Objective: To answer the question, are the Jones Criteria being used appropriately in the diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) by non-specialist medical staff in a remote Australian setting?
Methods: The medical records of all patients discharged from Katherine Hospital (Northern Territory) with a diagnosis of ARF between January 2000 and April 2004 were retrospectively reviewed for adherence to the Jones Criteria. Data were also collected on specialist follow-up and need for transfer to a tertiary hospital.
Results: Twenty-five patients had a diagnosis of ARF and all were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Thirty-two per cent did not fulfil the Jones Criteria and of these 63% were recurrent cases. Eighty-eight per cent received specialist follow-up and of those who did not fulfil the Jones Criteria, all were diagnosed as ARF by the specialist. Only 20% required transfer to a tertiary hospital for higher-level care.
Conclusion: The Jones Criteria are being used appropriately to diagnose initial episodes of ARF but less successfully in recurrent episodes. Specialist follow-up is essential but acute episodes can be managed in remote settings, reducing the need to transfer patients to tertiary care with resultant patient dislocation and social isolation.
Implications: The diagnosis of ARF results in long-term penicillin prophylaxis. This is a major public health undertaking that requires correct diagnosis. This study demonstrates that the Jones Criteria are being used appropriately to diagnose ARF in a remote setting. The ability to diagnose and treat Indigenous patients within their local region reduces social isolation and creates a more positive health care experience.