The Role of Erythropoietin in the Anemia of Chronic Renal Failure

The major factors responsible for the anemia of chronic renal failure are decreased erythropoietin (Ep) production, the presence of inhibitors of erythropoiesis, blood loss, and hemolysis. Ep, which is produced in the kidney, probably exerts its effect on the colony-forming units of the erythrocyte. Ep levels fall with worsening renal function (creatinine clearances in the range of 2-40 ml/min). but they rise to their highest levels in the immediate predialysis period, probably due to severe ischemia of both renal and extrarenal production sites. When patients are begun on hemodialysis, Ep levels fall, and the hematocrit rises. Erythropoietin therapy in the management of anemia of chronic renal failure is potentially a practical application of experimental studies

Recommendations for Care of the Asymptomatic Patient

We present a set of reasonable guidelines for the care of healthy, asymptomatic individuals based upon recommendations prepared by an Internal Medicine review committee of Henry Ford Hospital. There recommendations have four goals: to prevent disease, to detect disease in an asymptomatic and potentially curable state, to enhance the patient\u27s quality of life, and to help physicians teach patients good health habits. Recommendations are made for infectious diseases, cancer, metabolic diseases, neurosensory conditions like visual and hearing loss, and general health habits. Some recommendations are at variance with those of well recognized authorities and should be viewed only as a suggested protocol for the care of the asymptomatic patient. Results of ongoing studies may alter our understanding of some areas of controversy and mandate revision of these guidelines periodically

Surviving Hurricane Katrina Reconstructing the Educational Enterprise of Tulane University School of Medicine

Hurricane Katrina was one of the greatest natural disasters to ever strike the United States. Tulane University School of Medicine, located in downtown New Orleans, and its three major teaching hospitals were flooded in the aftermath of the storm and forced to close. Faculty, students, residents, and staff evacuated to locations throughout the country. All critical infrastructure that normally maintained the school, including information technology, network communication servers, registration systems, and e-mail, became nonoperational. However, on the basis of experiences learned when Tropical Storm Allison flooded the Texas Medical Center in 2001, Baylor College of Medicine, University of Texas-Houston, University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and Texas A&M School of Medicine created the South Texas Alliance of Academic Health Centers, which allowed Tulane to move its education programs to Houston. Using Baylor\u27s facilities, Tulane faculty rebuilt and delivered the preclinical curriculum, and clinical rotations were made available at the Alliance schools. Remarkably, the Tulane School of Medicine was able to resume all educational activities within a month after the storm. Educational reconstruction approaches, procedures employed, and lessons in institutional recovery learned are discussed so that other schools can prepare effectively for either natural or man-made disasters. Key disaster-response measures include designating an evacuation/command site in advance; backing up technology, communication, financial, registration, and credentialing systems; and establishing partnership with other institutions and leaders

Surviving Hurricane Katrina Reconstructing the Educational Enterprise of Tulane University School of Medicine

Hurricane Katrina was one of the greatest natural disasters to ever strike the United States. Tulane University School of Medicine, located in downtown New Orleans, and its three major teaching hospitals were flooded in the aftermath of the storm and forced to close. Faculty, students, residents, and staff evacuated to locations throughout the country. All critical infrastructure that normally maintained the school, including information technology, network communication servers, registration systems, and e-mail, became nonoperational. However, on the basis of experiences learned when Tropical Storm Allison flooded the Texas Medical Center in 2001, Baylor College of Medicine, University of Texas-Houston, University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and Texas A&M School of Medicine created the South Texas Alliance of Academic Health Centers, which allowed Tulane to move its education programs to Houston. Using Baylor\u27s facilities, Tulane faculty rebuilt and delivered the preclinical curriculum, and clinical rotations were made available at the Alliance schools. Remarkably, the Tulane School of Medicine was able to resume all educational activities within a month after the storm. Educational reconstruction approaches, procedures employed, and lessons in institutional recovery learned are discussed so that other schools can prepare effectively for either natural or man-made disasters. Key disaster-response measures include designating an evacuation/command site in advance; backing up technology, communication, financial, registration, and credentialing systems; and establishing partnership with other institutions and leaders

A Review of Continuous Quality Improvement Processes at Ten Medical Schools

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education now expects all allopathic medical schools to develop and adhere to a documentable continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. Medical schools must consider how to establish a defensible process that monitors compliance with accreditation standards between site visits. The purpose of this descriptive study is to detail how ten schools in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) Southern Group on Educational Affairs (SGEA) CQI Special Interest Group (SIG) are tackling practical issues of CQI development including establishing a CQI office, designating faculty and staff, charging a CQI committee, choosing software for data management, if schools are choosing formalized CQI models, and other considerations. The information presented is not meant to certify that any way is the correct way to manage CQI, but simply present some schools’ models. Future research should include defining commonalities of CQI models as well as seeking differences. Furthermore, what are components of CQI models that may affect accreditation compliance negatively? Are there “worst practices” to avoid? What LCME elements are most commonly identified for CQI, and what are the successes and struggles for addressing those elements? What are identifiable challenges relating to use of standard spreadsheet software and engaging information technology for support? How can students be more engaged and involved in the CQI process? Finally, how do these major shifts to a formalized CQI process impact the educational experience