The disease activity score in a busy clinic is often estimated rather than measured. An experienced rheumatologist looking at a patient they know well can usually tell whether things are better or worse, and the temptation is to record a number that matches that impression rather than to spend three minutes on a joint count.
The problem is not accuracy on the day, it is comparability over time. A treat-to-target strategy depends on comparing this visit's number with the last one, and an estimated score compared against a measured score is not a comparison at all. It is also the number that determines access to therapy in most funding systems, and an under-recorded count is the commonest reason a patient who needs escalation does not get it.
Do the count, in the same order every time, and record the patient global and the acute-phase reactant at the same visit. Where a patient reports feeling worse than the count suggests, record both rather than reconciling them — residual symptoms in a patient in clinical remission are real, common, and not visible in a joint count at all.
- Perform the joint count in a fixed sequence at every visit rather than estimating it.
- Record the patient global assessment even when it disagrees with your examination.
- Do not adjust a count to match the acute-phase reactant, or the reverse.
- Note residual symptoms separately in a patient who is in clinical remission by score.
- Write the score in the notes, not only in your head — the comparison is the point.
Why it matters
Treat-to-target depends on comparing scores over time, and an estimated score cannot be compared with a measured one.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for rheumatology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free