Prostate Cancer and Race

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72215/1/j.1525-1497.2003.30801.x.pd

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

Gender Differences in Aspirin use Among Adults With Coronary Heart Disease in the United States

BACKGROUND: Aspirin reduces mortality for men and women with coronary heart disease (CHD). Previous research suggests women with acute coronary syndromes receive less aggressive care, including less frequent early administration of aspirin. The presence of gender differences in aspirin use for secondary prevention is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a gender difference exists in the use of aspirin for secondary prevention among individuals with CHD. DESIGN: We analyzed data from the nationally representative 2000–2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys to determine the prevalence of regular aspirin use among men and women with CHD. PARTICIPANTS: Participants, 1,869, 40 years and older who reported CHD or prior myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Women were less likely than men to use aspirin regularly (62.4% vs 75.6%, p < .001) even after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic and clinical characteristics (adjusted OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.48–0.79). This difference narrowed but remained significant when the analysis was limited to those without self-reported contraindications to aspirin (79.8% vs 86.4%, P = .002, adjusted OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.48–0.97). Women were more likely than men to report contraindications (20.5% vs 12.5%, P < .001). Differences in aspirin use were greater between women and men with private health insurance (61.8% vs 79.0%, P < .001, adjusted OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.35–0.67) than among those with public coverage (62.5% vs 70.7%, P = .04, adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.50–1.11) (P < .001 for gender–insurance interaction). CONCLUSION: We found a gender difference in aspirin use among patients with CHD not fully explained by differences in patient characteristics or reported contraindications. These findings suggest a need for improved secondary prevention of cardiovascular events for women with CHD

Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Death—Does Insurance Matter?

BACKGROUND: Many Americans lack health insurance. Despite good evidence that lack of insurance compromises access to care, few prospective studies examine its relationship to health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between insurance and cardiovascular outcomes and the relationship between insurance and selected process measures. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data from 15,792 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, a prospective cohort study. Participants were enrolled in 1987–1989 and returned for follow-up visits every 3 years, for a total of 4 visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the hazard of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death associated with insurance status using Cox proportional hazard modeling. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between insurance status and risk of (1) reporting no routine physical examinations, (2) being unaware of a personal cardiovascular risk condition, and (3) inadequate control of cardiovascular risk conditions. RESULTS: Persons without insurance had higher rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI 1.22–2.22) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.03–1.53), but not myocardial infarction, than those who were insured. The uninsured were less likely to report routine physical examinations (adjusted risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.08–1.18); more likely to be unaware of hypertension (adjusted risk ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.00–1.25) and hyperlipidemia (adjusted risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.19); and more likely to have poor blood pressure control (adjusted risk ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.08–1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of health insurance is associated with increased rates of stroke and death and with less awareness and control of cardiovascular risk conditions. Health insurance may improve cardiovascular risk factor awareness, control and outcomes

Responses of Massachusetts hospitals to a state mandate to collect race, ethnicity and language data from patients: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A Massachusetts regulation implemented in 2007 has required all acute care hospitals to report patients' race, ethnicity and preferred language using standardized methodology based on self-reported information from patients. This study assessed implementation of the regulation and its impact on the use of race and ethnicity data in performance monitoring and quality improvement within hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives from a representative sample of 28 Massachusetts hospitals in 2009.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of hospitals using race, ethnicity and language data internally beyond refining interpreter services increased substantially from 11 to 21 after the regulation. Thirteen of these hospitals were utilizing patient race and ethnicity data to identify disparities in quality performance measures for a variety of clinical processes and outcomes, while 16 had developed patient services and community outreach programs based on findings from these data. Commonly reported barriers to data utilization include small numbers within categories, insufficient resources, information system requirements, and lack of direction from the state.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The responses of Massachusetts hospitals to this new state regulation indicate that requiring the collection of race, ethnicity and language data can be an effective method to promote performance monitoring and quality improvement, thereby setting the stage for federal standards and incentive programs to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of health care.</p

