Do physicians do as they say? The case of mammography

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of survey-based physician policy in predicting actual mammography ordering behavior, as measured by medical record abstraction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of practicing community physicians. Responses were correlated with data abstracted from the medical records of patients in the practices of the participating physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Family and general practitioners in Washington State. Medical records of female patients aged 40 to 80 years provided data on actual mammography performance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportions of female patients aged 40 to 49 and 50 to 80 years who had received a screening mammogram within the previous 2 years. RESULTS: Of the more than 100 potential predictors available, only 4 were significantly associated with screening rates for women younger than 50 years and only 3 were associated with screening rates for older women. Regression models explained only 21% to 25% of the variance in screening rates. Physician estimates of screening rates were poorly correlated with actual screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing physicians do not know how well they screen their patients using mammography. Extensive survey data, including direct estimates of behavior, demographics, policy measures, and case scenario responses, were of limited use in predicting actual screening rates. Our results underscore the importance of using data rather than proxy measures to study physician performance

Can scribes boost FPs\u27 efficiency and job satisfaction

Purpose: Research in other medical specialties has shown that the addition of medical scribes to the clinical team enhances physicians\u27 practice experience and increases productivity. To date, literature on the implementation of scribes in primary care is limited. To determine the feasibility and benefits of implementing scribes in family medicine, we undertook a pilot mixed- method quality improvement (QI) study. Methods: In 2014, we incorporated 4 part-time scribes into an academic family medicine practice consisting of 7 physicians. We then measured, via survey and time-tracking data, the impact the scribes had on physician office hours and productivity, time spent on documentation, perceptions of work-life balance, and physician and patient satisfaction. Results: Six of the 7 faculty physicians participated. This study demonstrated that the use of scribes in a busy academic primary care practice substantially reduced the amount of time that family physicians spent on charting, improved work-life balance, and had good patient acceptance. Specifically, the physicians spent an average of 5.1 fewer hours/week (hrs/wk) on documentation, while various measures of productivity revealed increases ranging from 9.2% to 28.8%. Perhaps most important of all, when the results of the pilot study were annualized, they were projected to generate $168,600 per year--more than twice the$79,500 annual cost of 2 full-time equivalent scribes. Surveys assessing work-life balance demonstrated improvement in the physicians\u27 perception of the administrative burden/paperwork related to practice and a decrease in their perception of the extent to which work encroached on their personal lives. In addition, survey data from 313 patients at the time of their ambulatory visit with a scribe present revealed a high level of comfort. Likewise, surveys completed by physicians after 55 clinical sessions (ie, blocks of consecutive, uninterrupted patient appointments; there are usually 2 sessions per day) revealed good to excellent ratings more than 90% of the time. Conclusion: In an outpatient family medicine clinic, the use of scribes substantially improved physicians\u27 efficiency, job satisfaction, and productivity without negatively impacting the patient experience

Care that Matters: Quality Measurement and Health Care

Barry Saver and colleagues caution against the use of process and performance metrics as health care quality measures in the United States

Eggshell membrane in the treatment of pain and stiffness from osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study

Natural Eggshell Membrane (NEM®) is a new novel dietary supplement that contains naturally occurring glycosaminoglycans and proteins essential for maintaining healthy articular cartilage and the surrounding synovium. The randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled Osteoarthritis Pain Treatment Incorporating NEM® clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NEM® as a treatment for pain and stiffness associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. Sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral NEM® 500 mg (n = 34) or placebo (n = 33) daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in overall Western Ontario and McMasters Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index as well as pain, stiffness, and function WOMAC subscales measured at 10, 30, and 60 days. The clinical assessment was performed on the intent-to-treat population. Supplementation with NEM® produced an absolute rate of response that was statistically significant (up to 26.6%) versus placebo at all time points for both pain and stiffness, but was not significantly improved for function and overall WOMAC scores, although trending toward improvement. Rapid responses were seen for mean pain subscores (15.9% reduction, P = 0.036) and mean stiffness subscores (12.8% reduction, P = 0.024) occurring after only 10 days of supplementation. There were no serious adverse events reported during the study and the treatment was reported to be well tolerated by study participants. Natural Eggshell Membrane (NEM®) is an effective and safe option for the treatment of pain and stiffness associated with knee osteoarthritis. Supplementation with NEM®, 500 mg taken once daily, significantly reduced both joint pain and stiffness compared to placebo at 10, 30, and 60 days. The Clinical Trial Registration number for this study is NCT00750477

