Patient Care

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

Presenter: Jim Pile, MD, Cleveland Clinic

Summary: The following three infectious diagnoses are relatively uncommon but important not to miss as they are associated with high mortality, especially when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Remembering these key points can help you make the diagnosis:

• Bacterial meningitis: Many patients do not have the classic triad—fever, nuchal rigidity, and altered mental status—but nearly all have at least one of these signs, and most have headache. The jolt accentuation test—horizontal movement of the head causing exacerbation of the headache—is more sensitive than nuchal rigidity in these cases. Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture. It appears safe to not to perform head CT in patients

• Spinal epidural abscess: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, hemodialysis, UTI, trauma, epidural anesthesia, trauma/surgery. Presentation is acute to indolent and usually consists of four stages: central back pain, radicular pain, neurologic deficits, paralysis; fever variable. Checking ESR can be helpful as it is elevated in most cases. MRI is imaging study of choice. Initial management includes antibiotics to coverage Staph Aureus and gram negative rods and surgery consultation.
• Necrotizing soft tissue infection: Risk factors include DM, IV drug use, trauma/surgery, ETOH, immunosuppression (Type I); muscle trauma, skin integrity deficits (Type II). Clinical suspicion is paramount. Specific clues include: pain out of proportion, anesthesia, systemic toxicity, rapid progression, bullae/crepitus, and failure to respond to antibiotics. Initial management includes initiation of B-lactam/lactamase inhibitor or carbapenem plus clindamycin and MRSA coverage, imaging and prompt surgical consultation (as delayed/inadequate surgery associated with poor prognosis.

Key Takeaway

Clinical suspicion is key to diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, spinal epidural abscesses, and necrotizing soft tissue infections, and delays in diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased mortality.TH

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

[WpProQuiz 5]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 5]

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Implementation of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) resulted in small changes in utilization patterns and modest quality improvements over a three-year period, according to a new report.

Dr. Lisa M. Kern of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City and colleagues found more primary care visits, fewer specialist visits, fewer lab and radiologic tests, and fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations in the practices that adopted the PCMH.

Most changes occurred in the last year of the study, three years after PCMH implementation, they report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, online February 15.

The PCMH model "attempts to shift the medical paradigm from care for individual patients to care for populations, from care by physicians to care by a team of providers, from a focus on acute illness to an emphasis on chronic disease management, and from care at a single site to coordinated care across providers and settings," Dr. Kern and her team write. However, they add, studies looking at the effectiveness of the approach have had mixed results.

To date, most studies attempting to look at PCMH have had follow-up periods lasting just 1.5 to 2 years after implementation, the researchers note. "These changes take time, and studies with relatively short follow-up may have underestimated the effects of the intervention," they add.

The new study included 438 primary care physicians in 226 practices with more than 136,000 patients enrolled in five health plans. Insurers offered incentives of $2 to $10 per patient per month to practices that achieved level III PCMH recognition from the National Committee for Quality Assurance

(NCQA).

Twelve practices including 125 physicians volunteered for the PCMH initiative, and were assisted by two outside consulting groups. All of these practices achieved level III PCMH recognition. Among the remaining physicians, 87 doctors in 45 practices adopted electronic health records (EHR) without the

PCMH intervention, and 226 physicians in 169 practices continued using paper records.

For the eight quality measures the researchers looked at, two showed greater improvements over time in the PCMH group compared to one or both of the control groups: eye examination and hemoglobin A1c testing for patients with diabetes.

From 2008 to 2012, the PCMH group showed improvements over the paper group and the EHR group for six of seven utilization measures.

NCQA recognition was one aspect of the PCMH intervention in the new study, but this doesn't represent the entire intervention, Dr. Mark W. Friedberg of RAND Corporation and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, told Reuters Health.

"What they evaluated was a different way of paying practices, combined with some technical assistance, combined with some shared savings in the last year of the pilot," Dr. Friedberg explained. And this also requires defining what improving care means, he added, for example "better technical quality of care, better patient experience, better effectiveness of care, better professional satisfaction and lower burnout for people working in the practices. It's also hard to measure all of those, and most studies don't."

The new study is well done, according to Dr. Friedberg, but the challenge will be to understand how it fits in with the rest of the medical home literature, he said. "There's a lot of trials still out there and the results are still coming in, including some very large Medicare medical home pilots. I think we'll have a much better sense of what works in a year or two as those results come back."

Dr. Kern did not respond to an interview request by press time.

The study was funded by The Commonwealth Fund and the New York State Department of Health.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Implementation of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) resulted in small changes in utilization patterns and modest quality improvements over a three-year period, according to a new report.

Dr. Lisa M. Kern of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City and colleagues found more primary care visits, fewer specialist visits, fewer lab and radiologic tests, and fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations in the practices that adopted the PCMH.

Most changes occurred in the last year of the study, three years after PCMH implementation, they report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, online February 15.

The PCMH model "attempts to shift the medical paradigm from care for individual patients to care for populations, from care by physicians to care by a team of providers, from a focus on acute illness to an emphasis on chronic disease management, and from care at a single site to coordinated care across providers and settings," Dr. Kern and her team write. However, they add, studies looking at the effectiveness of the approach have had mixed results.

To date, most studies attempting to look at PCMH have had follow-up periods lasting just 1.5 to 2 years after implementation, the researchers note. "These changes take time, and studies with relatively short follow-up may have underestimated the effects of the intervention," they add.

