Uterine Fibroid Embolisation for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Survey of Clinical Practice in Europe

Item does not contain fulltextPURPOSE: To assess current uterine fibroid embolisation (UFE) practice in European countries and determine the clinical environment for UFE in different hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In May 2009, an invitation for an online survey was sent by e-mail to all members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiologic Society of Europe, representing a total number of 1,250 different candidate European treatment centres. The survey covered 21 questions concerning local UFE practice. RESULTS: A total of 282 respondents completed the questionnaire. Fifteen questionnaires were excluded because they were doubles from centres that had already returned a questionnaire. The response rate was 267 of 1,250 centres (21.4%). Ninety-four respondents (33%) did not perform UFE and were excluded, and six centres were excluded because demographic data were missing. The remaining 167 respondents from different UFE centres were included in the study. Twenty-six percent of the respondents were from the United Kingdom (n = 43); 16% were from Germany (n = 27); 11% were from France (n = 18); and the remaining 47% (n = 79) were from other European countries. Most centres (48%, n = 80) had 5 to 10 years experience with UFE and performed 10 to 50 procedures annually (53% [n = 88]) of respondents). Additional demographic data, as well as specific data on referral of patients, UFE techniques used, and periprocedural and postprocedural, care will be provided. CONCLUSION: Although UFE as an alternative treatment for hysterectomy or myomectomy is widespread in Europe, its impact on the management of the patient with symptomatic fibroids seems, according to the overall numbers of UFE procedures, somewhat disappointing. Multiple factors might be responsible for this observation

Emergency department spirometric volume and base deficit delineate risk for torso injury in stable patients

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine torso injury rates and sensitivities associated with fluid-positive abdominal ultrasound, metabolic acidosis (increased base deficit and lactate), and impaired pulmonary physiology (decreased spirometric volume and PaO(2)/FiO(2)). METHODS: Level I trauma center prospective pilot and post-pilot study (2000–2001) of stable patients. Increased base deficit was < 0.0 in ethanol-negative and ≤ -3.0 in ethanol-positive patients. Increased lactate was > 2.5 mmol/L in ethanol-negative and ≥ 3.0 mmol/L in ethanol-positive patients. Decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2 )was < 350 and decreased spirometric volume was < 1.8 L. RESULTS: Of 215 patients, 66 (30.7%) had a torso injury (abdominal/pelvic injury n = 35 and/or thoracic injury n = 43). Glasgow Coma Scale score was 14.8 ± 0.5 (13–15). Torso injury rates and sensitivities were: abdominal ultrasound negative and normal base deficit, lactate, PaO(2)/FiO(2), and spirometric volume – 0.0% & 0.0%; normal base deficit and normal spirometric volume – 4.2% & 4.5%; chest/abdominal soft tissue injury – 37.8% & 47.0%; increased lactate – 39.7% & 47.0%; increased base deficit – 41.3% & 75.8%; increased base deficit and/or decreased spirometric volume – 43.8% & 95.5%; decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2 )– 48.9% & 33.3%; positive abdominal ultrasound – 62.5% & 7.6%; decreased spirometric volume – 73.4% & 71.2%; increased base deficit and decreased spirometric volume – 82.9% & 51.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with normal base deficit and spirometric volume are unlikely to have a torso injury. Patients with increased base deficit or lactate, decreased spirometric volume, decreased PaO(2)/FiO(2), or positive FAST have substantial risk for torso injury. Increased base deficit and/or decreased spirometric volume are highly sensitive for torso injury. Base deficit and spirometric volume values are readily available and increase or decrease the suspicion for torso injury

Physician Incentives and Disclosure of Payment Methods to Patients

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing public discussion of the value of disclosing how physicians are paid. However, little is known about patients' awareness of and interest in physician payment information or its potential impact on patients' evaluation of their care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Managed care and indemnity plans of a large, national health insurer. PARTICIPANTS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 2,086 adult patients in Atlanta, Ga.; Baltimore, Md/Washington DC; and Orlando, Fla (response rate, 54%). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were interviewed to assess perceptions of their physicians' payment method, preference for disclosure, and perceived effect of different financial incentives on quality of care. Non-managed fee-for-service patients (44%) were more likely to correctly identify how their physicians were paid than those with salaried (32%) or capitated (16%) physicians. Just over half (54%) wanted to be informed about their physicians' payment method. Patients of capitated and salaried physicians were as likely to want disclosure as patients of fee-for-service physicians. College graduates were more likely to prefer disclosure than other patients. Many patients (76%) thought a bonus paid for ordering fewer than the average number of tests would adversely affect the quality of their care. About half of the patients (53%) thought a particular type of withhold would adversely affect the quality of their care. White patients, college graduates, and those who had higher incomes were more likely to think that these types of bonuses and withholds would have a negative impact on their care. Among patients who believed that these types of bonuses adversely affected care, those with non-managed fee-for-service insurance and college graduates were more willing to pay a higher deductible or co-payment in order to get tests that they thought were necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were unaware of how their physicians are paid, and only about half wanted to know. Most believed that bonuses or withholds designed to reduce the use of services would adversely affect the quality of their care. Lack of knowledge combined with strong attitudes about various financial incentives suggest that improved patient education could clarify patient understanding of the nature and rationale for different types of incentives. More public discussion of this important topic is warranted