A case report of a patient with upper extremity symptoms: differentiating radicular and referred pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Similar upper extremity symptoms can present with varied physiologic etiologies. However, due to the multifaceted nature of musculoskeletal conditions, a definitive diagnosis using physical examination and advanced testing is not always possible. This report discusses the diagnosis and case management of a patient with two episodes of similar upper extremity symptoms of different etiologies.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>On two separate occasions a forty-four year old female patient presented to a chiropractic office with a chief complaint of insidious right-sided upper extremity symptoms. During each episode she reported similar pain and parasthesias from her neck and shoulder to her lateral forearm and hand.</p> <p>During the first episode the patient was diagnosed with a cervical radiculopathy. Conservative treatment, including manual cervical traction, spinal manipulation and neuromobilization, was initiated and resolved the symptoms.</p> <p>Approximately eighteen months later the patient again experienced a severe acute flare-up of the upper extremity symptoms. Although the subjective complaint was similar, it was determined that the pain generator of this episode was an active trigger point of the infraspinatus muscle. A diagnosis of myofascial referred pain was made and a protocol of manual trigger point therapy and functional postural rehabilitative exercises improved the condition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this case a thorough physical evaluation was able to differentiate between radicular and referred pain. By accurately identifying the pain generating structures, the appropriate rehabilitative protocol was prescribed and led to a successful outcome for each condition. Conservative manual therapy and rehabilitative exercises may be an effective treatment for certain cases of cervical radiculopathy and myofascial referred pain.</p

Factors considered by medical students when formulating their specialty preferences in Japan: findings from a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little research addresses how medical students develop their choice of specialty training in Japan. The purpose of this research was to elucidate factors considered by Japanese medical students when formulating their specialty choice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted qualitative interviews with 25 Japanese medical students regarding factors influencing specialty preference and their views on roles of primary versus specialty care. We qualitatively analyzed the data to identify factors students consider when developing specialty preferences, to understand their views about primary and subspecialty care, and to construct models depicting the pathways to specialization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Students mention factors such as illness in self or close others, respect for family member in the profession, preclinical experiences in the curriculum such as labs and dissection, and aspects of patient care such as the clinical atmosphere, charismatic role models, and doctor-patient communication as influential on their specialty preferences. Participating students could generally distinguish between subspecialty care and primary care, but not primary care and family medicine. Our analysis yields a "Two Career" model depicting how medical graduates can first train for hospital-based specialty practice, and then switch to mixed primary/specialty care outpatient practice years later without any requirement for systematic training in principles of primary care practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Preclinical and clinical experiences as well as role models are reported by Japanese students as influential factors when formulating their specialty preferences. Student understanding of family medicine as a discipline is low in Japan. Students with ultimate aspirations to practice outpatient primary care medicine do not need to commit to systematic primary care training after graduation. The Two Career model of specialization leaves the door open for medical graduates to enter primary care practice at anytime regardless of post-graduate residency training choice.</p

Factors affecting costs and utilization of type 2 diabetes healthcare: a cross-sectional survey among 15 hospitals in urban China

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affects persons of all ages, while also placing heavy economic burdens on national economies and healthcare systems. The study aims to investigate the determinants of direct medical cost (DMC), out-of-pocket (OOP) proportion of the cost, and healthcare utilization associated with T2DM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This cross-sectional study was conducted in four major cities in China. Eligible subjects were adult outpatients who received treatment at one of 15 sampled secondary or tertiary hospitals and consecutively enrolled between March 2007 and May 2007. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine impact factors associated with DMC and healthcare utilization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Insurance schemes and receiving insulin therapy were significantly associated with a higher annual DMC of T2DM. For each increase in number of complications, there was about 33% increase in annual DMC. Insurance schemes were significantly associated with the proportions of DMC from pocket. A 7% significantly lower proportion of DMC was paid and 23% more clinic visits (AOR = 1.232, P < 0.001) were made by patients admitted at secondary hospitals than tertiary hospitals. The group with higher income (> 2000 CNY/month) paid 23% less from their pocket, compared with the lower income group. The number of complications also significantly increased the outpatient visits (AOR = 1.064, P < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It implies that preventing complications through the use of more effective treatment regimens is important in order to control the healthcare expenditures of the diseases. Healthcare reform needs to be focused on the medical insurance system and redistribution of patients in hospitals of different levels.</p

Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope

Background: The 'ease of use' andaccuracy in measurement of the vertical optic cup/discratio (VCDR) was compared between the conventional direct ophthalmoscope(CO) and Panoptic direct ophthalmoscope (PO) in a group of 'naive' firstyear medical students to determine which would be more suitablefor non-ophthalmologists. Methods: In this quasi-randomized method comparison study,eight students received an introductory session on ophthalmoscopythen examined 18 eyes (9 left, 9 right) with each ophthalmoscopein a private practice. The subjects were the eight students themselvesplus two other subjects. Each subject (n = 10)had one eye dilated. Students determined a VCDR and a subjectivescore of 'ease of use' on a scale of 1 (difficult)to 10 (easy). A consultant ophthalmologist (GAG) determined thebenchmark VCDR for each eye with each ophthalmoscope. Results: Of 288 eye examinations, there were 111 measure-ments of VCDR using the CO (47 undilated, 64dilated), and 140 measurements using the PO (75 undilated, 65 dilated).Differences in the students' estimated VCDR and the benchmarkwere similar for the CO and PO (P = 0.67). 'Easeof use' was scored in 288 eyes and the median score washigher in the PO overall (CO: median 8, IQR 6-9; PO median9, IQR 8-10; P < 0.0001), andwithin each session (P < 0.0001 foreach session). Conclusions: Medical students found the PO mucheasier to use, with accuracy of rating the VCDR similar to the CO. Thiscomparison would support the wider use of the PO amongst medicalstudents, general practitioners and other primary care providers