Miscellaneous Rheumatic Diseases [73-83]: 73. Is There a Delay in Specialist Referral of Hot Swollen Joint?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with acute, hot, swollen joints commonly present to general practitioners, emergency departments and/or acute admitting teams rather than directly to rheumatology. It is imperative to consider septic arthritis in the differential diagnosis of these patients. The British Society of Rheumatology (BSR) has produced guidelines for the management of this condition, which include recommendations for early specialist referral and joint aspiration of all patients with suspected septic arthritis. We examined whether the initial management of patients with acute hot swollen joint(s) at University College London Hospital (UCLH) follows BSR guidelines. Methods: For the period Feb to Nov 2009, appropriate patients were identified by searching the UCLH database using the diagnostic terms, “pyogenic arthritis”, “septic arthritis” and “gout”; and from all joint aspirate requests sent to microbiology. Medical notes were obtained and any patients who had elective arthroscopies or chronic (> 6 weeks) symptoms were excluded. Data were collected on the time taken from the onset of symptoms to specialist (orthopaedic/rheumatology) referral and joint aspiration, collection of blood cultures and antibiotic treatment with or without microbiology advice. Results: Twenty patients were identified with hot swollen (18 monoarticular, 3 prosthetic) joint(s) of < 2 weeks duration. Of whom, 3/20 (15%) were admitted directly to rheumatology, 7/20 (35%) to the acute admissions unit, 3/20 (15%) to orthopaedic, 4/20 (20%) to a medical team and 1/20 (5%) to general surgery. In 19 (95%) cases, specialist (rheumatology/orthopaedic) advice was sought. Of 14 cases not seen directly by specialists 9 (64%) were referred at 24–48 h and 5 (36%) at 48–192 h. All 20 patients had joint aspiration. In 9/20 (45%) of cases, joint aspiration was performed in less than 6 h, 3/20 (15%) cases at 6-24h and 6/20 (30%) cases at 24–192 h and was not recorded in two patients. Of these, crystals were identified in two and one was culture positive. Blood cultures were received for only 6/20 (30%) of cases and only clearly documented to have been taken prior to antibiotic therapy and none were positive. Of 14/20 (70%) started on antibiotic treatment empirically, only 6 (42%) were preceded by joint aspiration. In the 6 patients not treated with antibiotics due to low index of suspicion of septic arthritis, synovial fluid and blood cultures were negative. Microbiology advice was sought in 10/20 (50%) of cases by the admitting teams but the timing of this advice is unclear. Conclusions: Despite the provision of 24 h rheumatology and orthopaedic cover at UCLH, we found a significant delay in acute medical firms seeking specialist advice on the management of patients with acute, hot swollen joints with subsequent deviation from BSR guidelines. Consequently, we plan to increase awareness of these guidelines amongst medical firms at UCLH. Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".