Use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in Japan: a survey of practicing rheumatologists

We aimed to describe how often Japanese rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS), and how they are currently being trained in the use of this imaging technique. Questionnaires were sent to 200 Japanese rheumatologists: 100 to participants attending the first Scientific Meeting of the Japanese Society of Imaging in Rheumatic Diseases in 2006, and 100 to other randomly selected rheumatologists certified by the Japan College of Rheumatology. A total of 139 questionnaires (74 from meeting participants, 65 from randomly selected rheumatologists) were completed and analyzed. Twenty-four of the 74 respondents (32.4%) in the meeting participants group used MSUS imaging for patient management, while only 7 of the 65 respondents (10.8%) in the certified rheumatologists group used MSUS imaging for patient management. Sixty-five of the 74 respondents (87.8%) in the meeting participants group and 54 of the 65 respondents (83.1%) in the certified rheumatologists group considered MSUS to be a useful tool. Only a minority of respondents used MSUS in the management of their patients. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Japanese rheumatologists would prefer future training in the form of intensive courses and training sessions.     

The 12th International Rheumatology Symposium in Tokyo

Abstract

We aimed to describe how often Japanese rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS), and how they are currently being trained in the use of this imaging technique. Questionnaires were sent to 200 Japanese rheumatologists: 100 to participants attending the first Scientific Meeting of the Japanese Society of Imaging in Rheumatic Diseases in 2006, and 100 to other randomly selected rheumatologists certified by the Japan College of Rheumatology. A total of 139 questionnaires (74 from meeting participants, 65 from randomly selected rheumatologists) were completed and analyzed. Twenty-four of the 74 respondents (32.4%) in the meeting participants group used MSUS imaging for patient management, while only 7 of the 65 respondents (10.8%) in the certified rheumatologists group used MSUS imaging for patient management. Sixty-five of the 74 respondents (87.8%) in the meeting participants group and 54 of the 65 respondents (83.1%) in the certified rheumatologists group considered MSUS to be a useful tool. Only a minority of respondents used MSUS in the management of their patients. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Japanese rheumatologists would prefer future training in the form of intensive courses and training sessions.     

Challenges to expanding the clinical application of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) among rheumatologists: from a second survey in Japan

Abstract

Our previous survey in 2008 revealed that only 22% of Japanese rheumatologists used musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) for patient management, because of insufficient educational opportunities. To clarify the current state of MSUS usage and to identify further challenges, we conducted a second survey between October 2010 through January 2011 by sending questionnaires to 200 randomly selected Japanese rheumatologists, consisting of 100 participants in a meeting in 2009 on imaging in rheumatic diseases and 100 board-certified rheumatologists. Among the respondents, a majority (85 and 67%, respectively) used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MSUS users had increased from 32 to 60% of meeting participants and from 11 to 27% of other rheumatologists. The majority of MSUS users had begun using MSUS within the previous 3 years. Whereas most respondents in the previous survey had been self-taught, in the current survey many had attended training courses or had received informal training from skilled users. Despite an increase in skills and equipment ownership, obstacles to implementing MSUS remained, most prominently a lack of time. In conclusion, training courses and informal training have contributed to the popularization of MSUS in Japan. To further increase MSUS usage, additional training opportunities and education about the advantages of MSUS will be needed.     

Challenges to expanding the clinical application of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) among rheumatologists: from a second survey in Japan

Our previous survey in 2008 revealed that only 22% of Japanese rheumatologists used musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) for patient management, because of insufficient educational opportunities. To clarify the current state of MSUS usage and to identify further challenges, we conducted a second survey between October 2010 through January 2011 by sending questionnaires to 200 randomly selected Japanese rheumatologists, consisting of 100 participants in a meeting in 2009 on imaging in rheumatic diseases and 100 board-certified rheumatologists. Among the respondents, a majority (85 and 67%, respectively) used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MSUS users had increased from 32 to 60% of meeting participants and from 11 to 27% of other rheumatologists. The majority of MSUS users had begun using MSUS within the previous 3 years. Whereas most respondents in the previous survey had been self-taught, in the current survey many had attended training courses or had received informal training from skilled users. Despite an increase in skills and equipment ownership, obstacles to implementing MSUS remained, most prominently a lack of time. In conclusion, training courses and informal training have contributed to the popularization of MSUS in Japan. To further increase MSUS usage, additional training opportunities and education about the advantages of MSUS will be needed.     

