Decision-making in percutaneous coronary intervention: a survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Few researchers have examined the perceptions of physicians referring cases for angiography regarding the degree to which collaboration occurs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision-making. We sought to determine perceptions of physicians concerning their involvement in PCI decisions in cases they had referred to the cardiac catheterization laboratory at a major academic medical center.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An anonymous survey was mailed to internal medicine faculty members at a major academic medical center. The survey elicited whether responders perceived that they were included in decision-making regarding PCI, and whether they considered such collaboration to be the best process of decision-making.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 378 surveys mailed, 35% (133) were returned. Among responding non-cardiologists, 89% indicated that in most cases, PCI decisions were made solely by the interventionalist at the time of the angiogram. Among cardiologists, 92% indicated that they discussed the findings with the interventionalist prior to any PCI decisions. When asked what they considered the best process by which PCI decisions are made, 66% of non-cardiologists answered that they would prefer collaboration between either themselves or a non-interventional cardiologist and the interventionalist. Among cardiologists, 95% agreed that a collaborative approach is best.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both non-cardiologists and cardiologists felt that involving another decision-maker, either the referring physician or a non-interventional cardiologist, would be the best way to make PCI decisions. Among cardiologists, there was more concordance between what they believed was the best process for making decisions regarding PCI and what they perceived to be the actual process.</p

Physician career satisfaction within specialties

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Specialty-specific data on career satisfaction may be useful for understanding physician workforce trends and for counseling medical students about career options.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed cross-sectional data from 6,590 physicians (response rate, 53%) in Round 4 (2004-2005) of the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey. The dependent variable ranged from +1 to -1 and measured satisfaction and dissatisfaction with career. Forty-two specialties were analyzed with survey-adjusted linear regressions</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After adjusting for physician, practice, and community characteristics, the following specialties had significantly higher satisfaction levels than family medicine: pediatric emergency medicine (regression coefficient = 0.349); geriatric medicine (0.323); other pediatric subspecialties (0.270); neonatal/prenatal medicine (0.266); internal medicine and pediatrics (combined practice) (0.250); pediatrics (0.250); dermatology (0.249);and child and adolescent psychiatry (0.203). The following specialties had significantly lower satisfaction levels than family medicine: neurological surgery (-0.707); pulmonary critical care medicine (-0.273); nephrology (-0.206); and obstetrics and gynecology (-0.188). We also found satisfaction was significantly and positively related to income and employment in a medical school but negatively associated with more than 50 work-hours per-week, being a full-owner of the practice, greater reliance on managed care revenue, and uncontrollable lifestyle. We observed no statistically significant gender differences and no differences between African-Americans and whites.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Career satisfaction varied across specialties. A number of stakeholders will likely be interested in these findings including physicians in specialties that rank high and low and students contemplating specialty. Our findings regarding "less satisfied" specialties should elicit concern from residency directors and policy makers since they appear to be in critical areas of medicine.</p

Survival enhancing indications for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in California

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is performed because of anticipated survival benefit, improvement in quality of life, or both. We performed this study to explore variations in clinical indications for CABG surgery among California hospitals and surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using California CABG Outcomes Reporting Program data, we classified all isolated CABG cases in 2003–2004 as having "probable survival enhancing indications (SEIs)", "possible SEIs" or "non-SEIs." Patient and hospital characteristics associated with SEIs were examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While 82.9% of CABG were performed for probable SEIs, the range extended from 68% to 96% among hospitals and 51% to 100% among surgeons. SEI rates were higher among patients aged ≥ 65 compared with those aged 18–64 (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] > 1.29 for age groups 65–69, 70–74 and ≥ 75; all p < 0.001), among Asians and Native Americans compared with Caucasians (AOR 1.22 and 1.15, p < 0.001); and among patients with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease and congestive heart failure compared to patients without these conditions (AOR > 1.09, all p < 0.001). Variations in indications for surgery were more strongly related to patient mix than to surgeon or hospital effects (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.04 for hospital; ICC = 0.01 for surgeon).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>California hospitals and surgeons vary in their distribution of indications for CABG surgery. Further research is required to identify the roles of market factors, referral patterns, patient preferences, and local clinical culture in producing the observed variations.</p