The new study included 438 primary care physicians in 226 practices with more than 136,000 patients enrolled in five health plans. Insurers offered incentives of $2 to $10 per patient per month to practices that achieved level III PCMH recognition from the National Committee for Quality Assurance

(NCQA).

Twelve practices including 125 physicians volunteered for the PCMH initiative, and were assisted by two outside consulting groups. All of these practices achieved level III PCMH recognition. Among the remaining physicians, 87 doctors in 45 practices adopted electronic health records (EHR) without the

PCMH intervention, and 226 physicians in 169 practices continued using paper records.

For the eight quality measures the researchers looked at, two showed greater improvements over time in the PCMH group compared to one or both of the control groups: eye examination and hemoglobin A1c testing for patients with diabetes.

From 2008 to 2012, the PCMH group showed improvements over the paper group and the EHR group for six of seven utilization measures.

NCQA recognition was one aspect of the PCMH intervention in the new study, but this doesn't represent the entire intervention, Dr. Mark W. Friedberg of RAND Corporation and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, told Reuters Health.

"What they evaluated was a different way of paying practices, combined with some technical assistance, combined with some shared savings in the last year of the pilot," Dr. Friedberg explained. And this also requires defining what improving care means, he added, for example "better technical quality of care, better patient experience, better effectiveness of care, better professional satisfaction and lower burnout for people working in the practices. It's also hard to measure all of those, and most studies don't."

The new study is well done, according to Dr. Friedberg, but the challenge will be to understand how it fits in with the rest of the medical home literature, he said. "There's a lot of trials still out there and the results are still coming in, including some very large Medicare medical home pilots. I think we'll have a much better sense of what works in a year or two as those results come back."

Dr. Kern did not respond to an interview request by press time.

The study was funded by The Commonwealth Fund and the New York State Department of Health.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Implementation of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) resulted in small changes in utilization patterns and modest quality improvements over a three-year period, according to a new report.

Dr. Lisa M. Kern of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City and colleagues found more primary care visits, fewer specialist visits, fewer lab and radiologic tests, and fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations in the practices that adopted the PCMH.

Most changes occurred in the last year of the study, three years after PCMH implementation, they report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, online February 15.

The PCMH model "attempts to shift the medical paradigm from care for individual patients to care for populations, from care by physicians to care by a team of providers, from a focus on acute illness to an emphasis on chronic disease management, and from care at a single site to coordinated care across providers and settings," Dr. Kern and her team write. However, they add, studies looking at the effectiveness of the approach have had mixed results.

To date, most studies attempting to look at PCMH have had follow-up periods lasting just 1.5 to 2 years after implementation, the researchers note. "These changes take time, and studies with relatively short follow-up may have underestimated the effects of the intervention," they add.

The new study included 438 primary care physicians in 226 practices with more than 136,000 patients enrolled in five health plans. Insurers offered incentives of $2 to $10 per patient per month to practices that achieved level III PCMH recognition from the National Committee for Quality Assurance

(NCQA).

Twelve practices including 125 physicians volunteered for the PCMH initiative, and were assisted by two outside consulting groups. All of these practices achieved level III PCMH recognition. Among the remaining physicians, 87 doctors in 45 practices adopted electronic health records (EHR) without the

PCMH intervention, and 226 physicians in 169 practices continued using paper records.

For the eight quality measures the researchers looked at, two showed greater improvements over time in the PCMH group compared to one or both of the control groups: eye examination and hemoglobin A1c testing for patients with diabetes.

From 2008 to 2012, the PCMH group showed improvements over the paper group and the EHR group for six of seven utilization measures.

NCQA recognition was one aspect of the PCMH intervention in the new study, but this doesn't represent the entire intervention, Dr. Mark W. Friedberg of RAND Corporation and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, told Reuters Health.

"What they evaluated was a different way of paying practices, combined with some technical assistance, combined with some shared savings in the last year of the pilot," Dr. Friedberg explained. And this also requires defining what improving care means, he added, for example "better technical quality of care, better patient experience, better effectiveness of care, better professional satisfaction and lower burnout for people working in the practices. It's also hard to measure all of those, and most studies don't."

The new study is well done, according to Dr. Friedberg, but the challenge will be to understand how it fits in with the rest of the medical home literature, he said. "There's a lot of trials still out there and the results are still coming in, including some very large Medicare medical home pilots. I think we'll have a much better sense of what works in a year or two as those results come back."

Dr. Kern did not respond to an interview request by press time.

The study was funded by The Commonwealth Fund and the New York State Department of Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

What I Say and Do

I address patients by their preferred name and introduce myself with my full name.

Why I Do It

I have been surprised by how little discussion I have seen regarding how we address our patients. All the literature I have seen tells us that patients generally prefer first names, yet most doctors use last names. They also want us to introduce ourselves with our first and last name.

I have really found that using a first name personalizes the encounter a lot more than the formal Mr. or Mrs. Jones. Take, for example, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Mr. Jones,” versus, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Bill.”

Or for a family meeting regarding end of life: “What would Mrs. Jones want from us at this point in her life?” versus “What would Jenny want from us at this point in her life?”

I know that, for me personally, I feel treated more like an individual when someone uses my first name versus my last. This may seem like a small point, but I think it can truly improve communication and connectedness.

How I Do It

About four years ago, I began starting every encounter by addressing my patients by their first and last name. I then ask them what they would prefer to be called. Every patient has responded with either their first name or with a preferred nickname.

