Gout Knowledge, Beliefs and Treatment Practices in a National Sample of US Primary Care Providers

Objectives: We sought to examine primary care providers’ gout knowledge and reported treatment patterns in comparison to current treatment recommendations. Methods: We conducted a national survey of a random sample of primary care physicians (internists and family practitioners) to assess their treatment of acute, intercritical, and tophaceous gout in comparison to published European and American gout treatment recommendations and guidelines. Results: There were 838 respondents (response rate of 41%) most of whom worked in private practice (63%) with \u3e16 years experience (52%). For acute podagra, 16% reported care consistent with the recommendations including avoidance of anti-inflammatory drugs in the setting of renal insufficiency, use of colchicine at a dose of ≤ 1.8mg a day, and no initiation of a urate-lowering drug (ULD) during an acute attack (internists 21% vs. family practitioners 11%, p Conclusion: While internists were more likely than family practitioners to suggest recommended care, the majority of physicians did not report optimal treatment practices, suggesting further education is needed

Patients\u27 knowledge and beliefs concerning gout and its treatment: a population based study

BACKGROUND: For patients to effectively manage gout, they need to be aware of the impact of diet, alcohol use, and medications on their condition. We sought to examine patients\u27 knowledge and beliefs concerning gout and its treatment in order to identify barriers to optimal patient self-management. METHODS: We identified patients (\u3e/=18 years of age) cared for in the setting of a multispecialty group practice with documentation of at least one health care encounter associated with a gout diagnosis during the period 2008-2009 (n = 1346). Patients were sent a questionnaire assessing knowledge with regard to gout, beliefs about prescription medications used to treat gout, and trust in the physician. Administrative electronic health records were used to identify prescription drug use and health care utilization. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty patients returned surveys out of the 500 contacted for participation. Most were male (80%), white (94%), and aged 65 and older (66%). Only 14 (6%) patients were treated by a rheumatologist. Only a minority of patients were aware of common foods known to trigger gout (e.g., seafood [23%], beef [22%], pork [7%], and beer [43%]). Of those receiving a urate-lowering medication, only 12% were aware of the short-term risks of worsening gout with initiation. These deficits were more common in those with active as compared to inactive gout. CONCLUSION: Knowledge deficits about dietary triggers and chronic medications were common, but worse in those with active gout. More attention is needed on patient education on gout and self-management training

Primary Care Physicians’ Views on Medical Error and Disclosure in Cancer Care

Introduction: Effective physician-patient communication is critical in cancer care. Breakdowns in communication may follow an actual or suspected medical error because of various professional or medicolegal concerns about those events. We examined views of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding two hypothetical medical errors, their perceptions of responsibility and intent to communicate these events to patients. Objectives: To describe PCPs views on medical errors, perceived responsibility and communication after errors during cancer care. Methods: We surveyed 630 PCPs at 3 healthcare organizations participating in the Cancer Research Network. Questionnaires included two vignettes describing possible medical errors: a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer and; preventable complications of colon cancer treatment. Questions assessed perceived responsibility and intent to communicate with the patient after the event. Results: A total of 333 PCPs responded (response rate =53%). Eighty-one percent felt that the delayed diagnosis vignette described a serious error; (60%) believed that the preventable complications of colon cancer treatment vignette represented a serious medical error. Few would offer no apology at all for the delayed diagnosis (4%) or the colon cancer complications complications (7%). The most common expression of regret was “I am sorry about what happened to you” without elaboration (48% delayed diagnosis; 56% complications). Just over half (51%) would not volunteer the cause of the delayed diagnosis; compared to 25% in the complications vignette. Perception of the error as serious, and of greater personal responsibility were both predictive of being more forthcoming when communicating to patient after the event; perceived self-efficacy in communication and the belief that one’s organization values good communication were not. Conclusion: PCPs vary in their attitudes towards medical errors, and their perceptions of responsibility. These attitudes and perceptions are predictive of how physicians intend to communicate with patients after such events, at least in response to two hypothetical cases