Prehospital transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in patients with ultra-acute presumed stroke (RIGHT-2): an ambulance-based, randomised, sham-controlled, blinded, phase 3 trial

Background High blood pressure is common in acute stroke and is a predictor of poor outcome; however, large trials of lowering blood pressure have given variable results, and the management of high blood pressure in ultra-acute stroke remains unclear. We investigated whether transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN; also known as nitroglycerin), a nitric oxide donor, might improve outcome when administered very early after stroke onset. Methods We did a multicentre, paramedic-delivered, ambulance-based, prospective, randomised, sham-controlled, blinded-endpoint, phase 3 trial in adults with presumed stroke within 4 h of onset, face-arm-speech-time score of 2 or 3, and systolic blood pressure 120 mm Hg or higher. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive transdermal GTN (5 mg once daily for 4 days; the GTN group) or a similar sham dressing (the sham group) in UK based ambulances by paramedics, with treatment continued in hospital. Paramedics were unmasked to treatment, whereas participants were masked. The primary outcome was the 7-level modified Rankin Scale (mRS; a measure of functional outcome) at 90 days, assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment. Analysis was hierarchical, first in participants with a confirmed stroke or transient ischaemic attack (cohort 1), and then in all participants who were randomly assigned (intention to treat, cohort 2) according to the statistical analysis plan. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN26986053. Findings Between Oct 22, 2015, and May 23, 2018, 516 paramedics from eight UK ambulance services recruited 1149 participants (n=568 in the GTN group, n=581 in the sham group). The median time to randomisation was 71 min (IQR 45–116). 597 (52%) patients had ischaemic stroke, 145 (13%) had intracerebral haemorrhage, 109 (9%) had transient ischaemic attack, and 297 (26%) had a non-stroke mimic at the final diagnosis of the index event. In the GTN group, participants’ systolic blood pressure was lowered by 5·8 mm Hg compared with the sham group (p<0·0001), and diastolic blood pressure was lowered by 2·6 mm Hg (p=0·0026) at hospital admission. We found no difference in mRS between the groups in participants with a final diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic stroke (cohort 1): 3 (IQR 2–5; n=420) in the GTN group versus 3 (2–5; n=408) in the sham group, adjusted common odds ratio for poor outcome 1·25 (95% CI 0·97–1·60; p=0·083); we also found no difference in mRS between all patients (cohort 2: 3 [2–5]; n=544, in the GTN group vs 3 [2–5]; n=558, in the sham group; 1·04 [0·84–1·29]; p=0·69). We found no difference in secondary outcomes, death (treatment-related deaths: 36 in the GTN group vs 23 in the sham group [p=0·091]), or serious adverse events (188 in the GTN group vs 170 in the sham group [p=0·16]) between treatment groups. Interpretation Prehospital treatment with transdermal GTN does not seem to improve functional outcome in patients with presumed stroke. It is feasible for UK paramedics to obtain consent and treat patients with stroke in the ultraacute prehospital setting. Funding British Heart Foundation

One system for electronic health records

Comment on: The value from investments in health information technology at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. [Health Aff (Millwood). 2010

Colonoscopy--don\u27t want to be sedated

Comment on: Mandatory anesthesia. [JAMA Intern Med. 2013

Racial disparities in diabetes and physicians: lack of association does not indicate cause or cure

Comment on Physician performance and racial disparities in diabetes mellitus care. [Arch Intern Med. 2008

A piece of my mind. Should C be a passing grade for the USPSTF?

I trust the US Preventive Services Task Force to be unbiased and to base its recommendations on the best science available at the time (though this group clearly needs a catchier name). Despite that, I have been forced to conclude that C should, frequently, be a failing grade for the USPSTF. I am referring to issuing recommendations with a C grade..