CHMP recommends ofatumumab for CLL

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/28/2014 - 05:00
Display Headline
CHMP recommends ofatumumab for CLL

Monoclonal antibodies

Credit: Linda Bartlett

The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for ofatumumab (Arzerra), a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20.

The CHMP is recommending that ofatumumab receive conditional approval for use in combination with chlorambucil or bendamustine to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have not received prior therapy and are not eligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

The European Commission (EC) will take the CHMP’s opinion into account when deciding whether to approve ofatumumab for this indication.

Ofatumumab already has conditional approval in the Europe Union to treat CLL patients who are refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab.

Ofatumumab received conditional approval because the drug’s benefits appear to outweigh the risks it poses. The drug will not receive full

approval until the companies developing ofatumumab, GlaxoSmithKline and Genmab, submit results of additional research to the EC.

The CHMP’s recommendation for expanded approval is based on results from 2 trials in patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment.

The first is a phase 2 study (OMB115991) in which researchers evaluated the efficacy of ofatumumab in combination with bendamustine. The second is the phase 3 COMPLEMENT 1 study (OMB110911), a randomized trial in which researchers compared ofatumumab and chlorambucil in combination to chlorambucil alone.

Phase 2 study

Results from this single-arm study were presented at the 2013 International Workshop on CLL. Researchers enrolled 97 patients with CLL, 44 of whom were previously untreated and 53 who had relapsed. The median ages were 62.5 and 68 years, respectively.

Treatment began with acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid. Patients then received ofatumumab at 300 mg on day 1 and 1000 mg on day 8 of cycle 1. For cycles 2 through 6, they received 1000 mg on day 1 every 28 days.

Patients received bendamustine on days 1 and 2, every 28 days for up to 6 cycles. The initial dose was 90 mg/m2 for the untreated patients and 70 mg/m2 for relapsed patients.

However, patients required a dose reduction due to toxicity. The previously untreated patients were reduced to 60 mg/m2, and the relapsed patients were reduced to 50 mg/m2.

The overall response rate was 95% in the previously untreated group and 74% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 43% and 11%, respectively.

CT results showed the overall response rate was 82% in the previously untreated group and 70% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 27% and 9%, respectively. The median time to response was 0.95 months for both groups.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the previously untreated group and 38% of those in the relapsed group.

This included infusion reactions (11% and 8%, respectively), neutropenia (16% and 29%, respectively), infections (11% and 15%, respectively), rash (2% of previously untreated patients), febrile neutropenia (4% of relapsed patients), and thrombocytopenia (4% of relapsed patients).

There were no deaths in the previously untreated group, but 4 patients died in the relapsed group. Two of these deaths may have been related to study treatment. One patient died of pneumonia and hemolytic anemia 15 days after the last dose of treatment, and 1 patient died of sepsis 4 days after the last dose of  treatment.

Phase 3 study

Data from the COMPLEMENT 1 study were presented at ASH 2013. Researchers compared ofatumumab plus chlorambucil to chlorambucil alone in 447 previously untreated patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 35 to 92). Seventy-two percent had 2 or more comorbidities, and 48% had a creatinine clearance of less than 70 mL/min.

 

 

Patients in the ofatumumab arm received the drug at 300 mg in cycle 1 on day 1, 1000 mg in cycle 1 on day 8, and 1000 mg administered on day 1 of all subsequent 28-day cycles.

In both arms, patients received chlorambucil at a dose of 10 mg/m2 orally on days 1 to 7, every 28 days. Prior to each infusion of ofatumumab, patients received acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid.

The overall response rate was 82% in the ofatumumab-chlorambucil group and 69% in the chlorambucil-alone group (P=0.001). Complete response rates were 12% and 1%, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the median overall survival was not reached for either treatment arm. However, ofatumumab-treated patients had longer progression-free survival than patients who received chlorambucil alone—22.4 months and 13.1 months, respectively (P<0.001).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 50% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 43% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common event was neutropenia, which occurred in 26% and 14% of patients, respectively.

Grade 3 or higher infections occurred in 15% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 14% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 3%, respectively.

In the entire cohort, grade 3 or higher infusion-related events occurred in 10% of patients, but there were no fatal infusion reactions. Two percent of subjects in both arms died during treatment.

