Clinical Prediction Rule for Stratifying Risk of Pulmonary Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), resistance to at least isoniazid and rifampin, is a worldwide problem.To develop a clinical prediction rule to stratify risk for MDR-TB among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis.Derivation and internal validation of the rule among adult patients prospectively recruited from 37 health centers (Perú), either a) presenting with a positive acid-fast bacillus smear, or b) had failed therapy or had a relapse within the first 12 months.Among 964 patients, 82 had MDR-TB (prevalence, 8.5%). Variables included were MDR-TB contact within the family, previous tuberculosis, cavitary radiologic pattern, and abnormal lung exam. The area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) was 0.76. Selecting a cut-off score of one or greater resulted in a sensitivity of 72.6%, specificity of 62.8%, likelihood ratio (LR) positive of 1.95, and LR negative of 0.44. Similarly, selecting a cut-off score of two or greater resulted in a sensitivity of 60.8%, specificity of 87.5%, LR positive of 4.85, and LR negative of 0.45. Finally, selecting a cut-off score of three or greater resulted in a sensitivity of 45.1%, specificity of 95.3%, LR positive of 9.56, and LR negative of 0.58.A simple clinical prediction rule at presentation can stratify risk for MDR-TB. If further validated, the rule could be used for management decisions in resource-limited areas

Financing U.S. Graduate Medical Education: A Policy Position Paper of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians

In this position paper, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine and the American College of Physicians examine the state of graduate medical education (GME) financing in the United States and recent proposals to reform GME funding. They make a series of recommendations to reform the current funding system to better align GME with the needs of the nation's health care workforce. These recommendations include using Medicare GME funds to meet policy goals and to ensure an adequate supply of physicians, a proper specialty mix, and appropriate training sites; spreading the costs of financing GME across the health care system; evaluating the true cost of training a resident and establishing a single per-resident amount; increasing transparency and innovation; and ensuring that primary care residents receive training in well-functioning ambulatory settings that are financially supported for their training roles

Can residents accurately abstract their own charts

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of residents\u27 record review, using trained abstractors as a gold standard comparison. METHOD: In 2005, the authors asked 74 residents to review their own charts (n = 392) after they received brief instruction on both how to locate data on the medical record and how to use a data abstraction form. Trained abstractors then re-reviewed these charts to assess performance of preventive health care measures in medicine (smoking screening, smoking cessation advice, mammography, colon cancer screening, lipid screening, and pneumonia vaccination) and pediatrics (parent smoking screening, parent smoking cessation advice, car seat safety, car restraint use, eye alignment, and immunizations up to date). The authors then quantified agreement between the two record reviews and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the residents versus the trained abstractors. RESULTS: Overall resident-measured performance was similar (within 5%) to that of the trained abstractor for five of six measures in medicine and four of six in pediatrics. For the various measures, sensitivity of resident-measured performance ranged from 100% to 15% and specificity from 100% to 33% compared with the trained abstractors. Relative to the trained abstractor record review, residents did not overestimate their performance. Most residents\u27 (81%) relative performance rankings did not change when the basis for the ranking was resident measured versus trained abstractor measured. CONCLUSIONS: Residents\u27 self-abstraction can be an alternative to costly trained abstractors. Appropriate use of these data should be carefully considered, acknowledging the limitations

Validation of a Clinical Prediction Rule for the Differential Diagnosis of Acute Meningitis.

OBJECTIVE: To attempt to validate a previously reported clinical prediction rule derived to assist in distinguishing between acute bacterial meningitis and acute viral meningitis. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of patients treated at five hospitals between 1981 and 1990. The criterion standard for bacterial meningitis was a positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood culture or a positive test for bacterial antigen in the CSF. For viral meningitis, the criterion standard was a positive viral culture from CSF, stool, or blood or a discharge diagnosis of viral meningitis with no other etiology evident. SETTING: Two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, two county hospitals, and one private hospital, each affiliated with one of two medical schools. PATIENTS: All persons aged more than 17 years who were hospitalized over a ten-year period at one of five academically affiliated hospitals for the management of acute meningitis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-two cases of bacterial meningitis and 98 cases of viral meningitis were confirmed. With all patients included, the discriminatory power of the model as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.977 (95% CI, 0.957-0.997), compared with the AUC of 0.97 in the derivation set of the original publication. The AUCs (95% CIs) for data subsets were: Dallas cases 0.994 (0.986-1.0). Milwaukee cases 0.912 (0.834-0.990); ages 18-39 years 0.952 (0.892-1.0), ages 40-59 years 0.99 (0.951-1.0), and age \u3e or = 60 years 0.955 (0.898-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the clinical prediction rule proved robust when applied to a geographically distinct population comprised exclusively of adults. There was sustained performance of the model when applied to cases from each city and from three age strata. Prospective validation of this prediction rule will be necessary to confirm its utility in clinical practice

Measuring resident physicians\u27 performance of preventive care. Comparing chart review with patient survey

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has suggested various methods for evaluation of practice-based learning and improvement competency, but data on implementation of these methods are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical record review and patient surveys on evaluating physician performance in preventive services in an outpatient resident clinic. DESIGN: Within an ongoing quality improvement project, we collected baseline performance data on preventive services provided for patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Internal Medicine Residents\u27 ambulatory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residents from the UAB Internal Medicine Residency program. MEASUREMENTS: Resident- and clinic-level comparisons of aggregated patient survey and chart documentation rates of (1) screening for smoking status, (2) advising smokers to quit, (3) cholesterol screening, (4) mammography screening, and (5) pneumonia vaccination. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty-nine patient surveys and 761 charts were abstracted. At the clinic level, rates for screening of smoking status, recommending mammogram, and for cholesterol screening were similar (difference \u3c5%) between the 2 methods. Higher rates for pneumonia vaccination (76% vs 67%) and advice to quit smoking (66% vs 52%) were seen on medical record review versus patient surveys. However, within-resident (N=70) comparison of 2 methods of estimating screening rates contained significant variability. The cost of medical record review was substantially higher ($107 vs$17/physician). CONCLUSIONS: Medical record review and patient surveys provided similar rates for selected preventive health measures at the clinic level, with the exception of pneumonia vaccination and advising to quit smoking. A large variation among individual resident providers was noted

American Internal Medicine in the 21(st) Century: Can an Oslerian Generalism Survive?

American internal medicine suffers a confusion of identity as we enter the 21(st) century. The subspecialties prosper, although unevenly, and retain varying degrees of connection to their internal medicine roots. General internal medicine, identified with primary care since the 1970s, retains an affinity for its traditional consultant-generalist ideal even as primary care further displaces that ideal. We discuss the origins and importance of the consultant-generalist ideal of internal medicine as exemplified by Osler, and its continued appeal in spite of the predominant role played by clinical science and accompanying subspecialism in determining the academic leadership of American internal medicine since the 1920s. Organizing departmental clinical work along subspecialty lines diminished the importance of the consultant-generalist ideal in academic departments of medicine after 1950. General internists, when they joined the divisions of general internal medicine that appeared in departments of medicine in the 1970s, could sometimes emulate Osler in practicing a general medicine of complexity, but often found themselves in a more limited role doing primary care. As we enter the 21(st) century, managed care threatens what remains of the Oslerian ideal, both in departments of medicine and in clinical practice. Twenty-first century American internists will have to adjust their conditions of work should they continue to aspire to practice Oslerian internal medicine