Reliability of the Knee Examination in Osteoarthritis: Effect of Standardization

Objective. To assess the reliability of physical examination of the osteoarthritic (OA) knee by rheumatologists, and to evaluate the benefits of standardization. Methods. Forty-two physical signs and techniques were evaluated using a 6 X 6 Latin square design. Patients with mild to severe knee OA, based on physical and radiographic signs, were examined in random order prior to and following standardization of techniques. For those signs with dichotomous scales, agreement among the rheumatologists was calculated as the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), while for the signs with continuous and ordinal scales, a reliability coefficient (R-c) was calculated using analysis of variance. A PABAK of >0.60 and an Re of >0.80 were considered to indicate adequate reliability. Results. Adequate poststandardization reliability was achieved for 30 of 42 physical signs/techniques (71%). The most highly reliable signs identified by physical examination of the OA knee included alignment by goniometer (R-c = 0.99), bony swelling (R-c = 0.97), general passive crepitus (R-c = 0.96), gait by inspection (PABAK = 0.78), effusion bulge sign (R-c = 0.97), quadriceps atrophy (R. = 0.97), medial tibiofemoral tenderness (R-c = 0.94), lateral tibiofemoral tenderness (R-c = 0.85), patellofemoral tenderness by grind test (R-c = 0.94), and flexion contracture (R-c = 0.95). The standardization process resulted in substantial improvements in reliability for evaluation of a number of physical signs, although for some signs, minimal or no effect of standardization was noted. After standardization, warmth (PABAK = 0.14), medial instability at 30degrees flexion (PABAK = 0.02), and lateral instability at 30degrees flexion (PABAK = 0.34) were the only 3 signs that were highly unreliable. Conclusion. With the exception of physical examinations for instability, a comprehensive knee examination can be performed with adequate reliability. Standardization further improves the reliability for some physical signs and techniques. The application of these findings to future OA studies will contribute to improved outcome assessments in OA.

Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.