17 research outputs found

    Views of healthcare consumer representatives on defensive practice: ‘We are your biggest advocate and supporter
 not the enemy’

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: The patient–clinician interaction is a site at which defensive practice could occur, when clinicians provide tests, procedures and treatments mainly to reduce perceived legal risks, rather than to advance patient care. Defensive practice is a driver of low‐value care and exposes patients to the risks of unnecessary interventions. To date, patient perspectives on defensive practice and its impacts on them are largely missing from the literature. This exploratory study conducted in Australia aimed to examine the views and experiences of healthcare consumer representatives in this under‐examined area. METHODS: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with healthcare consumer representatives involved in healthcare consumer advocacy organisations in Australia. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine healthcare consumer representatives participated. Most had over 20 years of involvement and advocacy in healthcare, including personal experiences as a patient or carer and/or formal service roles on committees or complaint bodies for healthcare organisations. Participants uniformly viewed defensive practice as having a negative impact on the clinician–patient relationship. Themes identified the importance of fostering patient–clinician partnership, effective communication and informed decision‐making. The themes support a shift from the concept of defensive practice to preventive practice in partnership, which focuses on the shared interests of patients and clinicians in achieving safe and high‐value care. CONCLUSION: This Australian study offers healthcare consumers' perspectives on the impacts of defensive practice on patients. The findings highlight the features of clinician–patient partnership that will help to improve communication and decision‐making, and prevent the defensive provision of low‐value care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Healthcare consumer representatives were involved as participants in this study

    High prevalence and undertreatment of osteoporosis in elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

    No full text
    We detected a high prevalence of low bone mineral density assessed by DXA in 268 elderly patients with end-stage osteoarthritis scheduled for total hip arthroplasty (18% osteoporosis, 41% osteopenia). Therefore, and due to the identified concomitant undertreatment, routine DXA measurements should be considered in elderly patients prior to surgery.!##!Introduction!#!Bone quality represents a decisive factor for osseointegration, durability, and complications of an implanted prosthesis. Although the risk of osteoporosis increases with age and the assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is recommended in elderly patients, a systematic, unbiased analysis of such patients is not available in the literature.!##!Methods!#!In this retrospective study, we examined 268 elderly patients (age ≄70 years) who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) within 3 months prior to primary THA. Demographics, medical history, radiographic OA grade, and stem fixation method (i.e., cemented or cementless) were obtained.!##!Results!#!In total, 153 (57%) cemented and 115 (43%) cementless stem fixations during THA were performed. Forty-nine patients (18%) were diagnosed with osteoporosis (T-score ≀-2.5), 110 patients (41%) with osteopenia (T-score ≀-1.0), and 109 patients (41%) with normal BMD (T-score >-1.0). Importantly, 36/49 patients (73%) with osteoporosis were not diagnosed before, resulting in a relevant undertreatment. Female sex and low body mass index (BMI) were the main factors negatively influencing the bone mineral density (BMD).!##!Conclusions!#!Due to a high incidence of undiagnosed and untreated osteoporosis in elderly patients with potential effects on the success of osseointegration as well as other clinical outcomes, DXA measurements should be included in the clinical routine for these patients prior to THA

    Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype associations with multifactorial phenotypes: The concept of "edge effect" and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society

    No full text
    Applications of omics technologies in the postgenomics era swiftly expanded from rare monogenic disorders to multifactorial common complex diseases, pharmacogenomics, and personalized medicine. Already, there are signposts indicative of further omics technology investment in nutritional sciences (nutrigenomics), environmental health/ecology (ecogenomics), and agriculture (agrigenomics). Genotype–phenotype association studies are a centerpiece of translational research in omics science. Yet scientific and ethical standards and ways to assess and communicate risk information obtained from association studies have been neglected to date. This is a significant gap because association studies decisively influence which genetic loci become genetic tests in the clinic or products in the genetic test marketplace. A growing challenge concerns the interpretation of large overlap typically observed in distribution of quantitative traits in a genetic association study with a polygenic/multifactorial phenotype. To remedy the shortage of risk assessment and communication tools for association studies, this paper presents the concept of edge effect. That is, the shift in population edges of a multifactorial quantitative phenotype is a more sensitive measure (than population averages) to gauge the population level impact and by extension, policy significance of an omics marker. Empirical application of the edge effect concept is illustrated using an original analysis of warfarin pharmacogenomics and the VKORC1 genetic variation in a Brazilian population sample. These edge effect analyses are examined in relation to regulatory guidance development for association studies. We explain that omics science transcends the conventional laboratory bench space and includes a highly heterogeneous cast of stakeholders in society who have a plurality of interests that are often in conflict. Hence, communication of risk information in diagnostic medicine also demands attention to processes involved in production of knowledge and human values embedded in scientific practice, for example, why, how, by whom, and to what ends association studies are conducted, and standards are developed (or not). To ensure sustainability of omics innovations and forecast their trajectory, we need interventions to bridge the gap between omics laboratory and society. Appreciation of scholarship in history of omics science is one remedy to responsibly learn from the past to ensure a sustainable future in omics fields, both emerging (nutrigenomics, ecogenomics), and those that are more established (pharmacogenomics). Another measure to build public trust and sustainability of omics fields could be legislative initiatives to create a multidisciplinary oversight body, at arm's length from conflict of interests, to carry out independent, impartial, and transparent innovation analyses and prospective technology assessment.Vural Ozdemir, Guilherme Suarez-Kurtz, RaphaĂ«lle Stenne, Andrew A. Somogyi, Toshiyuki Someya, S. Oğuz Kayaalp, and Eugene Kolke
    corecore