Publications
Topics

Monoclonal antibodies

Credit: Linda Bartlett

The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for ofatumumab (Arzerra), a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20.

The CHMP is recommending that ofatumumab receive conditional approval for use in combination with chlorambucil or bendamustine to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have not received prior therapy and are not eligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

The European Commission (EC) will take the CHMP’s opinion into account when deciding whether to approve ofatumumab for this indication.

Ofatumumab already has conditional approval in the Europe Union to treat CLL patients who are refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab.

Ofatumumab received conditional approval because the drug’s benefits appear to outweigh the risks it poses. The drug will not receive full

approval until the companies developing ofatumumab, GlaxoSmithKline and Genmab, submit results of additional research to the EC.

The CHMP’s recommendation for expanded approval is based on results from 2 trials in patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment.

The first is a phase 2 study (OMB115991) in which researchers evaluated the efficacy of ofatumumab in combination with bendamustine. The second is the phase 3 COMPLEMENT 1 study (OMB110911), a randomized trial in which researchers compared ofatumumab and chlorambucil in combination to chlorambucil alone.

Phase 2 study

Results from this single-arm study were presented at the 2013 International Workshop on CLL. Researchers enrolled 97 patients with CLL, 44 of whom were previously untreated and 53 who had relapsed. The median ages were 62.5 and 68 years, respectively.

Treatment began with acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid. Patients then received ofatumumab at 300 mg on day 1 and 1000 mg on day 8 of cycle 1. For cycles 2 through 6, they received 1000 mg on day 1 every 28 days.

Patients received bendamustine on days 1 and 2, every 28 days for up to 6 cycles. The initial dose was 90 mg/m2 for the untreated patients and 70 mg/m2 for relapsed patients.

However, patients required a dose reduction due to toxicity. The previously untreated patients were reduced to 60 mg/m2, and the relapsed patients were reduced to 50 mg/m2.

The overall response rate was 95% in the previously untreated group and 74% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 43% and 11%, respectively.

CT results showed the overall response rate was 82% in the previously untreated group and 70% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 27% and 9%, respectively. The median time to response was 0.95 months for both groups.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the previously untreated group and 38% of those in the relapsed group.

This included infusion reactions (11% and 8%, respectively), neutropenia (16% and 29%, respectively), infections (11% and 15%, respectively), rash (2% of previously untreated patients), febrile neutropenia (4% of relapsed patients), and thrombocytopenia (4% of relapsed patients).

There were no deaths in the previously untreated group, but 4 patients died in the relapsed group. Two of these deaths may have been related to study treatment. One patient died of pneumonia and hemolytic anemia 15 days after the last dose of treatment, and 1 patient died of sepsis 4 days after the last dose of  treatment.

Phase 3 study

Data from the COMPLEMENT 1 study were presented at ASH 2013. Researchers compared ofatumumab plus chlorambucil to chlorambucil alone in 447 previously untreated patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 35 to 92). Seventy-two percent had 2 or more comorbidities, and 48% had a creatinine clearance of less than 70 mL/min.

 

 

Patients in the ofatumumab arm received the drug at 300 mg in cycle 1 on day 1, 1000 mg in cycle 1 on day 8, and 1000 mg administered on day 1 of all subsequent 28-day cycles.

In both arms, patients received chlorambucil at a dose of 10 mg/m2 orally on days 1 to 7, every 28 days. Prior to each infusion of ofatumumab, patients received acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid.

The overall response rate was 82% in the ofatumumab-chlorambucil group and 69% in the chlorambucil-alone group (P=0.001). Complete response rates were 12% and 1%, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the median overall survival was not reached for either treatment arm. However, ofatumumab-treated patients had longer progression-free survival than patients who received chlorambucil alone—22.4 months and 13.1 months, respectively (P<0.001).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 50% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 43% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common event was neutropenia, which occurred in 26% and 14% of patients, respectively.

Grade 3 or higher infections occurred in 15% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 14% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 3%, respectively.

In the entire cohort, grade 3 or higher infusion-related events occurred in 10% of patients, but there were no fatal infusion reactions. Two percent of subjects in both arms died during treatment.

