P145 A review of vitamin D testing in primary care: significant savings to be made

Abstract

Abstract Background Vitamin D deficiency is common in the UK due to a lack of sunlight over the winter months. Risk factors include darker skin and reduced exposure to sunlight (e.g. housebound/institutionalised patients or those who cover skin for religious reasons). As part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, the British Society for Rheumatology recommend that vitamin D testing should be reserved for people at high risk of deficiency and avoided as part of routine investigation of widespread pain alone. They also recommend that repeat testing isn’t usually necessary in patients who are taking vitamin D supplements. The aim of this project was to review the testing of Vitamin D in a Primary Care setting. Methods An EMIS search was conducted for patients who had their vitamin D levels tested in September and October 2017. The following information was collected for each patient: indication for testing, vitamin D level, whether vitamin D had been tested previously or subsequently, treatment offered and the patient’s residence. Results 96 patients had their vitamin D levels checked. Of these, 8 were excluded as they had been tested on the advice of secondary care. Of the remaining 88 patients, 6 (6%) were vitamin D deficient and 34 (38%) had insufficient vitamin D levels. The most common indication for testing was tiredness in 26 patients (30%) followed by generalised aching/lower limb pain 19 (22%). 8 (9%) patients were tested due to pain at specific sites including a single joint or abdominal pain, 5 (6%) due to neurological symptoms, 4 (5%) due to a diagnosis of CKD and 3 (3%) due to skin and hair problems. There was no clearly documented indication for testing levels in the remaining 3 (3%) patients. 35 (40%) patients had previously had their vitamin D levels tested and 19 (22%) patients had subsequent testing. Of the patients with abnormal vitamin D levels, 22 (25%) were prescribed treatment, 16 (18%) advised to buy over the counter and no advice was documented in 16 (18%) patients. None of the patients lived in residential or nursing homes. Conclusion This project identified a range of indications for vitamin D testing and a large number of patients who had repeated testing. This highlights a potential area for education in primary care surrounding the value in both initial and repeated testing of vitamin D levels. The findings show a need for an improvement in documentation as some patients had no clear linked reason for testing and no evidence that abnormal levels were actioned. However, there were limitations to determining whether BSR guidelines were followed as some factors that would lead to patients being at high risk of deficiency (such as skin colour) could not be collected from EMIS. Disclosures E. Riding None. E. MacPhie Other; EM is the secretary of the North West Rheumatology Club; meetings are supported by an unrestricted educational grant from UCB.