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

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

Patient acceptance of universal screening for hepatitis C virus infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the United States, about 70% of 2.9-3.7 million people with hepatitis C (HCV) are unaware of their infection. Although universal screening might be a cost-effective way to identify infections, prevent morbidity, and reduce transmission, few efforts have been made to determine patient opinions about new approaches to screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed 200 patients in August 2010 at five outpatient clinics of a major public urban medical center in Seattle, WA, with an 85.8% response rate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The sample was 55.3% women, median 47 years of age, and 56.3% white and 32.7% African or African-American; 9.5% and 2.5% reported testing positive for HCV and HIV, respectively. The vast majority of patients supported universal screening for HCV. When presented with three options for screening, 48% preferred universal testing without being informed that they were being tested or provided with negative results, 37% preferred testing with the chance to "opt-out" of being tested and without being provided with negative results, and 15% preferred testing based on clinician judgment. Results were similar for HIV screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients support universal screening for HCV, even if that screening involves testing without prior consent or the routine provision of negative test results. Current screening guidelines and procedures should be reconsidered in light of patient priorities.</p

Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines recommend colonoscopies at regular intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Using data from a large, multi-regional, population-based cohort, we describe the rate of surveillance colonoscopy and its association with geographic, sociodemographic, clinical, and health services characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied CRC survivors enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Eligible survivors were diagnosed between 2003 and 2005, had curative surgery for CRC, and were alive without recurrences 14 months after surgery with curative intent. Data came from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. We used a multivariate logit model to identify predictors of colonoscopy use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite guidelines recommending surveillance, only 49% of the 1423 eligible survivors received a colonoscopy within 14 months after surgery. We observed large regional differences (38% to 57%) across regions. Survivors who received screening colonoscopy were more likely to: have colon cancer than rectal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90); have visited a primary care physician (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82); and received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.27-2.41). Compared to survivors with no comorbidities, survivors with moderate or severe comorbidities were less likely to receive surveillance colonoscopy (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49-0.98 and OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite guidelines, more than half of CRC survivors did not receive surveillance colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery, with substantial variation by site of care. The association of primary care visits and adjuvant chemotherapy use suggests that access to care following surgery affects cancer surveillance.</p

Gynecologic oncology patients' satisfaction and symptom severity during palliative chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Research on quality and satisfaction with care during palliative chemotherapy in oncology patients has been limited. The objective was to assess the association between patient's satisfaction with care and symptom severity and to evaluate test-retest of a satisfaction survey in this study population. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies receiving chemotherapy were enrolled after a diagnosis of recurrent cancer. Patients completed the Quality of End-of-Life care and satisfaction with treatment scale (QUEST) once upon enrollment in an outpatient setting and again a week later. Patients also completed the Mini-Mental Status Exam, the Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale, a symptom severity scale and a demographic survey. Student's t-test, correlation statistics and percent agreement were used for analysis. RESULTS: Data from 39 patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) quality of care summary score was 41.95 (2.75) for physicians and 42.23 (5.42) for nurses (maximum score was 45; p = 0.76 for difference in score between providers). Mean (SD) satisfaction of care summary score was 29.03 (1.92) for physicians and 29.28 (1.70) for nurses (maximum score was 30; p = 0.49 for difference between providers). Test-retest for 33 patients who completed both QUEST surveys had high percent agreement (74–100%), with the exception of the question regarding the provider arriving late (45 and 53%). There was no correlation between quality and satisfaction of care and symptom severity. Weakness was the most common symptom reported. Symptom severity correlated with depression (r = 0.577 p < 0.01). There was a trend towards a larger proportion of patients reporting pain who had three or more prior chemotherapy regimens (p = 0.075). Prior number of chemotherapy regimens or time since diagnosis was not correlated with symptom severity score. Anxiety and depression were correlated with each other (r = 0.711, p < 0.01). There was no difference in symptom severity score at enrollment between those patients who have since died (n = 19) versus those who are still alive. CONCLUSION: The QUEST Survey has test-retest reliability when used as a written instrument in an outpatient setting. However, there was no correlation between this measure and symptom severity. Patient evaluation of care may be more closely related to the interpersonal aspects of the health care provider relationship than it is to physical symptoms

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

<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