Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions.

OBJECTIVES The requirement in Northern Ireland to prescribe biological agents according to National Institute for Clinical Excellence/British Society for Rheumatology (NICE/BSR) guidelines and within a fixed budget has created a waiting list for treatment that has no parallel in the Republic of Ireland. The study investigated the bearing this situation may have had on consultants' judgements in the respective areas. METHODS Seventy-eight case vignettes created from the data on real patients with RA treated with biologicals in the north and south of Ireland were appraised by nine southern and eight northern consultants, who judged the clinical benefit and significance of the patients' condition after a trial of therapy. Quantitative (clinical judgement analysis) and qualitative (focus groups) techniques were used. RESULTS Northern consultants perceived a slightly greater degree of clinical benefit after a trial of therapy than southern consultants. Judgement models of northern and southern consultants were broadly comparable. The latter tended to be more uniform in their judgements than the southern group. Focus group discussions with consultants largely validated the findings of the quantitative analysis but revealed how clinical judgement analysis might be misled by gaming strategies. CONCLUSIONS Despite the absence of overt rationing in the south of Ireland, as far as the judgement of therapeutic benefit from biologicals was concerned, the clinical judgement policies of practitioners were very similar to those in the north. The adoption of NICE/BSR guidelines in the north may have improved the uniformity of clinical practice in Northern Ireland.