I always introduce myself as Dr. Rob Hoffman. About 90% of patients call me Dr. Hoffman, and the rest call me Rob. I used to be taken aback by being called Rob but eventually realized how egocentric that was. What should I care what my patient calls me? TH

Dr. Hoffman is a clinical associate professor and medical director for patient relations at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.

Table 1.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

What I Say and Do

I address patients by their preferred name and introduce myself with my full name.

Why I Do It

I have been surprised by how little discussion I have seen regarding how we address our patients. All the literature I have seen tells us that patients generally prefer first names, yet most doctors use last names. They also want us to introduce ourselves with our first and last name.

I have really found that using a first name personalizes the encounter a lot more than the formal Mr. or Mrs. Jones. Take, for example, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Mr. Jones,” versus, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Bill.”

Or for a family meeting regarding end of life: “What would Mrs. Jones want from us at this point in her life?” versus “What would Jenny want from us at this point in her life?”

I know that, for me personally, I feel treated more like an individual when someone uses my first name versus my last. This may seem like a small point, but I think it can truly improve communication and connectedness.

How I Do It

About four years ago, I began starting every encounter by addressing my patients by their first and last name. I then ask them what they would prefer to be called. Every patient has responded with either their first name or with a preferred nickname.

I always introduce myself as Dr. Rob Hoffman. About 90% of patients call me Dr. Hoffman, and the rest call me Rob. I used to be taken aback by being called Rob but eventually realized how egocentric that was. What should I care what my patient calls me? TH

Dr. Hoffman is a clinical associate professor and medical director for patient relations at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.

Table 1.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

What I Say and Do

I address patients by their preferred name and introduce myself with my full name.

Why I Do It

I have been surprised by how little discussion I have seen regarding how we address our patients. All the literature I have seen tells us that patients generally prefer first names, yet most doctors use last names. They also want us to introduce ourselves with our first and last name.

I have really found that using a first name personalizes the encounter a lot more than the formal Mr. or Mrs. Jones. Take, for example, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Mr. Jones,” versus, “I am sorry you are still in pain, Bill.”

Or for a family meeting regarding end of life: “What would Mrs. Jones want from us at this point in her life?” versus “What would Jenny want from us at this point in her life?”

I know that, for me personally, I feel treated more like an individual when someone uses my first name versus my last. This may seem like a small point, but I think it can truly improve communication and connectedness.

How I Do It

About four years ago, I began starting every encounter by addressing my patients by their first and last name. I then ask them what they would prefer to be called. Every patient has responded with either their first name or with a preferred nickname.

I always introduce myself as Dr. Rob Hoffman. About 90% of patients call me Dr. Hoffman, and the rest call me Rob. I used to be taken aback by being called Rob but eventually realized how egocentric that was. What should I care what my patient calls me? TH

Dr. Hoffman is a clinical associate professor and medical director for patient relations at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.

Table 1.

Clinical question: Can physician counseling for asthma care be improved by using low-literacy asthma action plans?

Background: Although asthma action plans are recommended for all children with asthma and have been associated with improved medication adherence, written asthma action plans are given to fewer than half of patients with asthma. Children with asthma whose parents have low health literacy have worse asthma-related outcomes; most asthma action plans do not use principles of health literacy. Researchers sought to investigate if asthma counseling was improved when providers were given a low-literacy asthma action plan versus a standard plan to structure their counseling.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Two large, academic medical centers.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 126 physicians, of which 119 were randomized, with 61 counseling based on the low-literacy asthma action plan and 58 counseling based on a standard asthma action plan. There were no significant differences between the two groups of physicians in terms of age, gender, frequency in providing asthma care, confidence in asthma counseling, or training category (resident, fellow, attending).

These physicians counseled research assistants acting in the role of parents of children with moderate persistent asthma. The children were on a regimen of daily orally inhaled fluticasone and montelukast by mouth and as-needed albuterol. The low-literacy plan used photographs of medications, pictograms, and colors to delineate asthma severity and was prepopulated with the patient’s regimen. The standard plan was from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); it required the physician to write in the names and doses of the patient’s medications and had no photos or pictograms. Counseling sessions were recorded and coded for content.

Using health literacy principles, the authors valued plain-language descriptions (e.g., “ribs show when breathing”) over jargon (e.g., “respiratory distress”) and specific times (e.g., “morning and night”) over times-per-day dosing (e.g., “two times a day”).

Physicians using the low-literacy plan were much more likely to use specific time of day rather than doses per day (odds ratio = 27.5; 95% CI, 6.1–123.4), much more likely to mention spacers (odds ratio = 6; 95% CI, 2.8–15), and much more likely to use plain-language descriptors of respiratory distress (odds ratio = 33; 95% CI, 7.4–147.5). These differences were present regardless of physicians’ stated comfort with asthma counseling or experience level. There was no significant difference in duration of counseling between the two plans. Physicians stated a preference for the low-literacy plan.

Bottom line: Use of low-literacy asthma action plans improves the quality of physician counseling for asthma.

Citation: Yin HS, Gupta RS, Tomopoulos S, et al. A low-literacy asthma action plan to improve provider asthma counseling: a randomized study. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):1-11. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-0468.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Clinical question: Can physician counseling for asthma care be improved by using low-literacy asthma action plans?