Primary care providers\u27 knowledge, beliefs and treatment practices for gout: results of a physician questionnaire

Objective. We sought to examine primary care providers\u27 gout knowledge and reported treatment patterns in comparison with current treatment recommendations. Methods. We conducted a national survey of a random sample of US primary care physicians to assess their treatment of acute, intercritical and tophaceous gout using published European and American gout treatment recommendations and guidelines as a gold standard. Results. There were 838 respondents (response rate of 41%), most of whom worked in private practice (63%) with \u3e16 years experience (52%). Inappropriate dosing of medications in the setting of renal disease and lack of prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy (ULT) accounted for much of the lack of compliance with treatment recommendations. Specifically for acute podagra, 53% reported avoidance of anti-inflammatory drugs in the setting of renal insufficiency, use of colchicine at a dose of ≤2.4 mg/day and no initiation of a ULT during an acute attack. For intercritical gout in the setting of renal disease, 3% would provide care consistent with the recommendations, including initiating a ULT at the appropriate dose with dosing titration to a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl and providing prophylaxis. For tophaceous gout, 17% reported care consistent with the recommendations, including ULT use with dosing titration to a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl and prophylaxis. Conclusion. Only half of primary care providers reported optimal treatment practices for the management of acute gout an

Providers\u27 perceptions of communication breakdowns in cancer care

BACKGROUND: Communication breakdowns in cancer care are common and represent a failure in patient-centered care. While multiple studies have elicited patients\u27 perspectives on these breakdowns, little is known about cancer care providers\u27 attitudes regarding the causes and potential solutions. OBJECTIVE: To examine providers\u27 (1) perceptions of the nature and causes of communication breakdowns with patients in cancer care and (2) suggestions for managing and preventing breakdowns. DESIGN: Qualitative study of nine focus groups held at three sites (Massachusetts, Georgia and Washington). PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine providers: 33% primary care physicians, 14% oncologists, 36% nurses, and 17% nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and others. APPROACH: Directed content analysis of focus group transcripts. KEY RESULTS: Providers\u27 perceptions of the causes of communication breakdowns fell into three categories: causes related to patients, providers, or healthcare systems. Providers perceived that patients sometimes struggle to understand cancer and health-related information, have unrealistic expectations, experience emotional and psychological distress that interferes with information exchange; and may be reticent to share their confusion or concerns. Providers described their own and colleagues\u27 contributions to these breakdowns as sharing inaccurate, conflicting, or uncoordinated information. Providers also described the difficulty in balancing hope with reality in discussions of prognosis. System issues named by providers included insufficient time with patients, payment systems, and changing protocols that inhibit communication and coordination of care. Potential solutions included greater patient engagement, team coordination, and systems that promote patient feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Providers described multiple causes for communication breakdowns at the patient, provider, and system level. Multi-level interventions that coordinate care and encourage feedback may help to address or prevent communication breakdowns

More than words: Patients\u27 views on apology and disclosure when things go wrong in cancer care

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on apology and disclosure after adverse events and errors have been in place for over 5 years. This study examines whether patients consider recommended responses to be appropriate and desirable, and whether clinicians\u27 actions after adverse events are consistent with recommendations. METHODS: Patients who believed that something had gone wrong during their cancer care were identified. During in-depth interviews, patients described the event, clinicians\u27 responses, and their reactions. RESULTS: 78 patients were interviewed. Patients\u27 valued apology and expressions of remorse, empathy and caring, explanation, acknowledgement of responsibility, and efforts to prevent recurrences, but these key elements were often missing. For many patients, actions and evidence of clinician learning were most important. CONCLUSION: Patients\u27 reports of apology and disclosure when they believe something has gone wrong in their care suggest that clinicians\u27 responses continue to fall short of expectations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians preparing to talk with patients after an adverse event or medical error should be aware that patients expect their actions to be congruent with their words of apology and caring. Healthcare systems need to support clinicians throughout the disclosure process, and facilitate both system and individual learning to prevent recurrences

