AB1345-HPR THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY FOOT CLINIC: A SERVICE EVALUATION PROJECT

Background: Patients with rheumatological foot disease are an overlooked population, and it was noted locally that these patients received a fragmented service; attending multiple appointments for the management of one clinical issue. This led to delays in treatment; significant inter-departmental correspondence and variations in the peri-operative management of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) and biologic therapies. To remedy this a foot multidisciplinary (MDT) clinic was established, including input from rheumatology, orthopaedic surgery, specialist rheumatology podiatry and physiotherapy. The outcomes from the foot MDT clinic have been analysed in this service evaluation project. Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of the multidisciplinary foot MDT clinic, with particular reference to concordance to the British Rheumatology Society (BSR) guidelines on peri-operative medicine guidelines. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively across all clinics from January 2017 to February 2019. Clinic letters were obtained, and data was collected using a standardised data collection sheet. Data was collected on patient demographics, rheumatological diagnoses, treatment outcomes from the foot MDT, appropriateness of peri-operative plan and post-operative complications. No data was available on these outcomes prior to the advent of the foot MDT clinic. Results: Data from 12 clinics was analysed (n=40). Patients had a median age of 66 years (IQR 27.5 years); 65% of patients were female and 35% of patients were male. The commonest rheumatological foot disease seen was rheumatoid arthritis (67%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (15%). All patients were treated with biologic or non-biologic DMARDs. Treatment outcomes were as follows: 27.5% were offered surgical treatment; 10% were offered intra-articular (IA) injections under ultrasound guidance; 10% were offered IA injections under general anaesthetic; 25% underwent specialist rheumatology podiatry, and the remaining 30% elected for a conservative approach after careful consideration of treatment options. Of those who were offered surgical treatment, 72% of patients were provided with a peri-operative plan which accorded with British Rheumatology Society (BSR) guidelines. Of those whom underwent surgery, one patient’s surgical treatment was complicated by a post-operative infection; however, the peri-operative DMARD/biologic plan was not felt to be contributing factor. Conclusion: The foot MDT clinic provides a comprehensive review of rheumatological foot conditions, with readily available access to a full range of treatment options. Co-location of all relevant professionals allows for real-time interdepartmental communication; shared decision making between clinicians and patients; avoids multiple appointments; reduces uncertainty with peri-operative planning as well as providing a cost-effective and efficacious service. Discrepancies in the peri-operative plan for medicines arose when the treating orthopaedic surgeon was not present in clinic. In these cases, the plan for surgical treatment was made outside of this clinic, without input from the treating rheumatologist. To improve concordance with BSR peri-operative medicine guidelines, it is recommended that all treatment decisions are made during the clinic, allowing input from all relevant partners. Informal feedback from patients commended the foot MDT, this shall be formalised through further qualitative data. Disclosure of Interests: None declared