Background: Although asthma action plans are recommended for all children with asthma and have been associated with improved medication adherence, written asthma action plans are given to fewer than half of patients with asthma. Children with asthma whose parents have low health literacy have worse asthma-related outcomes; most asthma action plans do not use principles of health literacy. Researchers sought to investigate if asthma counseling was improved when providers were given a low-literacy asthma action plan versus a standard plan to structure their counseling.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Two large, academic medical centers.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 126 physicians, of which 119 were randomized, with 61 counseling based on the low-literacy asthma action plan and 58 counseling based on a standard asthma action plan. There were no significant differences between the two groups of physicians in terms of age, gender, frequency in providing asthma care, confidence in asthma counseling, or training category (resident, fellow, attending).

These physicians counseled research assistants acting in the role of parents of children with moderate persistent asthma. The children were on a regimen of daily orally inhaled fluticasone and montelukast by mouth and as-needed albuterol. The low-literacy plan used photographs of medications, pictograms, and colors to delineate asthma severity and was prepopulated with the patient’s regimen. The standard plan was from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); it required the physician to write in the names and doses of the patient’s medications and had no photos or pictograms. Counseling sessions were recorded and coded for content.

Using health literacy principles, the authors valued plain-language descriptions (e.g., “ribs show when breathing”) over jargon (e.g., “respiratory distress”) and specific times (e.g., “morning and night”) over times-per-day dosing (e.g., “two times a day”).

Physicians using the low-literacy plan were much more likely to use specific time of day rather than doses per day (odds ratio = 27.5; 95% CI, 6.1–123.4), much more likely to mention spacers (odds ratio = 6; 95% CI, 2.8–15), and much more likely to use plain-language descriptors of respiratory distress (odds ratio = 33; 95% CI, 7.4–147.5). These differences were present regardless of physicians’ stated comfort with asthma counseling or experience level. There was no significant difference in duration of counseling between the two plans. Physicians stated a preference for the low-literacy plan.

Bottom line: Use of low-literacy asthma action plans improves the quality of physician counseling for asthma.

Citation: Yin HS, Gupta RS, Tomopoulos S, et al. A low-literacy asthma action plan to improve provider asthma counseling: a randomized study. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):1-11. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-0468.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Clinical question: Can physician counseling for asthma care be improved by using low-literacy asthma action plans?

Background: Although asthma action plans are recommended for all children with asthma and have been associated with improved medication adherence, written asthma action plans are given to fewer than half of patients with asthma. Children with asthma whose parents have low health literacy have worse asthma-related outcomes; most asthma action plans do not use principles of health literacy. Researchers sought to investigate if asthma counseling was improved when providers were given a low-literacy asthma action plan versus a standard plan to structure their counseling.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Two large, academic medical centers.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 126 physicians, of which 119 were randomized, with 61 counseling based on the low-literacy asthma action plan and 58 counseling based on a standard asthma action plan. There were no significant differences between the two groups of physicians in terms of age, gender, frequency in providing asthma care, confidence in asthma counseling, or training category (resident, fellow, attending).

These physicians counseled research assistants acting in the role of parents of children with moderate persistent asthma. The children were on a regimen of daily orally inhaled fluticasone and montelukast by mouth and as-needed albuterol. The low-literacy plan used photographs of medications, pictograms, and colors to delineate asthma severity and was prepopulated with the patient’s regimen. The standard plan was from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); it required the physician to write in the names and doses of the patient’s medications and had no photos or pictograms. Counseling sessions were recorded and coded for content.

Using health literacy principles, the authors valued plain-language descriptions (e.g., “ribs show when breathing”) over jargon (e.g., “respiratory distress”) and specific times (e.g., “morning and night”) over times-per-day dosing (e.g., “two times a day”).

Physicians using the low-literacy plan were much more likely to use specific time of day rather than doses per day (odds ratio = 27.5; 95% CI, 6.1–123.4), much more likely to mention spacers (odds ratio = 6; 95% CI, 2.8–15), and much more likely to use plain-language descriptors of respiratory distress (odds ratio = 33; 95% CI, 7.4–147.5). These differences were present regardless of physicians’ stated comfort with asthma counseling or experience level. There was no significant difference in duration of counseling between the two plans. Physicians stated a preference for the low-literacy plan.

Bottom line: Use of low-literacy asthma action plans improves the quality of physician counseling for asthma.

Citation: Yin HS, Gupta RS, Tomopoulos S, et al. A low-literacy asthma action plan to improve provider asthma counseling: a randomized study. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):1-11. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-0468.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

(Reuters Health) - Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor, pays far less for common surgical procedures in many states than does Medicare, the federal insurance plan for the elderly, according to a new study.

Some of the discounts are so steep that they may threaten access to care, the authors argue.

Medicaid is the biggest public health program in the U.S. and currently accounts for about $1 out of every $6 spent on medical care. Medicaid expenditures also represent almost half of all federal funds spent by states.

When Medicaid fees are too low relative to payments from Medicare, doctors may refuse to treat Medicaid patients, potentially making it much harder for poor people to get treatment, argue Dr. Charles Mabry of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and colleagues in a paper released online January 13 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

"Lack of proper payment can cause some Medicaid patients to have needed surgical procedures delayed," Mabry told Reuters Health by email. "Our hope was that by researching and publishing on these wide variations in payment, it would spur states to rethink the methodology for how they determine payment."

Even though the federal government picks up part of the tab for care, Medicaid payment rates as well as enrollment eligibility and covered benefits are determined by individual states.

