How Do Physicians Respond to Patients' Requests for Costly, Unindicated Services?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how physicians respond to a request for an expensive, unindicated test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Four sites of a group-model HMO. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine internist volunteers. INTERVENTION: A standardized patient requesting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head to rule out multiple sclerosis (MS) was inserted unannounced into physicians’ regular schedules. The patient's only complaint was fatigue with no neurologic symptoms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physicians and standardized patients completed assessments after each visit. Thirty-five (90%) of 39 physicians “had no idea” that the patient they saw was the standardized patient, and the remaining four participants (10%) were only “somewhat suspicious.” Three (8%) of the physicians agreed to the MRI at the initial visit, and eight (22%) said they might order an MRI in the future. All doctors who refused the MRI told the patient this was based on lack of a medical indication for the test; seven (19%) also cited the test's expense. Twenty physicians (53%) of 38 agreed to a neurology referral. In response to the standardized patient's concerns, nine physicians (23%) verbalized that MS is scary, and four (10%) asked the patient about their friend's experience with MS. A few physicians appeared to dismiss the patient's concerns, such as by telling the patient they were being “paranoid.” CONCLUSIONS: Few physicians agreed to a standardized patient's request for a medically unindicated MRI, but more than half agreed to refer this patient to a specialist. As physicians practice cost-conscious medicine, they may need to focus on good communication to maintain patient satisfaction

Reporting outcomes of back pain trials : a modified Delphi study

Background: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. Aim: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain trials. Methods: We presented experts with clinicians' views on different reporting methods and asked them to rate and comment on the suitability reporting methods for inclusion in a standardized set. Panellists developed a statement of recommendation over three online rounds. We used a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method as a formal framework for establishing appropriateness and quantifying panel disagreement. Results: A group of 63 experts from 14 countries participated. Consensus was reached on a statement recommending that the continuous patient-reported outcomes commonly used in back pain trials, are reported using between-group mean differences (accompanied by minimally important difference (between-group/population-level) thresholds where these exist), the proportion of participants improving and deteriorating according to established and relevant minimally important change thresholds, and the number needed to treat; all with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes may additionally be reported using alternative approaches (e. g. relative risks, odds ratios, or standardized mean difference) according to the needs of a particular trial. Conclusions: A group of back pain experts reached a high level of consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for patient-reported outcomes in future low back pain trials. The statement has the potential to increase interpretability and improve patient care

Editor-in-Chief JEPonline The Effect of 24 Weeks of Moderate Intensity Walking upon Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors in Previously Sedentary/Low Active Men

ABSTRACT , respectively). The post-intervention changes: insulin correlated with WC (R=0.441; P<0.002); ISI negatively with WC (R= -0.433; P<0.003), indicating the changes in body composition to have affected insulin metabolism and insulin sensitivity. The men who walked at an easily attainable intensity for most mobile adults of ~51% of relative VO 2 max showed reduced WC and enhanced insulin sensitivity, thus reducing their risk of MetS and type II diabetes

Predictors of Failure of Awake Regional Anesthesia for Neonatal Hernia Repair: Data from the General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia Study-Comparing Apnea and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes

Background: Awake regional anesthesia (RA) is a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Benefits include lower incidence of postoperative apnea and avoidance of anesthetic agents that may increase neuroapoptosis and worsen neurocognitive outcomes. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia study compares neurodevelopmental outcomes after awake RA or GA in otherwise healthy infants. The aim of the study is to describe success and failure rates of RA and report factors associated with failure. Methods: This was a nested cohort study within a prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, equivalence trial. Seven hundred twenty-two infants 60 weeks or less postmenstrual age scheduled for herniorrhaphy under anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive RA (spinal, caudal epidural, or combined spinal caudal anesthetic) or GA with sevoflurane. The data of 339 infants, where spinal or combined spinal caudal anesthetic was attempted, were analyzed. Possible predictors of failure were assessed including patient factors, technique, experience of site and anesthetist, and type of local anesthetic. Results: RA was sufficient for the completion of surgery in 83.2% of patients. Spinal anesthesia was successful in 86.9% of cases and combined spinal caudal anesthetic in 76.1%. Thirty-four patients required conversion to GA, and an additional 23 patients (6.8%) required brief sedation. Bloody tap on the first attempt at lumbar puncture was the only risk factor significantly associated with block failure (odds ratio = 2.46). Conclusions: The failure rate of spinal anesthesia was low. Variability in application of combined spinal caudal anesthetic limited attempts to compare the success of this technique to spinal alone

Apnea after Awake Regional and General Anesthesia in Infants:The General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia Study-Comparing Apnea and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes, a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Postoperative apnea is a complication in young infants. Awake regional anesthesia (RA) may reduce the risk; however, the evidence is weak. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia study is a randomized, controlled trial designed to assess the influence of general anesthesia (GA) on neurodevelopment. A secondary aim is to compare rates of apnea after anesthesia. Methods: Infants aged 60 weeks or younger, postmenstrual age scheduled for inguinal herniorrhaphy, were randomized to RA or GA. Exclusion criteria included risk factors for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome and infants born less than 26 weeks gestation. The primary outcome of this analysis was any observed apnea up to 12 h postoperatively. Apnea assessment was unblinded. Results: Three hundred sixty-three patients were assigned to RA and 359 to GA. Overall, the incidence of apnea (0 to 12 h) was similar between arms (3% in RA and 4% in GA arms; odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.30, P = 0.2133); however, the incidence of early apnea (0 to 30 min) was lower in the RA arm (1 vs. 3%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.91; P = 0.0367). The incidence of late apnea (30 min to 12 h) was 2% in both RA and GA arms (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.41 to 3.33; P = 0.7688). The strongest predictor of apnea was prematurity (OR, 21.87; 95% CI, 4.38 to 109.24), and 96% of infants with apnea were premature. Conclusions: RA in infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy reduces apnea in the early postoperative period. Cardiorespiratory monitoring should be used for all ex-premature infants.</p

Apnea after Awake Regional and General Anesthesia in Infants : The General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia Study-Comparing Apnea and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes, a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Postoperative apnea is a complication in young infants. Awake regional anesthesia (RA) may reduce the risk; however, the evidence is weak. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia study is a randomized, controlled trial designed to assess the influence of general anesthesia (GA) on neurodevelopment. A secondary aim is to compare rates of apnea after anesthesia. Methods: Infants aged 60 weeks or younger, postmenstrual age scheduled for inguinal herniorrhaphy, were randomized to RA or GA. Exclusion criteria included risk factors for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome and infants born less than 26 weeks gestation. The primary outcome of this analysis was any observed apnea up to 12 h postoperatively. Apnea assessment was unblinded. Results: Three hundred sixty-three patients were assigned to RA and 359 to GA. Overall, the incidence of apnea (0 to 12 h) was similar between arms (3% in RA and 4% in GA arms; odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.30, P = 0.2133); however, the incidence of early apnea (0 to 30 min) was lower in the RA arm (1 vs. 3%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.91; P = 0.0367). The incidence of late apnea (30 min to 12 h) was 2% in both RA and GA arms (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.41 to 3.33; P = 0.7688). The strongest predictor of apnea was prematurity (OR, 21.87; 95% CI, 4.38 to 109.24), and 96% of infants with apnea were premature. Conclusions: RA in infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy reduces apnea in the early postoperative period. Cardiorespiratory monitoring should be used for all ex-premature infants