Rheumatology practice profiles in teaching and community settings in Puerto Rico: implications to subspecialty training

A survey of anatomical items relevant to the practice of rheumatology: upper extremity, head, neck, spine, and general concepts

This study aimed to identify the anatomical items of the upper extremity and spine that are potentially relevant to the practice of rheumatology. Ten rheumatologists interested in clinical anatomy who published, taught, and/or participated as active members of Clinical Anatomy Interest groups (six seniors, four juniors), participated in a one-round relevance Delphi exercise. An initial, 560-item list that included 45 (8.0 %) general concepts items; 138 (24.8 %) hand items; 100 (17.8 %) forearm and elbow items; 147 (26.2 %) shoulder items; and 130 (23.2 %) head, neck, and spine items was compiled by 5 of the participants. Each item was graded for importance with a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Thus, scores could range from 10 (1 × 10) to 50 (5 × 10). An item score of ≥40 was considered most relevant to competent practice as a rheumatologist. Mean item Likert scores ranged from 2.2 ± 0.5 to 4.6 ± 0.7. A total of 115 (20.5 %) of the 560 initial items reached relevance. Broken down by categories, this final relevant item list was composed by 7 (6.1 %) general concepts items; 32 (27.8 %) hand items; 20 (17.4 %) forearm and elbow items; 33 (28.7 %) shoulder items; and 23 (17.6 %) head, neck, and spine items. In this Delphi exercise, a group of practicing academic rheumatologists with an interest in clinical anatomy compiled a list of anatomical items that were deemed important to the practice of rheumatology. We suggest these items be considered curricular priorities when training rheumatology fellows in clinical anatomy skills and in programs of continuing rheumatology education.

Preworkshop knowledge of musculoskeletal anatomy of rheumatology fellows and rheumatologists of seven North, Central, and South American countries

OBJECTIVE

To report the baseline knowledge of clinical anatomy of rheumatology fellows and rheumatologists from Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, the US, and Uruguay.

METHODS

The invitation to attend a workshop in clinical anatomy was an open call by national rheumatology societies in 4 countries or by invitation from teaching program directors in 3 countries. Prior to the workshop, a practical test of anatomic structures commonly involved in rheumatic diseases was administered. The test consisted of the demonstration of these structures or their function in the participant's or instructor's body. At one site, a postworkshop practical test was administered immediately after the workshop.

RESULTS

There were 170 participants (84 rheumatology fellows, 61 rheumatologists, and 25 nonrheumatologists). The overall mean ± SD number of correct answers was 46.6% ± 19.9% and ranged from 32.5-67.0% by country. Rheumatology fellows scored significantly higher than nonrheumatologists. Questions related to anatomy of the hand scored the lowest of the regions surveyed.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatology fellows and rheumatologists showed a deficit in knowledge of musculoskeletal anatomy that is of central importance in rheumatologic assessment and diagnosis. This gap may hinder accurate and cost-effective rheumatologic diagnosis, particularly in the area of regional pain syndromes. Presently, widespread use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) by rheumatologists may be premature, since a key component of expert-level MSUS is the integration of an accurate knowledge of anatomy with the views obtained with the ultrasound probe.