To assess the degree of variation between Medicare and Medicaid payments for surgery, Mabry and colleagues calculated how much fees varied for some of the most common procedures done by general surgeons in nearly every state across the country.

The analysis excluded only Kansas and Tennessee.

The largest discount they found was in New Jersey, where Medicaid paid $1,011 (about 933 euros) less than Medicare for surgery to remove all or part of the small intestine.

At the other extreme, the biggest premium was in Alaska, which paid $1,382 more for insertion of a tunneled central venous port under Medicaid than Medicare would pay for the procedure.

When they looked at mastectomy, Medicaid paid $226.47 in Connecticut, 69% less than the $725.35 Medicare payment for the same procedure in the same state.

For an enterectomy, New Jersey's Medicaid payment of $332 was 75% less than the $1,343.16 payment under Medicare.

To fix a ventral hernia, Medicaid in New Hampshire pays $300, 61% less than the $762.28 Medicare payment in the state.

The analysis has several limitations, including the narrow focus on a handful of surgical procedures and the reliance on published payment schedules in each state, which may not necessarily reflect what surgeons actually get paid, the authors note. The analysis also lacked data on certain bulk payments or additional funds paid by Medicaid that might minimize the apparent discounts in some cases.

The paper didn't examine how access to care might be adversely affected by steep discounts in Medicaid payments relative to Medicare or private insurance. But, the authors conclude, it's likely some people struggle to find surgeons or experience delays in care as a direct result of low fees that motivate doctors to refuse Medicaid patients.

One woman with sickle-cell disease and Medicaid coverage is a case-in-point for Dr. Constantine Manthous, who retired from Yale University and works in private practice in New London, Connecticut.

He recalled meeting her after she had spent a decade in a wheelchair because she couldn't find a surgeon to repair her hip. She didn't receive surgery until the hip fell out of its socket, requiring constant hospitalization and morphine.

"By that time she was so ill she died of late complications from the decade delay," Manthous, who wasn't involved in the study, said by email. "You and I would have gotten the hip immediately."

(Reuters Health) - Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor, pays far less for common surgical procedures in many states than does Medicare, the federal insurance plan for the elderly, according to a new study.

Some of the discounts are so steep that they may threaten access to care, the authors argue.

Medicaid is the biggest public health program in the U.S. and currently accounts for about $1 out of every $6 spent on medical care. Medicaid expenditures also represent almost half of all federal funds spent by states.

When Medicaid fees are too low relative to payments from Medicare, doctors may refuse to treat Medicaid patients, potentially making it much harder for poor people to get treatment, argue Dr. Charles Mabry of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and colleagues in a paper released online January 13 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

"Lack of proper payment can cause some Medicaid patients to have needed surgical procedures delayed," Mabry told Reuters Health by email. "Our hope was that by researching and publishing on these wide variations in payment, it would spur states to rethink the methodology for how they determine payment."

Even though the federal government picks up part of the tab for care, Medicaid payment rates as well as enrollment eligibility and covered benefits are determined by individual states.

To assess the degree of variation between Medicare and Medicaid payments for surgery, Mabry and colleagues calculated how much fees varied for some of the most common procedures done by general surgeons in nearly every state across the country.

The analysis excluded only Kansas and Tennessee.

The largest discount they found was in New Jersey, where Medicaid paid $1,011 (about 933 euros) less than Medicare for surgery to remove all or part of the small intestine.

At the other extreme, the biggest premium was in Alaska, which paid $1,382 more for insertion of a tunneled central venous port under Medicaid than Medicare would pay for the procedure.

When they looked at mastectomy, Medicaid paid $226.47 in Connecticut, 69% less than the $725.35 Medicare payment for the same procedure in the same state.

For an enterectomy, New Jersey's Medicaid payment of $332 was 75% less than the $1,343.16 payment under Medicare.

To fix a ventral hernia, Medicaid in New Hampshire pays $300, 61% less than the $762.28 Medicare payment in the state.

The analysis has several limitations, including the narrow focus on a handful of surgical procedures and the reliance on published payment schedules in each state, which may not necessarily reflect what surgeons actually get paid, the authors note. The analysis also lacked data on certain bulk payments or additional funds paid by Medicaid that might minimize the apparent discounts in some cases.

The paper didn't examine how access to care might be adversely affected by steep discounts in Medicaid payments relative to Medicare or private insurance. But, the authors conclude, it's likely some people struggle to find surgeons or experience delays in care as a direct result of low fees that motivate doctors to refuse Medicaid patients.

One woman with sickle-cell disease and Medicaid coverage is a case-in-point for Dr. Constantine Manthous, who retired from Yale University and works in private practice in New London, Connecticut.

He recalled meeting her after she had spent a decade in a wheelchair because she couldn't find a surgeon to repair her hip. She didn't receive surgery until the hip fell out of its socket, requiring constant hospitalization and morphine.

"By that time she was so ill she died of late complications from the decade delay," Manthous, who wasn't involved in the study, said by email. "You and I would have gotten the hip immediately."

(Reuters Health) - Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor, pays far less for common surgical procedures in many states than does Medicare, the federal insurance plan for the elderly, according to a new study.

Some of the discounts are so steep that they may threaten access to care, the authors argue.

Medicaid is the biggest public health program in the U.S. and currently accounts for about $1 out of every $6 spent on medical care. Medicaid expenditures also represent almost half of all federal funds spent by states.

