Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical nurse specialist intervention, inpatient, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis

Aim. To compare the long-term effectiveness of care delivered by a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) with inpatient team care and day patient team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and increasing functional limitations. Background. The role of CNSs in the management of patients with rheumatoid art

2019 EULAR recommendations for the generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Background/objectives: To maintain and optimise the quality of care provided by health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs), adequate educational offerings are needed. This task force (TF) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the generic core competences of HPRs, with specific reference to nurses, physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) to serve as a basis for their postgraduate education. Methods: The EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. A TF including rheumatologists, nurses, PTs, OTs, patient-representatives, an educationalist, methodologists and researchers from 12 countries met twice. In the first TF meeting, 13 research questions were defined to support a systematic literature review (SLR). In the second meeting, the SLR evidence was discussed and recommendations formulated. Subsequently, level of evidence and strength of recommendation were assigned and level of agreement (LoA) determined (0-10 rating scale). Results: Three overarching principles were identified and 10 recommendations were developed for the generic core competences of HPRs. The SLR included 79 full-text papers, 20 of which addressed the competences, knowledge, skills, attitudes and/or educational needs of HPRs from multiple professions. The average LoA for each recommendation ranged from 9.42 to 9.79. Consensus was reached both on a research and educational agenda. Conclusion: Evidence and expert opinion informed a set of recommendations providing guidance on the generic core competences of HPRs. Implementation of these recommendations in the postgraduate education of HPRs at the international and national level is advised, considering variation in healthcare systems and professional roles

Reflections on a contemporary European tragedy

No abstract available

Evaluating the participation of junior members and patient and healthcare professionals representatives in EULAR task forces:Results from an international survey

Objective European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task forces (TF) requires participation of ≥2 junior members, a health professional in rheumatology (HPR) and two patient research partners for the development of recommendations or points to consider. In this study, participation of these junior and representative members was compared with the one of traditional TF members (convenor, methodologist, fellow and expert TF members). Methods An online survey was developed and emailed to previous EULAR TF members. The survey comprised multiple-choice, open-ended and 0-100 rating scale (fully disagree to fully agree) questions. Results In total, 77 responded, 48 (62%) women. In total, 46 (60%) had participated as a junior or representative TF member. Most junior/representative members reported they felt unprepared for their first TF (10/14, 71%). Compared with traditional members, junior/representative members expressed a significantly higher level of uncertainty about their roles within the TF (median score 23 (IQR 7.0-52.0) vs 7 (IQR 0.0-21.0)), and junior/representative members felt less engaged by the convenor (54% vs 71%). Primary factors that facilitated interaction within a TF were experience, expertise and preparation (54%), a supportive atmosphere (42%) and a clear role (12%). Conclusion Juniors, patients and HPR experience various challenges when participating in a EULAR TF. These challenges differ from and are generally less pronounced than those experienced by traditional TF members. The convenor should introduce the participants to the tasks, emphasise the value of their contributions and how to prepare accordingly for the TF meeting.</p

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical nurse specialist intervention, inpatient, and day patient team care in rheumatoid arthritis

Aim. To compare the long-term effectiveness of care delivered by a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) with inpatient team care and day patient team care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and increasing functional limitations. Background. The role of CNSs in the management of patients with rheumatoid art

Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology:A systematic literature review informing the 2018 EULAR recommendations

Objective: To identify generic competences on the desired knowledge, skills and of health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) to inform the respective EULAR recommendations. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed on the generic core competences (defined as knowledge, skills or attitudes) of HPRs (nurses, physical therapists (PTs) or occupational therapists (OTs)). Literature was obtained from electronic databases, published EULAR recommendations and via personal communication with representatives of national rheumatology societies and experts in the field. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included, and their methodological quality was scored using appropriate instruments. Results: From 766 references reviewed, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies addressed competences of multiple HPRs: 15 were of qualitative design, 1 quantitative, 1 mixed-methods, 2 systematic reviews and 1 opinion paper. The methodological quality of most studies was medium to high. Five studies concerned the development of a comprehensive set of competences. Key competences included: basic knowledge of rheumatic diseases, holistic approach to patient management, effective communication with colleagues and patients and provision of education to patients. The proposed competences were confirmed in studies focusing on one or more specific competences, on a rheumatic disease or on a specific profession (nurses, PTs or OTs). Conclusion: Generic competences were identified for HPRs. Data were mostly derived from qualitative studies. All identified studies varied and were at national level, highlighting the need for the harmonisation of HPR competences across Europe. These findings underpin the development of EULAR recommendations for the core competences of HPRs

Validation of the educational needs assessment tool as a generic instrument for rheumatic diseases in seven European countries

Objectives To validate the educational needs assessment tool (ENAT) as a generic tool for assessing the educational needs of patients with rheumatic diseases in European Countries. Methods A convenience sample of patients from seven European countries was included comprising the following diagnostic groups: ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, osteoarthritis (OA) and fibromyalgia syndrome. Translated versions of the ENAT were completed through surveys in each country. Rasch analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the adapted ENATs including differential item functioning by culture (cross-cultural DIF). Initially, the data from each country and diagnostic group were fitted to the Rasch model separately, and then the pooled data from each diagnostic group. Results The sample comprised 3015 patients; the majority, 1996 (66.2%), were women. Patient characteristics (stratified by diagnostic group) were comparable across countries except the educational background, which was variable. In most occasions, the 39-item ENAT deviated significantly from the Rasch model expectations (item–trait interaction χ2 p0.18) in all pooled disease group datasets except OA (χ2=99.91; p=0.002). The internal consistency in each group was high (Person Separation Index above 0.90). There was no significant DIF by person characteristics. Cross-cultural DIF was found in some items, which required adjustments. Subsequently, interval-level scales were calibrated to enable transformation of ENAT scores when required. Conclusions The adapted ENAT is a valid tool with high internal consistency providing accurate estimation of the educational needs of people with rheumatic diseases. Cross-cultural comparison of educational needs is now possible