132 research outputs found

    Over and Under-utilization of Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors by Primary Care Physicians and Specialists: The Tortoise and the Hare Revisited

    Full text link
    To compare prescribing trends and appropriateness of use of traditional and cyclooxygenase-2 selective (COX-2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. DESIGN : Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS : One thousand five hundred and seventy-six adult patients continuously enrolled for at least 1 year with an independent practice association of a University-associated managed care plan who were started on a traditional NSAID or a COX-2 inhibitor from 1999 to 2002 and received at least 3 separate medication fills. MEASUREMENTS : Physician specialty was identified from office visits. Appropriateness of utilization was based on gastrointestinal risk characteristics. RESULTS : Primary care patients were younger and less likely to have comorbid conditions. Despite similar GI risk, COX-2 use among patients seen by PCPs was half that of patients seen by specialists (21% vs 44%, P <.001). While PCPs overused cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors (COX-2s) less often than specialists (19% vs 41%, P <.001), they also tended to underuse COX-2s in patients who were at increased GI risk (46% vs 32%, P =.063). This represents a 3-fold and 8-fold difference in overuse versus underuse for PCPs and specialists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS : Using COX-2s as a model for physician adoption of new therapeutic agents, specialists were more likely to use these new medications for patients likely to benefit but were also significantly more likely to use them for patients without a clear indication. This study demonstrates the tension between appropriate adoption of innovative therapies for those individuals who would benefit from their use and those individuals who would receive no added clinical benefit but would incur added cost and be placed at increased risk.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75173/1/j.1525-1497.2006.00463.x.pd

    Collaboration with general practitioners: preferences of medical specialists – a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates medical specialists to initiate and continue participating with GPs in new collaborative care models. The following question is addressed in this study: What motivates medical specialists to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with GPs? METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen medical specialists in the province of Groningen, in the North of The Netherlands. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of hospital in which they were practicing, and specialty. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by three researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Teaching GPs' and 'regulating patient flow' (referrals) appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. In addition, specialists want to develop relationships with the GPs on a more personal level. Most specialists believe that there is not much they can learn from GPs. 'Lack of time', 'no financial compensation', and 'no support from colleagues' were considered to be the main concerns to establishing collaborative care practices. Additionally, projects were often experienced as too complex and time consuming whereas guidelines were experienced as too restrictive. CONCLUSION: Specialists are particularly interested in collaborating because the GP is the gatekeeper for access to secondary health care resources. Specialists feel that they are able to teach the GPs something, but they do not feel that they have anything to learn from the GPs. With respect to professional expertise, therefore, specialists do not consider GPs as equals. Once personal relationships with the GPs have been established, an informal network with incidental professional contact seems to be sufficient to satisfy the collaborative needs of the specialist. The concerns seem to outweigh any positive motivational forces to developing new models of collaborative practice

    Evaluating Electronic Referrals for Specialty Care at a Public Hospital

    Get PDF
    Poor communication between referring clinicians and specialists may lead to inefficient use of specialist services. San Francisco General Hospital implemented an electronic referral system (eReferral) that facilitates iterative pre-visit communication between referring and specialty clinicians to improve the referral process. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of eReferral (compared with paper-based referrals) on specialty referrals. The study was based on a visit-based questionnaire appended to new patient charts at randomly selected specialist clinic sessions before and after the implementation of eReferral. Specialty clinicians. The questionnaire focused on the self-reported difficulty in identifying referral question, referral appropriateness, need for and avoidability of follow-up visits. We collected 505 questionnaires from speciality clinicians. It was difficult to identify the reason for referral in 19.8% of medical and 38.0% of surgical visits using paper-based methods vs. 11.0% and 9.5% of those using eReferral (p-value 0.03 and &lt;0.001). Of those using eReferral, 6.4% and 9.8% of medical and surgical referrals using paper methods vs. 2.6% and 2.1% were deemed not completely appropriate (p-value 0.21 and 0.03). Follow-up was requested for 82.4% and 76.2% of medical and surgical patients with paper-based referrals vs. 90.1% and 58.1% of eReferrals (p-value 0.06 and 0.01). Follow-up was considered avoidable for 32.4% and 44.7% of medical and surgical follow-ups with paper-based methods vs. 27.5% and 13.5% with eReferral (0.41 and &lt;0.001). Use of technology to promote standardized referral processes and iterative communication between referring clinicians and specialists has the potential to improve communication between primary care providers and specialists and to increase the effectiveness of specialty referrals