Vorgehen bei der Erstellung von EULAR-Empfehlungen

Because of the complexity in interpretating the results obtained in original studies and the huge amount of new information available each month, a single rheumatologist is not able to adequately perform an optimal systematic literature research in order to apply this new information in his/her daily practice. These are the main reasons which prompted EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) to publish recommendations mainly for the management of the main musculoskeletal conditions seen in daily practice. These recommendations are written according to a strict methodology combining evidence-based medicine and expert opinions. These recommendations, prepared at the international level, should permit a uniformization of the management of rheumatic patients across the different European countries. All the EULAR initiatives have been generated by joint efforts of epidemiologists, young scientific fellows, and practicing rheumatologists (e.g., experts). Such a process has improved the knowledge of both the fellows and the experts in the field of clinical epidemiology.     

Practice, training, and assessment among experts performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: toward the development of an international consensus of educational standards for ultrasonography for rheumatologists

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the training and practice of specialist practitioners in musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MUS) with the aim of developing an expert-derived consensus of educational standards for rheumatologists performing MUS. METHODS: A panel of worldwide experts in MUS was identified by literature review, consultation with members of training committees, and peer recommendation. Using a postal questionnaire, information was obtained about personal experience, current practice, training regimen, and participation in competency assessment. RESULTS: International experts in MUS were identified (57 in total: 37 radiologists, 20 rheumatologists). Response rate was 70%. Radiologists had been performing MUS for longer than rheumatologists. Both rheumatologists and radiologists conducted the same number of MUS sessions per week, although radiologists examined more patients. More radiologists performed MUS for muscle and ligament injury, nerve lesions, soft tissue masses, and of the groin (P <0.01). The number of training hours was similar. Approaches to training varied, although attending a training course and scanning with an expert was more common among rheumatologists (P <0.001). More than two-thirds of the group had not undergone any form of competency assessment. CONCLUSION: This study highlights differences in training and practice between individual expert ultrasonographers and between specialty backgrounds. In particular, there appears to be no formal training regimen and competency assessment is uncommon. The establishment of a core set of internationally applicable educational standards for MUS training for rheumatologists is required.     

Utility and feasibility of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSK US) in rheumatology practice in Canada: needs assessment

The utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK US) is being extensively explored and evaluated amongst European rheumatologists. However, utilization of MSK US by rheumatologists in Canada is much less common. This study aimed to evaluate the current use of MSK US in Canadian rheumatology practice, to determine beliefs and attitudes towards MSK US, and to determine factors that may encourage or limit its use. A 13-question needs assessment questionnaire was developed. All Canadian rheumatologists were invited via e-mail to participate in the survey. The overall response rate was 156/470 (33%). Fifty-one percent of participants used MSK US in their clinical practice. Lack of training appeared to be the main obstacle to its current use. Eighty-three percent believed that MSK US should be performed by rheumatologists and expressed a willingness to learn the technique. Skills offering greatest clinical utility were the assessment of inflammatory arthritis in small joints (i.e., hands (metacarpophalyngeal and proximal interphalangeal joints), wrists, feet (metatarsophalyngeal), shoulders, and ankles. Limited available time, equipment costs, and difficulties with billing were the main obstacles to MSK US utilization in the clinical setting. There is a great level of interest in learning and applying MSK US in Canadian rheumatology practice. The balance between added clinical value and lack of remuneration, equipment associated costs, and time to complete training is the major limiting factor influencing rheumatologists' willingness to take on MSK US. Training programs must be relevant to rheumatologists' needs before MSK US will be adopted into routine clinical practice in Canada.     

