Outcomes for Resident-Identified High-Risk Patients and Resident Perspectives of Year-End Continuity Clinic Handoffs

BACKGROUND: Many patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff DESIGN: Retrospective cohort PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009-2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010-2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff. RESULTS: Thirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P<0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p<0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p=0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as "theirs" until they are seen by them in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership

Cognitive and behavioral predictors of light therapy use

Objective: Although light therapy is effective in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and other mood disorders, only 53-79% of individuals with SAD meet remission criteria after light therapy. Perhaps more importantly, only 12-41% of individuals with SAD continue to use the treatment even after a previous winter of successful treatment. Method: Participants completed surveys regarding (1) social, cognitive, and behavioral variables used to evaluate treatment adherence for other health-related issues, expectations and credibility of light therapy, (2) a depression symptoms scale, and (3) self-reported light therapy use. Results: Individuals age 18 or older responded (n = 40), all reporting having been diagnosed with a mood disorder for which light therapy is indicated. Social support and self-efficacy scores were predictive of light therapy use (p's<.05). Conclusion: The findings suggest that testing social support and self-efficacy in a diagnosed patient population may identify factors related to the decision to use light therapy. Treatments that impact social support and self-efficacy may improve treatment response to light therapy in SAD. © 2012 Roecklein et al

Genome sequences of four cluster P mycobacteriophages

Four bacteriophages infecting Mycobacterium smegmatis mc2155 (three belonging to subcluster P1 and one belonging to subcluster P2) were isolated from soil and sequenced. All four phages are similar in the left arm of their genomes, but the P2 phage differs in the right arm. All four genomes contain features of temperate phages

The effectiveness of an intervention in increasing community health clinician provision of preventive care: a study protocol of a non-randomised, multiple-baseline trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian Clinical Trials Registry <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611001284954.aspx">ACTRN12611001284954</a></p> <p>Universal Trial Number (UTN)</p> <p>U1111-1126-3465</p

Insights Into nephrolithiasis from the Nurses\u27 Health Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review the contributions of the Nurses\u27 Health Study (NHS) I and NHS II to understanding the role of dietary factors, beverages, body size, and urinary factors in the development of kidney stones. METHODS: We conducted a review of kidney stone-related publications of NHS I and NHS II between 1976 and 2016. RESULTS: Studies using NHS I and NHS II data have demonstrated the importance of many factors in kidney stone formation and were the first to report that higher dietary calcium was associated with a lower risk of incident kidney stones in women. Data from these cohorts were instrumental in emphasizing that nephrolithiasis is a systemic disease and suggesting that a kidney stone or shared risk factors may lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the NHSs have changed the scientific understanding and the clinical practice of stone prevention and have been incorporated into widely consulted textbooks and the American Urological Association Medical Management of Kidney Stones guidelines

Outcomes for Resident-Identified High-Risk Patients and Resident Perspectives of Year-End Continuity Clinic Handoffs

BACKGROUND: Many patients nationwide change their primary care physician (PCP) when internal medicine (IM) residents graduate. Few studies have examined this handoff. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient outcomes and resident perspectives after the year-end continuity clinic handoff DESIGN: Retrospective cohort PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent a year-end clinic handoff in July 2010 and a comparison group of all other resident clinic patients from 2009–2011. PGY2 IM residents surveyed from 2010–2011. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of high-risk patients after the clinic handoff scheduled for an appointment, who saw their assigned PCP, lost to follow-up, or had an acute visit (ED or hospitalization). Perceptions of PGY2 IM residents surveyed after receiving a clinic handoff. RESULTS: Thirty graduating residents identified 258 high-risk patients. While nearly all patients (97 %) were scheduled, 29 % missed or cancelled their first new PCP visit. Only 44 % of patients saw the correct PCP and six months later, one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients not seen by a new PCP after the handoff were less likely to have appropriate follow-up for pending tests (0 % vs. 63 %, P < 0.001). A higher mean no show rate (NSR) was observed among patients who missed their first new PCP visit (22 % vs. 16 % NSR, p < 0.001) and those lost to follow-up (21 % vs. 17 % NSR, p = 0.019). While 47 % of residents worried about missing important data during the handoff, 47 % reported that they do not perceive patients as “theirs” until they are seen by them in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were scheduled for appointments after a clinic handoff, many did not see the correct resident and one-fifth were lost to follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are especially at risk of poor clinic handoff outcomes. Future efforts should improve patient attendance to their first new PCP visit and increase PCP ownership. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2100-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users