SPECIAL COMMUNICATION Health Industry Practices That Create Conflicts of Interest A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers

market incentives in the United States is posing extraordinary challenges to the principles of medical professionalism. Physicians’ commitment to altruism, putting the interests of the patients first, scientific integrity, and an absence of bias in medical decision making now regularly come up against financial conflicts of interest. Arguably, the most challenging and extensive of these conflicts emanate from relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. 1 As part of the health care industry

Geographical distribution of publications in the field of medical education

BACKGROUND: The geographical distribution of publications as an indicator of the research productivity of individual countries, regions or institutions has become a field of interest. We investigated the geographical distribution of contributions to the two leading journals in the field of medical education, Academic Medicine and Medical Education. METHODS: PubMed was used to search Medline. For both journals all journal articles in each year from 1995 to 2000 were included into the study. Then the affiliation was retrieved from the affiliation field of the MEDLINE format. If this was not possible, it was obtained from the paper version of the journal. RESULTS: Academic Medicine published contributions from 25 countries between 1995 and 2000. Authors from 50 countries contributed to Medical Education in the same period of time. Authors from the USA and Canada wrote ca. 95% off all articles in Academic Medicine, whereas authors from the UK, Australia, the USA, Canada and the Netherlands were responsible for ca. 74% of all articles in Medical Education in the investigated period of time. CONCLUSIONS: While many countries contributed to both journals, only a few of them were responsible for the majority of all articles

A cognitive forcing tool to mitigate cognitive bias:A randomised control trial

Abstract Background Cognitive bias is an important source of diagnostic error yet is a challenging area to understand and teach. Our aim was to determine whether a cognitive forcing tool can reduce the rates of error in clinical decision making. A secondary objective was to understand the process by which this effect might occur. Methods We hypothesised that using a cognitive forcing tool would reduce diagnostic error rates. To test this hypothesis, a novel online case-based approach was used to conduct a single blinded randomized clinical trial conducted from January 2017 to September 2018. In addition, a qualitative series of “think aloud” interviews were conducted with 20 doctors from a UK teaching hospital in 2018. The primary outcome was the diagnostic error rate when solving bias inducing clinical vignettes. A volunteer sample of medical professionals from across the UK, Republic of Ireland and North America. They ranged in seniority from medical student to Attending Physician. Results Seventy six participants were included in the study. The data showed doctors of all grades routinely made errors related to cognitive bias. There was no difference in error rates between groups (mean 2.8 cases correct in intervention vs 3.1 in control group, 95% CI -0.94 – 0.45 P = 0.49). The qualitative protocol revealed that the cognitive forcing strategy was well received and a produced a subjectively positive impact on doctors’ accuracy and thoughtfulness in clinical cases. Conclusions The quantitative data failed to show an improvement in accuracy despite a positive qualitative experience. There is insufficient evidence to recommend this tool in clinical practice, however the qualitative data suggests such an approach has some merit and face validity to users

Antibiotics for coughing in general practice: a questionnaire study to quantify and condense the reasons for prescribing

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are being overprescribed in ambulant care, especially for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Gaining insight into the actual reasons for prescribing remains important for the design of effective strategies to optimise antibiotic prescribing. We aimed to determine items of importance for the antibiotic prescribing decision and to make them operational for an intervention trial. METHODS: A postal questionnaire based upon focus group findings was sent to 316 Flemish general practitioners (GPs). On a verbal rating scale the GPs scored to what extent they consider the questionnaire items in decision making in case of suspected RTI in a coughing patient and how strongly the items support or counter antibiotic treatment. Factor analysis was used to condense the data. The relative importance of the yielded operational factors was assessed using Wilcoxon Matched Pairs test. RESULTS: 59.5% completed the study. Response group characteristics (mean age: 42.8 years; 65.9% men) approximated that of all Flemish GPs. Participants considered all the items included in the questionnaire: always the operational factor 'lung auscultation', often 'whether or not there is something unusual happening' – both medical reasons – and to a lesser extent 'non-medical reasons' (P < 0.001). Non-medical as well as medical reasons support antibiotic treatment, but non-medical reasons to a lesser extent (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study quantified, condensed and confirmed the findings of previous focus group research. Practice guidelines and interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing have to take non-medical reasons into account

Unhappy doctors? A longitudinal study of life and job satisfaction among Norwegian doctors 1994 – 2002

