P65 Exploring ethnic disparities in early arthritis care

• Published in: Rheumatology (Oxford, England) England), 2020-04, Vol.59 (Supplement_2)
• Main Authors: James, Lija, Clarke, Benjamin D, Salerno, Rosaria, Audu, Aderonke, Steer, Sophia, Galloway, James B
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1462-0324; 1462-0332
• DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa111.064

Abstract Background The National Health Service caters to a variety of rheumatology patients from increasingly diverse multi-ethnic backgrounds. Despite this, societal, organisational and personal barriers remain across the UK. These are known to directly and indirectly influence access to care although no inference can be generalised at a local level. Our south London trust has one of the highest non-white patient bases in the UK, hence our interest in wanting to explore the cultural differences around delivery of care. We set out to use the national inflammatory arthritis audit (NEIAA) data from our department to ensure equitable service provision and delivery using quality improvement methodology. Methods The NEIAA data for our trust observes performance across the seven NICE quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis. Of interest was evaluation of standards 1 to 6, as too few data existed for standard 7. Ethnicity was coded according to the NEIAA categories as white or non-white. Differences by disease severity indicators were analysed. A descriptive analysis was performed with an understanding that no assumptions or statistical interpretations could be made to these observed differences. Results A total of 471 patients had data available. Of these, 124 (26%) had a diagnosis of early inflammatory arthritis, of whom 34 (27%) were non-white and 80 (73%) were white. Non-white patients were younger, more were seropositive, had a higher baseline DAS28, worse MSK-HQ scores, worse mental health scores and worse HAQ scores. Non-white patients were less likely to have a patient reported outcome recorded. Attainment of quality standards 1, 2, 3 and 6 had equiproportionate representation of non-white and white patients. Standards 4 (provision of education) and 5 (agreement of treatment target) demonstrated fewer non-white patients meeting the target. Standard 5 demonstrated the most disparity. 83% of white patients had an agreed target compared to 47% of non-white (Odds ratio 5.6 (CI 2.2-14.1)). To describe this, our non-white patients were more than 5 times less likely to have an agreed treatment target. Conclusion Cultural differences exist in health-seeking behaviour, verbal language, written comprehension and in unconscious bias. The NEIAA results within our trust suggest differences exist by ethnic groupings in early arthritis care. Although challenges and taboos remain in discussing these variations, more work needs to be undertaken to explore healthcare d