National survey of knowledge,attitude and practice of fibromyalgia among rheumatologists in China

Aim

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and fatigue. It is a less frequently diagnosed disease in China, thus Chinese rheumatologists may have lower awareness of FM compared with colleagues in Western countries. The aim of this study is to investigate the perceptions of FM in Chinese rheumatologists and analyze their therapeutic approach in clinical practice.

Method

An anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted among a nationwide sample of Chinese rheumatologists at the 15th National Rheumatology Conference in 2010. The 20‐question survey included questions regarding background, work experience, perceptions of diagnosis and behaviors of treatment related to FM. Continuing medical education (CME) information was also collected in the survey.

Results

Seven hundred and seven rheumatologists responded to the questionnaire, a response rate of 60%. Less than one‐fifth of the respondents were experienced in dealing with FM. Although most of the respondents regarded FM as a distinct pathological entity, nearly 30% of Chinese rheumatologists believed that FM was only a psychological disorder. The respondents recognized some of the FM‐related symptoms, but had limited knowledge on the diagnostic criteria. Eighty percent of the respondents declared they had difficulties in treating FM patients. However, nearly all (90.8%) respondents believed that the prognosis of FM patients was usually benign. Our data also showed that most Chinese rheumatologists were eager for CME on FM.

Conclusion

The awareness and perception of FM are still low among Chinese rheumatologists. CME on FM is needed for improving the quality of health care in China.     

Most visits of most patients with rheumatoid arthritis to most rheumatologists do not include a formal quantitative joint count

OBJECTIVE: To ask rheumatologists about the likelihood of performing a formal joint count at each visit of a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in standard clinical care. METHOD: Direct query of rheumatologists at an international meeting of about 600 rheumatologists from 17 European countries. RESULTS: Overall, 14% of rheumatologists reported performing a formal joint count at each visit of each patient, and 44% of rheumatologists reported performing a formal joint count at more than 50% of visits of patients with RA. Therefore, 56% of rheumatologists reported performing a joint count at fewer than 50% of visits, including 45% at fewer than 25% of visits. One in eight rheumatologists (13%) reported never performing a formal joint count. CONCLUSION: Although the joint count remains the most specific measure for RA, most visits of most patients with RA to most rheumatologists do not include a formal quantitative joint count.     

Calidad percibida de formación en ecografía musculoesquelética en los servicios de reumatología españoles

Background and objectiveUltrasound has been included in the training of residents in rheumatology in recent years, as a result of its increased use in daily clinical practice. Our objective is to evaluate the perceived quality of ultrasound training of residents in rheumatology services in Spain.Material and methodsOnline survey aimed at rheumatologists who began their training in rheumatology between 2009 and 2019.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine rheumatologists participated in the survey, of which 97.1% had at least one ultrasound machine in their training centre. Up to 51.1% performed a rotation in ultrasound and 56% had an ultrasound consultation. Access to SER courses was high (87.8%) while access to EULAR courses was limited (17.3%) and up to 69.1% of residents did not complete the competency accreditation. Training in evaluation of inflammatory joint activity, entheses and microcrystalline diseases received the highest scores. Evaluation of ultrasound training during the residency was good in 36% of cases, fair in 28.1%, poor in 18% and excellent in 12.9%. Of those surveyed, 88% consider their clinical practice as a rheumatologist to have improved.ConclusionsMost residents have performed ultrasound rotations. Participation in SER ultrasound courses is high and moderate in EULAR courses, while only a minority completed the competency accreditation. The overall degree of satisfaction with training in ultrasound during residency is good and, in the opinion of residents, contributes to the improvement of their skills as rheumatologists.     