Sequential occurrence of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, essential thrombocythemia, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in a 42-year-old African-American woman: a case report and review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura are two well recognized syndromes that are characterized by low platelet counts. In contrast, essential thrombocythemia is a myeloproliferative disease characterized by abnormally high platelet numbers.</p> <p>The coexistence of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in a single patient has been reported in the literature on a few occasions. However, having essential thrombocythemia complicating the picture has never been reported before.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We present a case where thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, essential thrombocythemia, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura were diagnosed in a 42-year-old African-American woman in the space of a few years; we are reporting this case with the aim of drawing attention to this undocumented occurrence, which remains under investigation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>As the three conditions have different natural histories and require different treatment modalities, it is important to recognize that these diseases may be seen sequentially. This case emphasizes the importance of reviewing peripheral blood smears for evaluation of thrombocytopenia and bone marrow aspirations for diagnosis of thrombocythemia in order to reach an accurate diagnosis and tailor therapy accordingly. Moreover, this case demonstrates the variability and complexity of platelet disorders. This occurrence of three different types of platelet disorders in one patient remains a pure observation on our part; regardless, this does raise the possibility of a common underlying, as yet undiscovered, pathophysiology that could explain the phenomenon.</p

Open and hidden agendas of "asymptomatic" patients who request check-up exams

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for a check-up recommend routine screening not triggered by specific symptoms for some known risk factors and diseases in the general population. Patients' perceptions and expectations regarding a check-up exam may differ from these principles. However, quantitative and qualitative data about the discrepancy between patient- and provider expectations for this type of clinic consultation is lacking. METHODS: For a year, we prospectively enrolled 66 patients who explicitly requested a "check-up" at our medical outpatient division. All patients actively denied upon prompting having any symptoms or specific health concerns at the time they made their appointment. All consultations were videotaped and analysed for information about spontaneously mentioned symptoms and reasons for the clinic consultation ("open agendas") and for cues to hidden patient agendas using the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS). RESULTS: All patients initially declared to be asymptomatic but this was ultimately the case in only 7 out of 66 patients. The remaining 59 patients spontaneously mentioned a mean of 4.2 ± 3.3 symptoms during their first consultation. In 23 patients a total of 31 hidden agendas were revealed. The primary categories for hidden agendas were health concerns, psychosocial concerns and the patient's concept of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients requesting a general check-up tend to be motivated by specific symptoms and health concerns and are not "asymptomatic" patients who primarily come for preventive issues. Furthermore, physicians must be alert for possible hidden agendas, as one in three patients have one or more hidden reasons for requesting a check-up

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice

Psychometric precision in phenotype definition is a useful step in molecular genetic investigation of psychiatric disorders

Affective disorders are highly heritable, but few genetic risk variants have been consistently replicated in molecular genetic association studies. The common method of defining psychiatric phenotypes in molecular genetic research is either a summation of symptom scores or binary threshold score representing the risk of diagnosis. Psychometric latent variable methods can improve the precision of psychiatric phenotypes, especially when the data structure is not straightforward. Using data from the British 1946 birth cohort, we compared summary scores with psychometric modeling based on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) scale for affective symptoms in an association analysis of 27 candidate genes (249 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)). The psychometric method utilized a bi-factor model that partitioned the phenotype variances into five orthogonal latent variable factors, in accordance with the multidimensional data structure of the GHQ-28 involving somatic, social, anxiety and depression domains. Results showed that, compared with the summation approach, the affective symptoms defined by the bi-factor psychometric model had a higher number of associated SNPs of larger effect sizes. These results suggest that psychometrically defined mental health phenotypes can reflect the dimensions of complex phenotypes better than summation scores, and therefore offer a useful approach in genetic association investigations