scale (1="strongly disagree"; 5="strongly agree"). Total cumulative agreement was defined as the sum of the percentage of response to items 4 ("agree") and 5 ("absolutely agree"), consensus defined as ≥ 80% cumulative agreement for each statement. Positive consensus among 11 participants was reached for 15/19 (78.9%) statements. Statements not reaching consensus were discussed in a face-to-face meeting prior to the second vote (10 participants). Positive consensus was reached for all 19 statements, with final total cumulative agreement of 90-100%. This is the first Delphi consensus undertaken to standardize red flags for referral to rheumatologists and ophthalmologists for patients with rheumatic diseases and ocular involvement.

The ability of rheumatologists blinded to prior workup to diagnose rheumatoid arthritis only by clinical assessment: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: We aimed to study the ability of board-certified rheumatologists, blinded to all prior diagnostic test results, to establish the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD) or RA among polyarthralgia or arthritis patients, solely relying on clinical assessment. Methods: We performed a prospective, examiner-blinded, cross-sectional study documenting the diagnostic work in four sequential steps (medical history, physical examination, musculoskeletal ultrasonography and laboratory tests) of board-certified rheumatologists in a convenience cohort of 100 patients referred for inpatient diagnostic workup to a tertiary care rheumatology centre. Results: The ability to correctly identify patients with or without an IRD (diagnostic accuracy) increased from 27% after the clinical assessment to 53% after the ultrasonography and to 70% after taking laboratory test results into account. The corresponding values for correctly identifying patients with or without RA were 19, 42 and 60%, respectively. Therefore the diagnostic accuracy of solely clinical assessment for determining the diagnosis of IRD or RA compared with the diagnosis established by a consecutive thorough in-patient workup was only 27 and 19% in our cohort, respectively. Pretreatment with corticosteroids (in the prior 7 days) vs none did not alter these results substantially (20 vs 29% for IRD, 15% vs 20% for RA). Conclusion: Experienced rheumatologists, if deprived of information on prior external imaging and laboratory workup by blinding, were not able to correctly classify the majority of patients presenting with polyarthralgia or arthritis symptoms for inpatient workup, relying only on a brief symptom-focused medical history and physical examination.

Expert recommendations on the psychological needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To establish feasible and practical recommendations for the management of the psychological needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the moment of diagnosis through the course of the disease. METHODS: A nominal group meeting was held with an RA expert team including rheumatologists and psychologists, at which a guided discussion addressed the most important psychological and emotional needs in RA. Based on the comments collected, and a literature review, a matrix document of recommendations for telematics discussion was prepared, as well as a Delphi survey to test agreement with these recommendations. Agreement was defined if at least 80% of participants voted ≥ 7 (from 1, totally disagree to 10, totally agree). For each recommendation, the level of evidence and grading of recommendations was established following the Oxford criteria, and the degree of agreement through the Delphi. RESULTS: Thirteen recommendations were established, addressing several key processes: (1) identification of psychological problems and needs in patients with RA, and a guideline for their management in daily practice; (2) communication with patients; (3) referral criteria to mental health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to help health care professionals openly address the psychological aspects of patients in daily practice to follow and treat them properly.

Rheumatic diseases and pregnancy: a national survey about practice patterns among rheumatologists and obstetricians.

OBJECTIVES: Management of rheumatic diseases (RD) is often problematic in pregnant patients, hence the need for guideline implementation. This survey-based study aimed to assess beliefs among obstetricians and rheumatologists about managing RD in pregnant Lebanese patients. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by a representative sample of rheumatologists and obstetricians practicing throughout Lebanon. Collected data included physicians' information, opinion on pregnancy in RD patients, compatible drugs with fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding, references used in their clinical management, referral to specialists, and knowledge about guidelines. Qualitative variables were analysed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, and quantitative variables using Wilcoxon or Student t-tests. Results were matched against a scoring system based on the EULAR/BSR guidelines. p-value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: Analysis showed high response rates of physicians, especially among rheumatologists. Overall, physicians practice was in concordance with international guidelines and only few misconceptions were reported. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) was associated with risk on fertility, foetal malformation and eclampsia while anti-phospholipid (APL) syndrome was associated with miscarriage and vasculitis with eclampsia. Spondyloarthritis was considered 'safe' in pregnancy. Most physicians think that cyclophosphamide, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine compromise fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed relatively good concordance of the physicians' beliefs with the current literature and recommendations. However, we identified misconceptions about anti-rheumatic drugs safety in pregnancy and discrepancy between rheumatologists and obstetricians practices; hence the need for promoting collaboration between both specialties and disseminating knowledge to physicians and patients in the Middle East region.

Does Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Care Provided in a Lupus Clinic Result in Higher Quality of Care Than That Provided in a General Rheumatology Clinic?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of care received by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2 settings within the academic institution (a dedicated lupus clinic and a general rheumatology clinic) using validated SLE quality measures. METHODS: One hundred fifty consenting, consecutive SLE patients receiving longitudinal care at the Rush University general rheumatology clinic (n = 73) or the subspecialty lupus clinic (n = 77) were recruited. An updated quality measure survey and retrospective medical chart review were used to evaluate each quality measure (n = 20). The overall and individual quality measure performance was calculated and compared between the 2 groups. Data on the number of SLE patients seen by each rheumatologist were collected to assess the relationship between SLE patient volume and quality measures. RESULTS: Overall quality measure performance was significantly better in SLE patients receiving care at the lupus clinic (85.8% versus 70.2% of patients receiving care at the general rheumatology clinic; P = 0.001). Differences between the 2 groups were observed for sunscreen counseling (98.7% and 83.6%, respectively; P = 0.001), antiphospholipid antibody testing (71.4% and 37%, respectively; P < 0.001), pneumococcal vaccination (84.8% and 48.8%, respectively; P < 0.001), bone mineral density testing (94.2% and 54.5%, respectively; P < 0.001), drug counseling (92.2% and 80.8%, respectively; P = 0.04), use of a steroid-sparing agent (100% and 82%, respectively; P < 0.007), use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (94.4% and 58.3%, respectively; P = 0.03), and cardiovascular disease risk assessment (40.3% and 15.1%, respectively; P = 0.01). There was a moderate correlation between physician volume and quality measure performance (ρ = 0.48, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the general rheumatology clinic, the dedicated lupus clinic had better quality measure performance in this cross-sectional single-center study. In our health care system, we also observed indicators suggesting that rheumatologists with a higher volume of SLE patients provide higher quality of care.