Survey of arthroscopy performed by rheumatologists

OBJECTIVE: To determine the international distribution and practice of arthroscopy performed by rheumatologists and to evaluate proposed guidelines on minimum standards for training in arthroscopy in the context of current clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all rheumatology centres identified as practising arthroscopy, by (i) searching Medline from 1966 to 1999, (ii) searching the abstract books of the annual general meetings of ACR, BSR and EULAR from 1980 to 1999, and (iii) correspondence with all the centres identified. RESULTS: Thirty-six rheumatology centres were confirmed as performing arthroscopy (24 in Europe, 10 in USA and two in Australia) and 33 (92%) centres completed the questionnaire. Twenty-five (76%) of the 33 centres performing arthroscopy had started to perform it since 1990 and 72 rheumatologists are now trained in arthroscopy. A total of 16532 arthroscopies had been performed (median=220 arthroscopies/centre, range 20-5000); 50.5% of the arthroscopies had a primary clinical indication and 49.5% had a primary research indication. Most centres fulfilled the minimum standards for arthroscopic facilities and the proposed minimum standards in training were acceptable to 76% of respondents. Complication rates were calculated for 15682 arthroscopies where routine follow-up data were available [joint infection, 16 (0.1%); wound infection, 17 (0.1%); haemarthrosis, 141 (0.9%); deep venous thrombosis, 31 (0.2%); neurological damage, 3 (0.02%), thrombophlebitis, 12 (0.08%), other, 8 (0.06%)]. Irrigation volume correlated with wound infection rate (r=0.41, P=0.03) and centres performing cartilage biopsy had a higher rate of haemarthrosis (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: The last decade has seen rapid growth in arthroscopy performed by rheumatologists in an out-patient setting under local and regional anaesthesia. Proposed minimum standards for training in rheumatological arthroscopy reflect current practice accurately and are acceptable to the majority of arthroscopists. Complication rates of rheumatological arthroscopy are similar to those reported in the orthopaedic literature.     

Level of acceptability of EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis by practitioners in different European countries

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the level of acceptability of the EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to general practitioners, rheumatologists, rehabilitators, and orthopaedic surgeons in five European countries (France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy). Practitioners were asked to give their opinion on the 10 EULAR recommendations and on 23 treatment modes for KOA. Practitioners' opinions were compared with those of the expert task force involved in the development of these recommendations. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 10.4% (4204 replies). Results were similar across countries and specialties. Of the 23 treatment modes proposed, only joint lavage and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections were more strongly recommended by the expert task force than by the responders as a whole, while the opposite was true for spa therapy. Principal component analysis showed: (1) some practitioners preferred "hard line" treatments (surgery, IA injections, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)); (2) there was a difference between those prescribing pharmacological (paracetamol) or non-pharmacological measures with low iatrogenicity (exercises, sticks, education), and those prescribing less well validated treatments closer to "alternative" medicine; (3) each specialist tended to advocate modes that they were most familiar with: rheumatologists were more likely to recommend IA injections and NSAIDs; orthopaedic surgeons, surgical procedures; rehabilitators, education and all non-pharmacological modes; general practitioners, spa therapy and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach is optimal in the management of this chronic disease with its variable course.     

Specialist training in rheumatology in Europe

Rheumatology is a broad discipline managing a spectrum of different conditions and there are divergences in what is routinely treated by rheumatologists both within and between countries. The free movement of doctors throughout the European Community has lead to moves to harmonize specialist training to ensure common standards of care. The Union Européene des Médecins Spécialistes (UEMS) has developed recommendations for the specialist training of rheumatologists in Europe that recognizes the broad definition of the discipline and the diversity of clinical practice in Europe. The core curriculum aims to provide a common standard around which to develop locally applicable national curricula. The provision of high quality care requires some assessment of training and competency as well as continuing professional development and ways of ensuring the provision of this throughout the European Community to a mutually high standard are being developed. The future may see more overlap in the training of all the disciplines concerned with the management of those with musculoskeletal conditions to their benefit.     