Monoclonal antibodies

Credit: Linda Bartlett

The European Medicine Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for ofatumumab (Arzerra), a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20.

The CHMP is recommending that ofatumumab receive conditional approval for use in combination with chlorambucil or bendamustine to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have not received prior therapy and are not eligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

The European Commission (EC) will take the CHMP’s opinion into account when deciding whether to approve ofatumumab for this indication.

Ofatumumab already has conditional approval in the Europe Union to treat CLL patients who are refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab.

Ofatumumab received conditional approval because the drug’s benefits appear to outweigh the risks it poses. The drug will not receive full

approval until the companies developing ofatumumab, GlaxoSmithKline and Genmab, submit results of additional research to the EC.

The CHMP’s recommendation for expanded approval is based on results from 2 trials in patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment.

The first is a phase 2 study (OMB115991) in which researchers evaluated the efficacy of ofatumumab in combination with bendamustine. The second is the phase 3 COMPLEMENT 1 study (OMB110911), a randomized trial in which researchers compared ofatumumab and chlorambucil in combination to chlorambucil alone.

Phase 2 study

Results from this single-arm study were presented at the 2013 International Workshop on CLL. Researchers enrolled 97 patients with CLL, 44 of whom were previously untreated and 53 who had relapsed. The median ages were 62.5 and 68 years, respectively.

Treatment began with acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid. Patients then received ofatumumab at 300 mg on day 1 and 1000 mg on day 8 of cycle 1. For cycles 2 through 6, they received 1000 mg on day 1 every 28 days.

Patients received bendamustine on days 1 and 2, every 28 days for up to 6 cycles. The initial dose was 90 mg/m2 for the untreated patients and 70 mg/m2 for relapsed patients.

However, patients required a dose reduction due to toxicity. The previously untreated patients were reduced to 60 mg/m2, and the relapsed patients were reduced to 50 mg/m2.

The overall response rate was 95% in the previously untreated group and 74% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 43% and 11%, respectively.

CT results showed the overall response rate was 82% in the previously untreated group and 70% in the relapsed group. Complete responses occurred in 27% and 9%, respectively. The median time to response was 0.95 months for both groups.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the previously untreated group and 38% of those in the relapsed group.

This included infusion reactions (11% and 8%, respectively), neutropenia (16% and 29%, respectively), infections (11% and 15%, respectively), rash (2% of previously untreated patients), febrile neutropenia (4% of relapsed patients), and thrombocytopenia (4% of relapsed patients).

There were no deaths in the previously untreated group, but 4 patients died in the relapsed group. Two of these deaths may have been related to study treatment. One patient died of pneumonia and hemolytic anemia 15 days after the last dose of treatment, and 1 patient died of sepsis 4 days after the last dose of  treatment.

Phase 3 study

Data from the COMPLEMENT 1 study were presented at ASH 2013. Researchers compared ofatumumab plus chlorambucil to chlorambucil alone in 447 previously untreated patients with CLL who were ineligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 35 to 92). Seventy-two percent had 2 or more comorbidities, and 48% had a creatinine clearance of less than 70 mL/min.

 

 

Patients in the ofatumumab arm received the drug at 300 mg in cycle 1 on day 1, 1000 mg in cycle 1 on day 8, and 1000 mg administered on day 1 of all subsequent 28-day cycles.

In both arms, patients received chlorambucil at a dose of 10 mg/m2 orally on days 1 to 7, every 28 days. Prior to each infusion of ofatumumab, patients received acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and a glucocorticoid.

The overall response rate was 82% in the ofatumumab-chlorambucil group and 69% in the chlorambucil-alone group (P=0.001). Complete response rates were 12% and 1%, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the median overall survival was not reached for either treatment arm. However, ofatumumab-treated patients had longer progression-free survival than patients who received chlorambucil alone—22.4 months and 13.1 months, respectively (P<0.001).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 50% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 43% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common event was neutropenia, which occurred in 26% and 14% of patients, respectively.

Grade 3 or higher infections occurred in 15% of ofatumumab-treated patients and 14% of patients who received chlorambucil alone. The most common was pneumonia, which occurred in 4% and 3%, respectively.