BACKGROUND: General opinion is that doctors are increasingly dissatisfied with their job, but few longitudinal studies exist. This study has been conducted to investigate a possible decline in professional and personal satisfaction among doctors by the turn of the century. METHODS: We have done a survey among a representative sample of 1 174 Norwegian doctors in 2002 (response rate 73 %) and compared the findings with answers to the same questions by (most of) the same doctors in 1994 and 2000. The main outcome measures were self reported levels of life satisfaction and job satisfaction according to the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS). RESULTS: Most Norwegian doctors are happy. They reported an average life satisfaction of 5.21 in 1994 and 5.32 in 2002 on a scale from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Half of the respondents reported a very high level of general life satisfaction (a score of 6 or 7) while only one third said they would have reported this high level of satisfaction five years ago. The doctors thought that they had a higher level of job satisfaction than other comparable professional groups. The job satisfaction scale among the same doctors showed a significant increase from 1994 to 2002. Anaesthesiologists and internists reported a lower and psychiatrists and primary care doctors reported a higher level of job satisfaction than the average. CONCLUSION: Norwegian doctors seem to have enjoyed an increasing level of life and job satisfaction rather than a decline over the last decade. This challenges the general impression of unhappy doctors as a general and worldwide phenomenon

An evaluation of the appropriateness of advice and healthcare contacts made following calls to NHS Direct Wales

Background: An evaluation of NHS Direct Wales (NHSDW), a national telephone-based healthcare advice and information service, was undertaken. A key objective was to describe the actions of callers and assess the appropriateness of advice and healthcare contacts made following calls, results of which are reported here. Methods: Postal questionnaires were sent to consecutive callers to NHSDW in May 2002 and February 2004 to determine 1) callers' actions following calls and 2) their views about the appropriateness of: advice given; and when to seek further care. An independent clinical panel agreed and applied a set of rules about healthcare sites where examinations, investigations, treatments and referrals could be obtained. The rules were then applied to the subsequent contacts to healthcare services reported by respondents and actions were classified in terms of whether they had been necessary and sufficient for the care received. Results: Response rates were similar in each survey: 1033/1897 (54.5%); 606/1204 (50.3%), with 75% reporting contacting NHSDW. In both surveys, nearly half of all callers reported making no further healthcare contact after their call to NHSDW. The most frequent subsequent contacts made were with GPs. More than four fifths of callers rated the advice given - concerning any further care needed and when to seek it - as appropriate (further care needed: survey 1: 673/729, 82.3%; survey 2: 389/421, 92.4%; when to seek further care - survey 1: 462/555, 83.2%; survey 2: n = 295/346, 85.3%). A similar proportion of cases was also rated through the rule set and backed up by the clinical panel as having taken necessary and sufficient actions following their calls to NHSDW (survey 1: 624/729, 80.6%; survey 2: 362/421, 84.4%), with more unnecessary than insufficient actions identified at each survey (survey 1: unnecessary 132/729, 17.1% versus insufficient 11/729, 1.4%; survey 2: unnecessary 47/421, 11.0% versus insufficient 14/421, 3.3%). Conclusion: Based on NHSDW caller surveys responses and applying a transparent rule set to caller actions a large majority of subsequent actions were assessed as appropriate, with insufficient contacts particularly infrequent. The challenge for NHSDW is to reduce the number of unnecessary contacts made following calls to the service, whilst maintaining safety.</p

Bedside rationing by general practitioners: A postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is ethically controversial whether medical doctors are morally permitted to ration the care of their patients at the bedside. To explore whether general practitioners in fact do ration in this manner we conducted a study within primary care in the Danish public healthcare system. The purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) would be willing to factor in cost-quality trade-offs when prescribing medicine, and to discover whether, and if so to what extent, they believe that patients should be informed about this.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Postal survey of 600 randomly selected Danish GPs, of which 330 responded to the questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) was used to produce general descriptive statistics. Significance was calculated with the McNemar and the chi-square test. The main outcome measures of the study were twofold: an assessment of the proportion of GPs who, in a mainly hypothetical setting, would consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given their economic impact on the healthcare system; and a measure of the extent to which they would disclose this information to patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the hypothetical setting 95% of GPs considered cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. In all 90% stated that this consideration had been relevant in clinical decision-making within the last month. In the hypothetical setting 55% would inform their patients that they considered a cost-quality trade-off relevant to their clinical decisions given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. The most common reason (68%) given for not wanting to inform patients about this matter was the belief that the information would not prove useful to patients. In the hypothetical setting cost-quality trade-offs were considered relevant significantly more often in connection with concerns about costs to the patient (86%) than they were in connection with concerns about costs to the healthcare system (55%; p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although readiness to consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to clinical decisions is prevalent among GPs in Denmark, only half of GPs would disclose to patients that they consider this relevant to their clinical decision-making. The results of this study raise two important ethical problems. First, under Danish law physicians are required to inform patients about all equal treatments. The fact that only a few GPs would inform their patients about all of the relevant treatments therefore seems to contravene Danish law. Second, it is ethically controversial that physicians act as economic gatekeepers.</p