P21 Development of a novel multidisciplinary care model for screening and managing patients with psoriatic arthritis: consensus guidance for primary care providers in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract There is an unmet need for timely assessment and diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and a lack of standardized clinical guidance for primary care providers (PCPs) for supporting the screening and management of these patients. Our study aimed to develop consensus guidance for screening and managing PsA in patients diagnosed with PsO, and identify potential roles for pharmacists within the multidisciplinary care team to facilitate timely specialist access. We used a modified DELPHI process to gather insights on screening practices, quality of life (QoL) monitoring, and lifestyle counselling from 11 Key Opinion Leaders across Canada, including pharmacists, rheumatologists, and dermatologists. Key questions that address current care gaps within each category were identified, and the extent of agreement was determined through two rounds of voting. The threshold for designating consensus for each question was ≥75% agreement. After two rounds of voting, the following recommendations for the multidisciplinary screening and management of PsA in patients with PsO were identified: (i) screening for PsA should be performed by dermatologists or family physicians; (ii) all patients diagnosed with PsO should be screened every 6–12 months; (iii) screening should rely on clinical judgement with a focus on swollen and tender joints, though validated screening tools can be used in the absence of adequate clinical judgement, which can be administered via virtual/telephone appointments; (iv) patients flagged through virtual screening should have an in-person follow-up assessment with their PCP or dermatologist, followed by referral to a rheumatologist if deemed necessary; (v) dermatologists and rheumatologists should be responsible for monitoring QoL in patients with PsO and PsA, respectively, with the method of assessment at the discretion of the responsible HCP; (vi) pharmacists are best positioned to review adherence to biologic therapy at each medication refill, manage injection site reactions, monitor drug safety, and assist with navigating reimbursement; and (vii) pharmacists should counsel patients on health and lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and maintaining healthy body weight, advise patients on all appropriate vaccines, and counsel patients on the importance of staying up to date on vaccinations. This consensus-derived guidance provides a valuable and novel framework for the multidisciplinary management of PsA in Canada, with pharmacists being uniquely positioned to help address some of the current gaps in care. Implementing these best practices has the potential to reduce delays in diagnosing and initiating treatment for PsA in patients with PsO and improve overall patient outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».