In the entire cohort, grade 3 or higher infusion-related events occurred in 10% of patients, but there were no fatal infusion reactions. Two percent of subjects in both arms died during treatment.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
CHMP recommends ofatumumab for CLL
Display Headline
CHMP recommends ofatumumab for CLL
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Development and Validation of TAISCH

Article Type
Changed
Sun, 05/21/2017 - 14:00
Display Headline
Development and validation of the tool to assess inpatient satisfaction with care from hospitalists

Patient satisfaction scores are being reported publicly and will affect hospital reimbursement rates under Hospital Value Based Purchasing.[1] Patient satisfaction scores are currently obtained through metrics such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)[2] and Press Ganey (PG)[3] surveys. Such surveys are mailed to a variable proportion of patients following their discharge from the hospital, and ask patients about the quality of care they received during their admission. Domains assessed regarding the patients' inpatient experiences range from room cleanliness to the amount of time the physician spent with them.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), the largest professional medical society representing hospitalists, encourages the use of patient satisfaction surveys to measure hospitalist providers' quality of patient care.[4] Ideally, accurate information would be delivered as feedback to individual providers in a timely manner in hopes of improving performance; however, the current methodology has shortcomings that limit its usefulness. First, several hospitalists and consultants may be involved in the care of 1 patient during the hospital stay, but the score can only be tied to a single physician. Current survey methods attribute all responses to that particular doctor, usually the attending of record, although patients may very well be thinking of other physicians when responding to questions. Second, only a few questions on the surveys ask about doctors' performance. Aforementioned surveys have 3 to 8 questions about doctors' care, which limits the ability to assess physician performance comprehensively. Finally, the surveys are mailed approximately 1 week after the patient's discharge, usually without a name or photograph of the physician to facilitate patient/caregiver recall. This time lag and lack of information to prompt patient recall likely lead to impreciseness in assessment. In addition, the response rates to these surveys are typically low, around 25% (personal oral communication with our division's service excellence stakeholder Dr. L.P. in September 2013). These deficiencies limit the usefulness of such data in coaching individual providers about their performance because they cannot be delivered in a timely fashion, and the reliability of the attribution is suspect.

With these considerations in mind, we developed and validated a new survey metric, the Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists (TAISCH). We hypothesized that the results would be different from those collected using conventional methodologies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study Design and Subjects

Our cross‐sectional study surveyed inpatients under the care of hospitalist physicians working without the support of trainees or allied health professionals (such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants). The subjects were hospitalized at a 560‐bed academic medical center on a general medical floor between September 2012 and December 2012. All participating hospitalist physicians were members of a division of hospital medicine.

TAISCH Development

Several steps were taken to establish content validity evidence.[5] We developed TAISCH by building upon the theoretical underpinnings of the quality of care measures that are endorsed by the SHM Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction.[4] This directive recommends that patient satisfaction with hospitalist care should be assessed across 6 domains: physician availability, physician concern for patients, physician communication skills, physician courteousness, physician clinical skills, and physician involvement of patients' families. Other existing validated measures tied to the quality of patient care were reviewed, and items related to the physician's care were considered for inclusion to further substantiate content validity.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] Input from colleagues with expertise in clinical excellence and service excellence was also solicited. This included the director of Hopkins' Miller Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence and the grant review committee members of the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence (who funded this study).[13, 14]

The preliminary instrument contained 17 items, including 2 conditional questions, and was first pilot tested on 5 hospitalized patients. We assessed the time it took to administer the surveys as well as patients' comments and questions about each survey item. This resulted in minor wording changes for clarification and changes in the order of the questions. We then pursued a second phase of piloting using the revised survey, which was administered to >20 patients. There were no further adjustments as patients reported that TAISCH was clear and concise.