Toward patient-centered cancer care: patient perceptions of problematic events, impact, and response

PURPOSE: Cancer treatments are complex, involving multiple clinicians, toxic therapies, and uncertain outcomes. Consequently, patients are vulnerable when breakdowns in care occur. This study explored cancer patients\u27 perceptions of preventable, harmful events; the impact of these events; and interactions with clinicians after such events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with cancer patients from three clinical sites. Patients were eligible if they believed: something went wrong during their cancer care; the event could have been prevented; and the event caused, or could have caused, significant harm. Interviews focused on patients\u27 perceptions of the event, its impact, and clinicians\u27 responses to the event. RESULTS: Ninety-three of 416 patients queried believed something had gone wrong in their care that was preventable and caused or could have caused harm. Seventy-eight patients completed interviews. Of those interviewed, 28% described a problem with medical care, such as a delay in diagnosis or treatment; 47% described a communication problem, including problems with information exchange or manner; and 24% described problems with both medical care and communication. Perceived harms included physical and emotional harm, disruption of life, effect on family members, damaged physician-patient relationship, and financial expense. Few clinicians initiated discussion of the problematic events. Most patients did not formally report their concerns. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients who believe they experienced a preventable, harmful event during their cancer diagnosis or care often do not formally report their concerns. Systems are needed to encourage patients to report such events and to help physicians and health care systems respond effectively

Assessing patient-centered communication in cancer care: stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE: Patient-centered communication is critical to quality cancer care. Effective communication can help patients and family members cope with cancer, make informed decisions, and effectively manage their care; suboptimal communication can contribute to care breakdowns and undermine clinician-patient relationships. The study purpose was to explore stakeholders\u27 views on the feasibility and acceptability of collecting self-reported patient and family perceptions of communication experiences while receiving cancer care. The results were intended to inform the design, development, and implementation of a structured and generalizable patient-level reporting system. METHODS: This was a formative, qualitative study that used semistructured interviews with cancer patients, family members, clinicians, and leaders of health care organizations. The constant comparative method was used to identify major themes in the interview transcripts. RESULTS: A total of 106 stakeholders were interviewed. Thematic saturation was achieved. All stakeholders recognized the importance of communication and endorsed efforts to improve communication during cancer care. Patients, clinicians, and leaders expressed concerns about the potential consequences of reports of suboptimal communication experiences, such as damage to the clinician-patient relationship, and the need for effective improvement strategies. Patients and family members would report good communication experiences in order to encourage such practices. Practical and logistic issues were identified. CONCLUSION: Patient reports of their communication experiences during cancer care could increase understanding of the communication process, stimulate improvements, inform interventions, and provide a basis for evaluating changes in communication practices. This qualitative study provides a foundation for the design and pilot testing of such a patient reporting system

Patients\u27 and family members\u27 views on patient-centered communication during cancer care

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients\u27 and family members\u27 views on communication during cancer care and to identify those aspects of clinician-patient communication which were most important to patients and family members. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of qualitative data from 137 patients with cancer and family members of patients with cancer. We used a modified version of the constant comparative method and coding paradigm of grounded theory. RESULTS: Patients want sensitive, caring clinicians who provide information that they need, when they need it, in a way that they can understand; who listen and respond to questions and concerns, and who attempt to understand the patient\u27s experience. Effective information exchange and a positive interpersonal relationship with the clinician were of fundamental importance to patients and family members. These were interrelated; for instance, failure to provide information a patient needed could damage the relationship, whereas excellent listening could foster the relationship. Information exchange and relationship were also integral to decision-making, managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, and self-management. Clinicians who were responsive to patients\u27 needs beyond the immediate medical encounter were valued. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of cancer care today suggests that efforts to improve communication must be multilevel, acknowledging and addressing patient, clinician, organizational and policy barriers, and facilitators. Measurement tools are needed to assess cancer patients\u27 and family members\u27 experiences with communication over the course of cancer care to provide meaningful, actionable feedback to those seeking to optimize their effectiveness in communicating with patients with cancer