Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HELLIWELL, P. S.
Right arrow Articles by O'HARA, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HELLIWELL, P. S.
Right arrow Articles by O'HARA, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1995 British Society for Rheumatology

other

SHARED CARE BETWEEN HOSPITAL AND GENERAL PRACTICE: AN AUDIT OF DISEASE-MODIFYING DRUG MONITORING IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

P. S. HELLIWELL* and M. O'HARA{dagger}

*Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Research Unit Leeds The Royal Infirmary Huddersfield
{dagger}The Royal Infirmary Huddersfield

To assess the correspondence between ideal and actual monitoring for disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and the reasons for protocol failure, and the sharing of this task between primary and secondary care, we studied 249 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a single district general hospital. Ideal monitoring protocols were derived from data sheets and from the rheumatological literature. Overall the ideal protocol was followed in 65% of cases: this ranged from 93% for methotrexate to 26% for sodium aurothiromalate. Most of the monitoring was done in general practice (e.g. 67% of all blood tests) and, with some exceptions, general practitioners (GPs) were willing to perform this task. However, many GPs reported logistic differences with specimen transfer and expressed the need for more information and support. Poor communication between hospital, patient and GP was also found to be a cause of protocol failure.

KEY WORDS: Audit, Slow-acting anti-rheumatic drugs, Primary care


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
L. J. Kay and K. Lapworth
Safety monitoring for disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in primary and secondary care: adherence to local and national guidelines and patients' views
Rheumatology, January 1, 2004; 43(1): 105 - 105.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
P. S. Helliwell and G. Ibrahim
Ethnic differences in responses to disease modifying drugs
Rheumatology, October 1, 2003; 42(10): 1197 - 1201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.