From interviews with patients after pilot testing, it became clear that respondents were carefully reflecting on the quality of care and performance of their treating physician, thereby generating response process validity evidence.[5]

Data Collection

To ensure that patients had perspective upon which to base their assessment, they were only asked to appraise physicians after being cared for by the same hospitalist provider for at least 2 consecutive days. Patients who were on isolation, those who were non‐English speaking, and those with impaired decision‐making capacity (such as mental status change or dementia) were excluded. Patients were enrolled only if they could correctly name their doctor or at least identify a photograph of their hospitalist provider on a page that included pictures of all division members. Those patients who were able to name the provider or correctly select the provider from the page of photographs were considered to have correctly identified their provider. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the patients and their responses, all data collections were performed by a trained research assistant who had no patient‐care responsibilities. The survey was confidential, did not include any patient identifiers, and patients were assured that providers would never see their individual responses. The patients were given options to complete TAISCH either by verbally responding to the research assistant's questions, filling out the paper survey, or completing the survey online using an iPad at the bedside. TAISCH specifically asked the patients to rate their hospitalist provider's performance along several domains: communication skills, clinical skills, availability, empathy, courteousness, and discharge planning; 5‐point Likert scales were used exclusively.

In addition to the TAISCH questions, we asked patients (1) an overall satisfaction question, I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should he or she need hospitalization in the future (response options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree), (2) their pain level using the Wong‐Baker pain scale,[15] and (3) the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE).[16, 17] Associations between TAISCH and these variables (as well as PG data) would be examined to ascertain relations to other variables validity evidence.[5] Specifically, we sought to ascertain discriminant and convergent validity where the TAISCH is associated positively with constructs where we expect positive associations (convergent) and negatively with those we expect negative associations (discriminant).[18] The Wong‐Baker pain scale is a recommended pain‐assessment tool by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and is widely used in hospitals and various healthcare settings.[19] The scale has a range from 0 to 10 (0 for no pain and 10 indicating the worst pain). The hypothesis was that the patients' pain levels would adversely affect their perception of the physician's performance (discriminant validity). JSPPPE is a 5‐item validated scale developed to measure patients' perceptions of their physicians' empathic engagement. It has significant correlations with the American Board of Internal Medicine's patient rating surveys, and it is used in standardized patient examinations for medical students.[20] The hypothesis was that patient perception about the quality of physician care would correlate positively with their assessment of the physician's empathy (convergent validity).

Although all of the hospitalist providers in the division consented to participate in this study, only hospitalist providers for whom at least 4 patient surveys were collected were included in the analysis. The study was approved by our institutional review board.

Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using Stata 11 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data were analyzed to determine the potential for a single comprehensive assessment of physician performance with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood extraction. Additional factor analyses examined the potential for a multiple factor solution using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principle component factor analysis and varimax rotation. Examination of scree plots, factor loadings for individual items greater than 0.40, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and substantive meaning of the factors were all taken into consideration when determining the number of factors to retain from factor analytic models.[21] Cronbach's s were calculated for each factor to assess reliability. These data provided internal structure validity evidence (demonstrated by acceptable reliability and factor structure) to TAISCH.[5]

After arriving at the final TAISCH scale, composite TAISCH scores were computed. Associations between composite TAISCH scores with the Wong‐Baker pain scale, the JSPPPE, and the overall satisfaction question were assessed using linear regression with the svy command in Stata to account for the nested design of having each patient report on a single hospitalist provider. Correlation between composite TAISCH score and PG physician care scores (comprised of 5 questions: time physician spent with you, physician concern with questions/worries, physician kept you informed, friendliness/courtesy of physician, and skill of physician) were assessed at the provider level when both data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients were considered to be eligible through medical record screening. Of those patients, 73 (22%) were already discharged by the time the research assistant attempted to enroll them after 2 days of care by a single physician. Of 257 inpatients approached, 30 patients (12%) refused to participate. Among the 227 consented patients, 24 (9%) were excluded as they were unable to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. A total of 203 patients were enrolled, and each patient rated a single hospitalist; a total of 29 unique hospitalists were assessed by these patients. The patients' mean age was 60 years, 114 (56%) were female, and 61 (30%) were of nonwhite race (Table 1). The hospitalist physicians' demographic information is also shown in Table 1. Two hospitalists with fewer than 4 surveys collected were excluded from the analysis. Thus, final analysis included 200 unique patients assessing 1 of the 27 hospitalists (mean=7.4 surveys per hospitalist).

Characteristics of the 203 Patients and 29 Hospitalist Physicians Studied
CharacteristicsValue
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation.