Attitudes of United Kingdom rheumatologists to musculoskeletal ultrasound practice and training

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to describe what clinical rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for, how they are currently training and is the first study to survey rheumatologists to determine their preferences for MSUS training implementation. METHODS: 250 questionnaires were distributed at the British Society of Rheumatology Annual General Meeting (BSR AGM), 2005. RESULTS: 126 (50%) of questionnaires were completed by UK rheumatologists and were analysed. 117 (93%) of the respondents use MSUS imaging for patient management, with 41 (33%) indicating they perform MSUS themselves. Only two (2%) performed MSUS for >5 years. Rheumatologists use MSUS to image all peripheral joints-particularly the hands and feet-to assess joint and soft tissue inflammation and to guide joint injections. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Respondents expressed a preference for future training to be via a programme of regular sessions, with training delivered by either consultant radiologists or rheumatologists. Mentoring was the educational tool and assessment method of choice. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents use MSUS in the management of their patients, with a third performing MSUS themselves. The report indicates rheumatologists' preferences on how training should be delivered in the future.     

Referral of musculoskeletal disease patients by family and general practitioners

We surveyed general and family practitioners to evaluate their patterns of referring musculoskeletal disease patients to rheumatologists and orthopedists. Patients who had rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and ankylosing spondylitis were most often referred to rheumatologists, whereas patients with osteoarthritis, persistent low back pain, and post-traumatic knee pain were most often referred to orthopedists. As conditions worsened in severity, referrals were more frequent. Patients with conditions that were difficult to diagnose, such as possible shoulder tendinitis that was unresponsive to initial nonsteroidal therapy, undiagnosed polyarthritis, and intermittent knee swelling with pain, were most often treated without referral and, when referred, were most often sent to orthopedists. Belief in the effectiveness of rheumatologists or orthopedists correlated strongly with reported referral behavior, yet most respondents considered themselves capable of managing the majority of patients with musculoskeletal diseases. Neither practice arrangement, board certification, nor educational background affected referral behavior. However, younger physicians were more likely (P = 0.002) to refer patients to rheumatologists. Multivariate analysis showed that the significant predictors of global referral behavior were belief in the effectiveness of subspecialists and a small number of musculoskeletal problems seen by the generalist. The predictors of referral to rheumatologists were belief in rheumatologist efficacy and young physician age.     

Ultrasonography for rheumatologists: the development of specific competency based educational outcomes

BACKGROUND: A competency based approach to the education of rheumatologists in musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSK US) ensures standards are documented, transparent, accountable, and defensible, with clear benefit to all stakeholders. Specific competency outcomes will facilitate informed development of a common curriculum and structured programme of training and assessment. OBJECTIVE: To determine explicit competency based learning outcomes for rheumatologists undertaking MSK US. METHODS: International experts in MSK US, satisfying specific selection criteria, were asked to define the minimum standards required by a rheumatologist to be judged competent in MSK US. They reviewed 115 MSK US skills, comprising bone and soft tissue pathology, in seven joints regions of the upper and lower limbs, and rated their relative importance according to specific criteria. These data are presented as specific educational outcomes within designated competency categories. RESULTS: 57 expert MSK US practitioners were identified and 35 took part in this study. Ten generic core competency outcomes were recognised including physics, anatomy, technique, and interpretation. Regarding specific regional competencies, 53% (61/115) were considered "must know" core learning outcomes, largely comprising inflammatory joint/tendon/bone pathology and guided procedures; 45% (52/115) were required at an intermediate/advanced level (18/115 "should know", 34/115 "could know"), and 2% (2/115) were deemed inappropriate/unnecessary for rheumatologist ultrasonographers. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to developing a competency model for the education of rheumatologists in MSK US based on the evidence of international experts. A specific set of learning outcomes has been defined, which will facilitate future informed education and practice development and provide a blueprint for a structured rheumatology MSK US curriculum and assessment process.     

German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

The German Society of Rheumatology approved new German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. An update of the EULAR systematic literature research was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Meta-analyses, controlled trials, cohort studies, and registry data addressing traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and treatment strategies published between January 2009 and August 2011 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated and compared the additional data that had been published after the time limit set by the EULAR recommendations. A national guideline working group developed an adapted set of recommendations. The new German guidelines were accepted by vote using an informal Delphi approach. Twelve recommendations and the resulting updated treatment algorithm were developed and approved as a practical orientation for rheumatologists. These recommendations are based on a successive treatment with traditional and biologic disease-modifying drugs depending on the individual progress of the disease and distinct patient characteristics. The German guidelines have been developed on the basis of the internationally well-recognized EULAR recommendations. In addition, more recent evidence from a systematic literature research was considered. They have been developed and approved by a group of national experts aiming at guidance for rheumatologists to reach best medical practice.     

