SCORE study: quality indicators for rheumatology nursing clinics.

Nursing clinics in rheumatology (NCR) are organizational care models that provide care centred within the scope of nurses abilities. To analyse patients differences in the knowledge of the disease, adherence to the treatment, quality indicators of the Rheumatology Departments included quality perceived by the patients with and without NCR. National multicenter observational prospective cohort study 1 year follow-up, comparing patients attending rheumatology services with and without NCR. NCR was defined by the presence of: (1) office itself; (2) at least one dedicated nurse; (3) its own appointment schedule, and (4) phone. Variables included were (baseline and 12 months) Batalla, Haynes-Sackett, Morisky-Green and quality perceived tests. In addition, another specific questionnaire was drawn up to collect the healthcare, teaching and research activities of each Rheumatology Department. A total of 393 patients were included; 181 NCR and 212 not NCR, corresponding to 39 units, 21 with NCR and 18 without NCR (age 53 ± 11.8 vs 56 ± 13.5 years). Significant differences in favour of the NCR group were found in Haynes-Sackett (p = 0.033) and Morisky-Green (p = 0.03) tests in the basal visit. Significant differences were found in questions about "the courtesy and/or kindness received by the nurse", being "good or very good" in greater proportion in the NCR group. The publications from the last 5 years were significantly higher in the NCR group in both, national (p = 0.04) and international (p = 0.03) journals. A higher research activity and quality perceived by the patients are observed in the Rheumatology Departments with NCR.

Evaluation of the impact of nursing clinics in the rheumatology services.

Nursing clinics in rheumatology (NCRs) are organisational care models that provide care centred within the scope of a nurse's abilities. To analyse the impact of NCR in the rheumatology services, national multicenter observational prospective cohort studied 1-year follow-up, comparing patients attending rheumatology services with and without NCR. NCR was defined by the presence of: (1) office itself; (2) at least one dedicated nurse; and (3) its own appointment schedule. Variables included were (baseline, 6 and 12 months): (a) test to evaluate clinical activity of the disease, research and training, infrastructure of unit and resources of NCR and (b) tests to evaluate socio-demographics, work productivity (WPAI), use of services and treatments and quality of life. A total of 393 rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients were included: 181 NCR and 212 not NCR, corresponding to 39 units, 21 with NCR and 18 without NCR (age 53 + 11.8 vs 56 + 13.5 years). Statistically significant differences were found in patients attended in sites without NCR, at some of the visits (baseline, 6 or 12 months), for the following parameters: higher CRP level (5.9 mg/l ± 8.3 vs 4.8 mg/l ± 7.8; p < 0.005), global disease evaluation by the patient (3.6 ± 2.3 vs 3.1 ± 2.4), physician (2.9 ± 2.1 vs 2.3 ± 2.1; p < 0.05), use of primary care consultations (2.7 ± 5.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and worse work productivity. The presence of NCR in the rheumatology services contributes to improve some clinical outcomes, a lower frequency of primary care consultations and better work productivity of patients with rheumatic diseases.

Factors associated with therapeutic inertia in hypertension: validation of a predictive model.

OBJECTIVE: To study factors associated with therapeutic inertia in treating hypertension and to develop a predictive model to estimate the probability of therapeutic inertia in a given medical consultation, based on variables related to the consultation, patient, physician, clinical characteristics, and level of care. METHODS: National, multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study in primary care and specialist (hospital) physicians who each completed a questionnaire on therapeutic inertia, provided professional data and collected clinical data on four patients. Therapeutic inertia was defined as a consultation in which treatment change was indicated (i.e., SBP >or= 140 or DBP >or= 90 mmHg in all patients; SBP >or= 130 or DBP >or= 80 in patients with diabetes or stroke), but did not occur. A predictive model was constructed and validated according to the factors associated with therapeutic inertia. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2595 patients and 13,792 visits. Therapeutic inertia occurred in 7546 (75%) of the 10,041 consultations in which treatment change was indicated. Factors associated with therapeutic inertia were primary care setting, male sex, older age, SPB and/or DBP values close to normal, treatment with more than one antihypertensive drug, treatment with an ARB II, and more than six visits/year. Physician characteristics did not weigh heavily in the association. The predictive model was valid internally and externally, with acceptable calibration, discrimination and reproducibility, and explained one-third of the variability in therapeutic inertia. CONCLUSION: Although therapeutic inertia is frequent in the management of hypertension, the factors explaining it are not completely clear. Whereas some aspects of the consultations were associated with therapeutic inertia, physician characteristics were not a decisive factor.