When Medicaid fees are too low relative to payments from Medicare, doctors may refuse to treat Medicaid patients, potentially making it much harder for poor people to get treatment, argue Dr. Charles Mabry of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and colleagues in a paper released online January 13 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

"Lack of proper payment can cause some Medicaid patients to have needed surgical procedures delayed," Mabry told Reuters Health by email. "Our hope was that by researching and publishing on these wide variations in payment, it would spur states to rethink the methodology for how they determine payment."

Even though the federal government picks up part of the tab for care, Medicaid payment rates as well as enrollment eligibility and covered benefits are determined by individual states.

To assess the degree of variation between Medicare and Medicaid payments for surgery, Mabry and colleagues calculated how much fees varied for some of the most common procedures done by general surgeons in nearly every state across the country.

The analysis excluded only Kansas and Tennessee.

The largest discount they found was in New Jersey, where Medicaid paid $1,011 (about 933 euros) less than Medicare for surgery to remove all or part of the small intestine.

At the other extreme, the biggest premium was in Alaska, which paid $1,382 more for insertion of a tunneled central venous port under Medicaid than Medicare would pay for the procedure.

When they looked at mastectomy, Medicaid paid $226.47 in Connecticut, 69% less than the $725.35 Medicare payment for the same procedure in the same state.

For an enterectomy, New Jersey's Medicaid payment of $332 was 75% less than the $1,343.16 payment under Medicare.

To fix a ventral hernia, Medicaid in New Hampshire pays $300, 61% less than the $762.28 Medicare payment in the state.

The analysis has several limitations, including the narrow focus on a handful of surgical procedures and the reliance on published payment schedules in each state, which may not necessarily reflect what surgeons actually get paid, the authors note. The analysis also lacked data on certain bulk payments or additional funds paid by Medicaid that might minimize the apparent discounts in some cases.

The paper didn't examine how access to care might be adversely affected by steep discounts in Medicaid payments relative to Medicare or private insurance. But, the authors conclude, it's likely some people struggle to find surgeons or experience delays in care as a direct result of low fees that motivate doctors to refuse Medicaid patients.

One woman with sickle-cell disease and Medicaid coverage is a case-in-point for Dr. Constantine Manthous, who retired from Yale University and works in private practice in New London, Connecticut.

He recalled meeting her after she had spent a decade in a wheelchair because she couldn't find a surgeon to repair her hip. She didn't receive surgery until the hip fell out of its socket, requiring constant hospitalization and morphine.

"By that time she was so ill she died of late complications from the decade delay," Manthous, who wasn't involved in the study, said by email. "You and I would have gotten the hip immediately."

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Dabigatran and warfarin offer similar stroke-prevention efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their side effect profiles differ, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world clinical practice.

"There could be many reasons for the differences in our findings, such as differences in the quality of evidence of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or differences in the included study populations between the observational studies in our review and the RE-LY trial," Dr. Robert J. Romanelli from Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, California, told Reuters Health by email.

The RE-LY trial is the only RCT to have evaluated dabigatran in stroke prevention, and RCTs are prone to selection biases less likely to be present in well designed observational studies, Dr. Romanelli and colleagues note in Circulation:Cardiovascular and Quality Outcomes, online January 26.

The team used data from seven retrospective cohort studies to compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin among more than 348,750 patients with nonvalvular AF.

During an overall mean follow-up of 794 days, dabigatran 150mg or 110 mg was similar to warfarin in ischemic stroke prevention.

Both the higher and lower dabigatran doses had significantly lower hazards of intracranial bleeding compared with warfarin (pooled hazard ratio, 0.44 and 0.49, respectively). But the hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly greater for dabigatran 150 mg (but not for 110 mg) than for warfarin (pHR, 1.23). The 110 mg dose of dabigatran was only available during the trial; it's now sold in 150 mg or 75 mg capsules.

The increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with the higher dose of dabigatran was significant only in older populations (75 years or older).

"Data presented in this review reflect relative risk, which is not always clinically meaningful," the researchers caution. "It is important to bear in mind that event rates for the outcome of interest are low under standard treatment."

"I don't think the findings from this one reviewshould change clinical practice," Dr. Romanelli said. "If anything, this study revealed areas for future research.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Dabigatran and warfarin offer similar stroke-prevention efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their side effect profiles differ, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world clinical practice.

"There could be many reasons for the differences in our findings, such as differences in the quality of evidence of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or differences in the included study populations between the observational studies in our review and the RE-LY trial," Dr. Robert J. Romanelli from Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, California, told Reuters Health by email.

The RE-LY trial is the only RCT to have evaluated dabigatran in stroke prevention, and RCTs are prone to selection biases less likely to be present in well designed observational studies, Dr. Romanelli and colleagues note in Circulation:Cardiovascular and Quality Outcomes, online January 26.

The team used data from seven retrospective cohort studies to compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin among more than 348,750 patients with nonvalvular AF.

During an overall mean follow-up of 794 days, dabigatran 150mg or 110 mg was similar to warfarin in ischemic stroke prevention.

Both the higher and lower dabigatran doses had significantly lower hazards of intracranial bleeding compared with warfarin (pooled hazard ratio, 0.44 and 0.49, respectively). But the hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly greater for dabigatran 150 mg (but not for 110 mg) than for warfarin (pHR, 1.23). The 110 mg dose of dabigatran was only available during the trial; it's now sold in 150 mg or 75 mg capsules.

The increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with the higher dose of dabigatran was significant only in older populations (75 years or older).

"Data presented in this review reflect relative risk, which is not always clinically meaningful," the researchers caution. "It is important to bear in mind that event rates for the outcome of interest are low under standard treatment."

"I don't think the findings from this one reviewshould change clinical practice," Dr. Romanelli said. "If anything, this study revealed areas for future research.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Dabigatran and warfarin offer similar stroke-prevention efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their side effect profiles differ, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world clinical practice.

"There could be many reasons for the differences in our findings, such as differences in the quality of evidence of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or differences in the included study populations between the observational studies in our review and the RE-LY trial," Dr. Robert J. Romanelli from Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, California, told Reuters Health by email.

The RE-LY trial is the only RCT to have evaluated dabigatran in stroke prevention, and RCTs are prone to selection biases less likely to be present in well designed observational studies, Dr. Romanelli and colleagues note in Circulation:Cardiovascular and Quality Outcomes, online January 26.

The team used data from seven retrospective cohort studies to compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin among more than 348,750 patients with nonvalvular AF.

During an overall mean follow-up of 794 days, dabigatran 150mg or 110 mg was similar to warfarin in ischemic stroke prevention.

Both the higher and lower dabigatran doses had significantly lower hazards of intracranial bleeding compared with warfarin (pooled hazard ratio, 0.44 and 0.49, respectively). But the hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly greater for dabigatran 150 mg (but not for 110 mg) than for warfarin (pHR, 1.23). The 110 mg dose of dabigatran was only available during the trial; it's now sold in 150 mg or 75 mg capsules.

The increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with the higher dose of dabigatran was significant only in older populations (75 years or older).

"Data presented in this review reflect relative risk, which is not always clinically meaningful," the researchers caution. "It is important to bear in mind that event rates for the outcome of interest are low under standard treatment."

"I don't think the findings from this one reviewshould change clinical practice," Dr. Romanelli said. "If anything, this study revealed areas for future research.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Type 2 diabetes risk appears to be increased in youth who are treated with antipsychotics, according to new research.

"We believe that clinicians should take away from our study that type 2 diabetes is a risk when treating youth with antipsychotics, especially long-term," said senior author Dr. Christoff U. Correll of Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, New York.

"Therefore, antipsychotics should be used judiciously and for as short a period as necessary and possible," he told Reuters Health by email. "Importantly, clinicians should routinely and proactively monitor the efficacy and need for ongoing antipsychotic treatment as well as the potential emergence of adverse effects. Specifically, clinicians and patients, as well as parents, should monitor weight change monthly, and fasting blood work for blood sugar and blood lipids

should be obtained before starting an antipsychotic, three months later, and every six months thereafter."

Dr. Correll and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies reporting on type 2 diabetes incidence in youth up to 24 years old who were exposed to antipsychotics for at least three months. They did a meta-analysis of thirteen studies involving more than 185,000 youth exposed to antipsychotics, representing some 310,000 patient-years.

Seven studies included psychiatric controls and eight studies included healthy controls.

During a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the cumulative type 2 diabetes risk was 5.72 per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001). The overall incidence rate was 3.09 cases per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001), according to an article online January 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Compared with healthy controls, antipsychotic-exposed youth had significantly higher cumulative type 2 diabetes risk (odds ratio, 2.58; p<0.0001) and incidence rate ratio (IRR, 3.02; p<0.0001). Compared with psychiatric controls, they had significantly higher risks (OR 2.09, p<0.0001, IRR 1.79,p<0.0001).

In multivariate regression analysis of 10 studies, diabetes was associated with longer follow-up, use of olanzapine, and male sex. Greater diabetes incidence was tied to use of second-generation antipsychotics, while it was inversely related to diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

"Although our findings cannot comment on the individual risk with any specific antipsychotic other than the significantly higher risk associated with olanzapine, other studies equally suggest the much increased cardiovascular risk associates with olanzapine than with other antipsychotics in youth. Based on all of these data, I personally believe that olanzapine should not be used first- or second-line in youth, but likely be reserved or treatment-resistant patients who cannot benefit sufficiently from antipsychotics with lower cardiometabolic risk," Dr. Correll told Reuters Health.

"Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the specific mechanisms of antipsychotic-related weight gain and development of diabetes in order to either counter these effects or develop medications that do not adversely affect cardiometabolic health," he added. "Moreover, research is needed seeking to identify patients who are at particularly high risk for weight gain and diabetes and those who seem to be protected against these antipsychotic-related side effects to help individualize treatment selection."

"Finally," he concluded, "research is required that tests lower-risk pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions that may be used effectively before or instead of an antipsychotic when treating nonpsychotic conditions. This need pertains especially to youth presenting with severe mood or behavioral dysregulation, irritability, and aggression for whom antipsychotics are used a lot, often without even providing psychosocial treatments."

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Type 2 diabetes risk appears to be increased in youth who are treated with antipsychotics, according to new research.

"We believe that clinicians should take away from our study that type 2 diabetes is a risk when treating youth with antipsychotics, especially long-term," said senior author Dr. Christoff U. Correll of Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, New York.