    Motives and preferences of general practitioners for new collaboration models with medical specialists: a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates GPs to initiate and continue participating with medical specialists in new collaborative care models. The following two questions are addressed in this study: What motivates GPs to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with medical specialists? What kind of new collaboration models do GPs suggest? METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Starting in 2003 and finishing in 2005, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 21 Dutch GPs. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of practice, and practice site. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by two researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors and preferences were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Developing personal relationships' and 'gaining mutual respect' appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. Besides developing personal relationships with specialists, the GPs were also interested in familiarizing specialists with the competencies attached to the profession of family medicine. Additionally, they were eager to increase their medical knowledge to the benefit of their patients. The GPs stated a variety of preferences with respect to the design of new models of collaboration. CONCLUSION: Developing personal relationships with specialists appeared to be one of the dominant motives for increased collaboration. Once the relationships have been formed, an informal network with occasional professional contact seemed sufficient. Although GPs are interested in increasing their knowledge, once they have reached a certain level of expertise, they shift their focus to another specialty. The preferences for new collaboration models are diverse. A possible explanation for the differences in the preferences is that professionals are more knowledge driven than organisation driven as the acquiring of new knowledge is considered more important than the route by which this is achieved. A new collaboration model seems a way to acquire knowledge. Once this is achieved the importance of a model possibly diminishes, whereas the professional relationships last

    Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.</p

    Variability in Working Memory Performance Explained by Epistasis vs Polygenic Scores in the ZNF804A Pathway

    Get PDF
    Importance: We investigated the variation in neuropsychological function explained by risk alleles at the psychosis susceptibility gene ZNF804A and its interacting partners using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), polygenic scores, and epistatic analyses. Of particular importance was the relative contribution of the polygenic score vs epistasis in variation explained. Objectives To (1) assess the association between SNPs in ZNF804A and the ZNF804A polygenic score with measures of cognition in cases with psychosis and (2) assess whether epistasis within the ZNF804A pathway could explain additional variation above and beyond that explained by the polygenic score. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with psychosis (n = 424) were assessed in areas of cognitive ability impaired in schizophrenia including IQ, memory, attention, and social cognition. We used the Psychiatric GWAS Consortium 1 schizophrenia genome-wide association study to calculate a polygenic score based on identified risk variants within this genetic pathway. Cognitive measures significantly associated with the polygenic score were tested for an epistatic component using a training set (n = 170), which was used to develop linear regression models containing the polygenic score and 2-SNP interactions. The best-fitting models were tested for replication in 2 independent test sets of cases: (1) 170 individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and (2) 84 patients with broad psychosis (including bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and other psychosis). Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery designed to target the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia including general cognitive function, episodic memory, working memory, attentional control, and social cognition. Results: Higher polygenic scores were associated with poorer performance among patients on IQ, memory, and social cognition, explaining 1% to 3% of variation on these scores (range, P = .01 to .03). Using a narrow psychosis training set and independent test sets of narrow phenotype psychosis (schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder), broad psychosis, and control participants (n = 89), the addition of 2 interaction terms containing 2 SNPs each increased the R2 for spatial working memory strategy in the independent psychosis test sets from 1.2% using the polygenic score only to 4.8% (P = .11 and .001, respectively) but did not explain additional variation in control participants. Conclusions and Relevance: These data support a role for the ZNF804A pathway in IQ, memory, and social cognition in cases. Furthermore, we showed that epistasis increases the variation explained above the contribution of the polygenic score

    Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

    Get PDF
    Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

    Observation of Two New Excited Ξb0 States Decaying to Λb0 K-π+

    Get PDF
    Two narrow resonant states are observed in the Λb0K-π+ mass spectrum using a data sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, collected by the LHCb experiment and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 6 fb-1. The minimal quark content of the Λb0K-π+ system indicates that these are excited Ξb0 baryons. The masses of the Ξb(6327)0 and Ξb(6333)0 states are m[Ξb(6327)0]=6327.28-0.21+0.23±0.12±0.24 and m[Ξb(6333)0]=6332.69-0.18+0.17±0.03±0.22 MeV, respectively, with a mass splitting of Δm=5.41-0.27+0.26±0.12 MeV, where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic, and due to the Λb0 mass measurement. The measured natural widths of these states are consistent with zero, with upper limits of Γ[Ξb(6327)0]&lt;2.20(2.56) and Γ[Ξb(6333)0]&lt;1.60(1.92) MeV at a 90% (95%) credibility level. The significance of the two-peak hypothesis is larger than nine (five) Gaussian standard deviations compared to the no-peak (one-peak) hypothesis. The masses, widths, and resonant structure of the new states are in good agreement with the expectations for a doublet of 1D Ξb0 resonances
    corecore