Does practice mirror the evidence base in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?

A large base of evidence exists regarding treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and how they may be used to preserve long-term function and improve patient outcomes. However, little is known about whether real-life rheumatology practice reflects the evidence base. This survey aimed to capture differing perceptions among rheumatologists in the identification and treatment of patients and to understand how their management of and treatment decisions for patients with RA may be influenced by the current published literature. Rheumatologists from five European countries and Canada participated in a survey between April and May 2006 to establish how rheumatologists identify and treat particular patient types in everyday practice. In total, 458 rheumatologists responded to the online and telephone survey. Rapidly progressing disease was overwhelmingly recognized (97%) as a distinct subtype among patients with RA, and the majority (88%) of respondents make treatment decisions based on this distinction. Most rheumatologists use measures including C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, tender/swollen joint counts, and X-ray progression to diagnose and monitor this particular group of patients; a minority (30%) used magnetic resonance imaging to identify and monitor patients with rapidly progressing disease. Although treatment goals for these patients were similar among rheumatologists, the treatment approach varied considerably across countries. Overall, rheumatologists agree on the management goals for patients with rapidly progressing RA; however, their treatment patterns have some dissimilarities.     

Transnasal OGD: Practice survey and impact of a live video retransmission

BACKGROUND: Unsedated transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy significantly improves patient tolerance compared to unsedated conventional peroral oesogastroduodenoscopy. AIMS: To assess the adoption of transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy among endoscopists from various European countries and its determinants. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 624 endoscopists attending a live course on digestive endoscopy; a poll was also performed immediately before and after live video retransmission of a transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy. RESULTS: Answer rate was 48%; transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy was practised by 31% of respondents. In multivariate analysis, practice of transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy was associated with location in France and Netherlands (P<0.0001), availability of many gastroscopes (P<0.0001) and less frequent use of sedation (P=0.006). Endoscopists who did not practise transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy cited doubts about its advantages over conventional oesogastroduodenoscopy and lack of training (34% each) as barriers to adoption. Seventy-four percent of endoscopists practicing transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy did actually use it in <20% of eligible cases. Live video retransmission of a transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy increased the proportion of endoscopists interested in this technique (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of transnasal oesogastroduodenoscopy largely varies between European countries; endoscopists practicing this technique use it in a minority of eligible cases. Live case demonstration may decrease barriers to the adoption of this technique.     

Barriers to providing adequate rheumatology care: implications from a survey of rheumatologists in ontario,Canada

OBJECTIVE: To determine what, if any, barriers exist that prevent rheumatologists from providing adequate rheumatology care. METHODS: All 158 identified rheumatologists in Ontario were sent a self-administered questionnaire and followed up by telephone. RESULTS: The response rate was 83%. All but 6 rheumatologists reported at least one barrier to the provision of service. The 3 most commonly reported barriers were the cost of drugs for patients (83%), billing policies and regulations for consultation and followup visits (72%), and long waiting times for patients (61%). Rheumatologists reporting the latter had significantly longer waiting times (12 vs 4 wks) for new non-urgent patients, although there was no difference for new patients with inflammatory arthritis. Nearly three-quarters of respondents had changed the patterns of their practice over the last 3 years, with significant increases in the amount of independent medical services (e.g., third party billing) and pharmaceutical company work. The majority (89%) of responding rheumatologists reported having at least some difficulty in making ends meet from rheumatology practice alone and 28% found it was not possible. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the majority of rheumatologists face significant barriers to providing adequate care. Given the recruitment and service provision concerns in Canada, these barriers to service need to be addressed to ensure adequate provision of care.