Patients, N=203 
Age, y, mean (SD)60.0 (17.2)
Female, n (%)114 (56.1)
Nonwhite race, n (%)61 (30.5)
Observation stay, n (%)45 (22.1)
How are you feeling today? n (%) 
Very poor11 (5.5)
Poor14 (7.0)
Fair67 (33.5)
Good71 (35.5)
Very good33 (16.5)
Excellent4 (2.0)
Hospitalists, N=29 
Age, n (%) 
2630 years7 (24.1)
3135 years8 (27.6)
3640 years12 (41.4)
4145 years2 (6.9)
Female, n (%)11 (37.9)
International medical graduate, n (%)18 (62.1)
Years in current practice, n (%) 
<19 (31.0)
127 (24.1)
346 (20.7)
565 (17.2)
7 or more2 (6.9)
Race, n (%) 
Caucasian4 (13.8)
Asian19 (65.5)
African/African American5 (17.2)
Other1 (3.4)
Academic rank, n (%) 
Assistant professor9 (31.0)
Clinical instructor10 (34.5)
Clinical associate/nonfaculty10 (34.5)
Percentage of clinical effort, n (%) 
>70%6 (20.7)
50%70%19 (65.5)
<50%4 (13.8)

Validation of TAISCH

On the 17‐item TAISCH administered, the 2 conditional questions (When I asked to see Dr. X, s/he came within a reasonable amount of time. and If Dr. X interacted with your family, how well did s/he deal with them?) were applicable to fewer than 40% of patients. As such, they were not included in the analysis.

Internal Structure Validity Evidence

Results from factor analyses are shown in Table 2. The CFA modeling of a single factor solution with 15 items explained 42% of the total variance. The 27 hospitalists' average 15‐item TAISCH score ranged from 3.25 to 4.28 (mean [standard deviation]=3.82 [0.24]; possible score range: 15). Reliability of the 15‐item TAISCH was appropriate (Cronbach's =0.88).

Factor Loadings for 15‐Item TAISCH Measure Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis
TAISCH (Cronbach's =0.88)Factor Loading
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: TAISCH, Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists. *Response category: below average, average, above average, top 10% of all doctors, the very best of any doctor I have come across. Response category: none, a little, some, a lot, tremendously. Response category: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Response category: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent. Response category: never, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, every single time.

Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's compassion, empathy, and concern for you?*0.91
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's ability to communicate with you?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's skill in diagnosing and treating your medical conditions?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's fund of knowledge?*0.80
How much confidence do you have in Dr. X's plan for your care?0.71
Dr. X kept me informed of the plans for my care.0.69
Effectively preparing patients for discharge is an important part of what doctors in the hospital do. How well has Dr. X done in getting you ready to be discharged from the hospital?0.67
Dr. X let me talk without interrupting.0.60
Dr. X encouraged me to ask questions.0.59
Dr. X checks to be sure I understood everything.0.55
I sensed Dr. X was in a rush when s/he was with me. (reverse coded)0.55
Dr. X showed interest in my views and opinions about my health.0.54
Dr. X discusses options with me and involves me in decision making.0.47
Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer.0.25
Dr. X sat down when s/he visited my bedside.0.14

As shown in Table 2, 2 variables had factor loadings below the minimum threshold of 0.40 in the CFA for the 15‐item TAISCH when modeling a single factor solution. Both items were related to physician etiquette: Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer. and Dr. X sat down when he/she visited my bedside.

When CFA was executed again, as a single factor omitting the 2 items that demonstrated lower factor loadings, the 13‐item single factor solution explained 47% of the total variance, and the Cronbach's was 0.92.

EFA models were also explored for potential alternate solutions. These analyses resulted in lesser reliability (low Cronbach's ), weak construct operationalization, and poor face validity (as judged by the research team).

Both the 13‐ and 15‐item single factor solutions were examined further to determine whether associations with criterion variables (pain, empathy) differed substantively. Given that results were similar across both solutions, subsequent analyses were completed with the 15‐item single factor solution, which included the etiquette‐related variables.