"Therefore, antipsychotics should be used judiciously and for as short a period as necessary and possible," he told Reuters Health by email. "Importantly, clinicians should routinely and proactively monitor the efficacy and need for ongoing antipsychotic treatment as well as the potential emergence of adverse effects. Specifically, clinicians and patients, as well as parents, should monitor weight change monthly, and fasting blood work for blood sugar and blood lipids

should be obtained before starting an antipsychotic, three months later, and every six months thereafter."

Dr. Correll and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies reporting on type 2 diabetes incidence in youth up to 24 years old who were exposed to antipsychotics for at least three months. They did a meta-analysis of thirteen studies involving more than 185,000 youth exposed to antipsychotics, representing some 310,000 patient-years.

Seven studies included psychiatric controls and eight studies included healthy controls.

During a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the cumulative type 2 diabetes risk was 5.72 per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001). The overall incidence rate was 3.09 cases per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001), according to an article online January 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Compared with healthy controls, antipsychotic-exposed youth had significantly higher cumulative type 2 diabetes risk (odds ratio, 2.58; p<0.0001) and incidence rate ratio (IRR, 3.02; p<0.0001). Compared with psychiatric controls, they had significantly higher risks (OR 2.09, p<0.0001, IRR 1.79,p<0.0001).

In multivariate regression analysis of 10 studies, diabetes was associated with longer follow-up, use of olanzapine, and male sex. Greater diabetes incidence was tied to use of second-generation antipsychotics, while it was inversely related to diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

"Although our findings cannot comment on the individual risk with any specific antipsychotic other than the significantly higher risk associated with olanzapine, other studies equally suggest the much increased cardiovascular risk associates with olanzapine than with other antipsychotics in youth. Based on all of these data, I personally believe that olanzapine should not be used first- or second-line in youth, but likely be reserved or treatment-resistant patients who cannot benefit sufficiently from antipsychotics with lower cardiometabolic risk," Dr. Correll told Reuters Health.

"Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the specific mechanisms of antipsychotic-related weight gain and development of diabetes in order to either counter these effects or develop medications that do not adversely affect cardiometabolic health," he added. "Moreover, research is needed seeking to identify patients who are at particularly high risk for weight gain and diabetes and those who seem to be protected against these antipsychotic-related side effects to help individualize treatment selection."

"Finally," he concluded, "research is required that tests lower-risk pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions that may be used effectively before or instead of an antipsychotic when treating nonpsychotic conditions. This need pertains especially to youth presenting with severe mood or behavioral dysregulation, irritability, and aggression for whom antipsychotics are used a lot, often without even providing psychosocial treatments."

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Type 2 diabetes risk appears to be increased in youth who are treated with antipsychotics, according to new research.

"We believe that clinicians should take away from our study that type 2 diabetes is a risk when treating youth with antipsychotics, especially long-term," said senior author Dr. Christoff U. Correll of Zucker Hillside Hospital, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Glen Oaks, New York.

"Therefore, antipsychotics should be used judiciously and for as short a period as necessary and possible," he told Reuters Health by email. "Importantly, clinicians should routinely and proactively monitor the efficacy and need for ongoing antipsychotic treatment as well as the potential emergence of adverse effects. Specifically, clinicians and patients, as well as parents, should monitor weight change monthly, and fasting blood work for blood sugar and blood lipids

should be obtained before starting an antipsychotic, three months later, and every six months thereafter."

Dr. Correll and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies reporting on type 2 diabetes incidence in youth up to 24 years old who were exposed to antipsychotics for at least three months. They did a meta-analysis of thirteen studies involving more than 185,000 youth exposed to antipsychotics, representing some 310,000 patient-years.

Seven studies included psychiatric controls and eight studies included healthy controls.

During a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the cumulative type 2 diabetes risk was 5.72 per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001). The overall incidence rate was 3.09 cases per 1,000 patient-years (p<0.001), according to an article online January 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Compared with healthy controls, antipsychotic-exposed youth had significantly higher cumulative type 2 diabetes risk (odds ratio, 2.58; p<0.0001) and incidence rate ratio (IRR, 3.02; p<0.0001). Compared with psychiatric controls, they had significantly higher risks (OR 2.09, p<0.0001, IRR 1.79,p<0.0001).

In multivariate regression analysis of 10 studies, diabetes was associated with longer follow-up, use of olanzapine, and male sex. Greater diabetes incidence was tied to use of second-generation antipsychotics, while it was inversely related to diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

"Although our findings cannot comment on the individual risk with any specific antipsychotic other than the significantly higher risk associated with olanzapine, other studies equally suggest the much increased cardiovascular risk associates with olanzapine than with other antipsychotics in youth. Based on all of these data, I personally believe that olanzapine should not be used first- or second-line in youth, but likely be reserved or treatment-resistant patients who cannot benefit sufficiently from antipsychotics with lower cardiometabolic risk," Dr. Correll told Reuters Health.

"Clearly, additional research is needed to identify the specific mechanisms of antipsychotic-related weight gain and development of diabetes in order to either counter these effects or develop medications that do not adversely affect cardiometabolic health," he added. "Moreover, research is needed seeking to identify patients who are at particularly high risk for weight gain and diabetes and those who seem to be protected against these antipsychotic-related side effects to help individualize treatment selection."

"Finally," he concluded, "research is required that tests lower-risk pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions that may be used effectively before or instead of an antipsychotic when treating nonpsychotic conditions. This need pertains especially to youth presenting with severe mood or behavioral dysregulation, irritability, and aggression for whom antipsychotics are used a lot, often without even providing psychosocial treatments."