Relationship to Other Variables Validity Evidence

The association between the 15‐item TAISCH and JSPPPE was significantly positive (=12.2, P<0.001). Additionally, there was a positive and significant association between TAISCH and the overall satisfaction question: I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should they need hospitalization in the future. (=11.2, P<0.001). This overall satisfaction question was also associated positively with JSPPPE (=13.2, P<0.001). There was a statistically significant negative association between TAISCH and Wong‐Baker pain scale (=2.42, P<0.05).

The PG data from the same period were available for 24 out of 27 hospitalists. The number of PG surveys collected per provider ranged from 5 to 30 (mean=14). At the provider level, there was not a statistically significant correlation between PG and the 15‐item TAISCH (P=0.51). Of note, PG was also not significantly correlated with the overall satisfaction question, JSPPPE, or the Wong‐Baker pain scale (all P>0.10).

DISCUSSION

Our new metric, TAISCH, was found to be a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess patient satisfaction with the hospitalist physician's care. Because we only surveyed patients who could correctly identify their hospitalist physicians after interacting for at least 2 consecutive days, the attribution of the data to the individual hospitalist is almost certainly correct. The high participation rate indicates that the patients were not hesitant about rating their hospitalist provider's quality of care, even when asked while they were still in the hospital.

The majority of the patients approached were able to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. This rate (91%) was much higher than the rate previously reported in the literature where a picture card was used to improve provider recognition.[22] It is also likely that 1 physician, rather than a team of physicians, taking care of patients make it easier for patients to recall the name and recognize the face of their inpatient provider.

The CFA of TAISCH showed good fit but suggests that 2 variables, both from Kahn's etiquette‐based medicine (EtBM) checklist,[9] may not load in the same way as the other items. Tackett and colleagues reported that hospitalists who performed more EtBM behaviors scored higher on PG evaluations.[23] Such results, along with the comparable explanation of variance and reliability, convinced us to retain these 2 items in the final 15‐item TAISCH as dictated by the CFA. Although the literature supports the fact that physician etiquette is related to perception of high‐quality care, it is possible that these 2 questions were answered differently (and thereby failed to load the same way), because environmental limitations may be preventing physicians' ability to perform them consistently. We prefer the 15‐item version of TAISCH and future studies may provide additional information about its performance as compared to the 13‐item adaptation.

The significantly negative association between the Wong‐Baker pain scale and TAISCH stresses the importance of adequately addressing and treating the patient's pain. Hanna et al. showed that the patients' perceptions of pain control was associated with their overall satisfaction score measured by HCAHPS.[24] The association seen in our study was not unexpected, because TAISCH is administered while the patients are acutely ill in the hospital, when pain is likely more prevalent and severe than it is during the postdischarge settings (when the HCAHPS or PG surveys are administered). Interestingly, Hanna et al. discovered that the team's attention to controlling pain was more strongly correlated with overall satisfaction than was the actual pain control.[24] These data, now confirmed by our study, should serve to remind us that a hospitalist's concern and effort to relieve pain may augment patient satisfaction with the quality of care, even when eliminating the pain may be difficult or impossible.

TAISCH was found not to be correlated with PG scores. Several explanations for this deserve consideration. First, the postdischarge PG survey that is used for our institution does not list the name of the specific hospitalist providers for the patients to evaluate. Because patients encounter multiple physicians during their hospital stay (eg, emergency department physicians, hospitalist providers, consultants), it is possible that patients are not reflecting on the named doctor when assessing the the attending of record on the PG mailed questionnaire. Second, the representation of patients who responded to TAISCH and PG were different; almost all patients completed TAISCH as opposed to a small minority who decide to respond to the PG survey. Third, TAISCH measures the physicians' performance more comprehensively with a larger number of variables. Last, it is possible that we were underpowered to detect significant correlation, because there were only 24 providers who had data from both TAISCH and PG. However, our results endorse using caution in interpreting PG scores for individual hospitalist's performance, particularly for high‐stakes consequences (including the provision of incentives to high performer and the insistence on remediation for low performers).

Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, only hospitalist providers from a single division were assessed. This may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, although patients were assured about confidentiality of their responses, they might have provided more favorable answers, because they may have felt uncomfortable rating their physician poorly. One review article of the measurement of healthcare satisfaction indicated that impersonal (mailed) methods result in more criticism and lower satisfaction than assessments made in person using interviews. As the trade‐off, the mailed surveys yield lower response rates that may introduce other forms of bias.[25] Even on the HCHAPS survey report for the same period from our institution, 78% of patients gave top box ratings for our doctors' communication skills, which is at the state average.[26] Similarly, a study that used postdischarge telephone interviews to collect patients' satisfaction with hospitalists' care quality reported an average score of 4.20 out of 5.[27] These findings confirm that highly skewed ratings are common for these types of surveys, irrespective of how or when the data are collected.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, TAISCH use need not be limited to hospitalist physicians. It may also be used to assess allied health professionals or trainees performance, which cannot be assessed by HCHAPS or PG. Applying TAISCH in different hospital settings (eg, emergency department or critical care units), assessing hospitalists' reactions to TAISCH, learning whether TAISCH leads to hospitalists' behavior changes or appraising whether performance can improve in response to coaching interventions for those performing poorly are all research questions that merit additional consideration.

CONCLUSION

TAISCH allows for obtaining patient satisfaction data that are highly attributable to specific hospitalist providers. The data collection method also permits high response rates so that input comes from almost all patients. The timeliness of the TAISCH assessments also makes it possible for real‐time service recovery, which is impossible with other commonly used metrics assessing patient satisfaction. Our next step will include testing the most effective way to provide feedback to providers and to coach these individuals so as to improve performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Po‐Han Chen at the BEAD Core for his statistical analysis support.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence. Dr. Wright is a Miller‐Coulson Family Scholar and is supported through the Johns Hopkins Center for Innovative Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Files
References
  1. Brumenthal D, Jena AB. Hospital value‐based purchasing. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:271277.
  2. HCAHPS survey. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems website. Available at: http://www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed August 27, 2011.
  3. Press Ganey survey. Press Ganey website. Available at: http://www.pressganey.com/index.aspx. Accessed February 12, 2013.
  4. Society of Hospital Medicine. Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction Surveys. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Practice_Resources119:166.e7e16.
  5. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:333342.
  6. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in‐patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:353358.
  7. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire from RAND Health. RAND Health website. Available at: http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/psq.html. Accessed December 30, 2011.
  8. Kahn MW. Etiquette‐based medicine. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:19881989.
  9. Christmas C, Kravet S, Durso C, Wright SM. Defining clinical excellence in academic medicine: a qualitative study of the master clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:989994.
  10. Wright SM, Christmas C, Burkhart K, Kravet S, Durso C. Creating an academy of clinical excellence at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center: a 3‐year experience. Acad Med. 2010;85:18331839.
  11. Bendapudi NM, Berry LL, Keith FA, Turner Parish J, Rayburn WL. Patients' perspectives on ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(3):338344.
  12. The Miller‐Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/innovative/signature_programs/academy_of_clinical_excellence/. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  13. Osler Center for Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/johns_hopkins_bayview/education_training/continuing_education/osler_center_for_clinical_excellence. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  14. Wong‐Baker FACES Foundation. Available at: http://www.wongbakerfaces.org. Accessed July 8, 2013.
  15. Kane GC, Gotto JL, Mangione S, West S, Hojat M. Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy: preliminary psychometric data. Croat Med J. 2007;48:8186.
  16. Glaser KM, Markham FW, Adler HM, McManus PR, Hojat M. Relationships between scores on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, patient perceptions of physician empathy, and humanistic approaches to patient care: a validity study. Med Sci Monit. 2007;13(7):CR291CR294.
  17. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait‐multimethod matrix. Psychol Bul. 1959;56(2):81105.
  18. The Joint Commission. Facts about pain management. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/pain_management. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  19. Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, et al. Medical students' self‐reported empathy and simulated patients' assessments of student empathy: an analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):984988.
  20. Gorsuch RL. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
  21. Arora VM, Schaninger C, D'Arcy M, et al. Improving inpatients' identification of their doctors: use of FACE cards. Jt Comm J Qual Pateint Saf. 1009;35(12):613619.
  22. Tackett S, Tad‐y D, Rios R et al. Appraising the practice of etiquette‐based medicine in the inpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(7):908913.
  23. Hanna MN, Gonzalez‐Fernandez M, Barrett AD, et al. Does patient perception of pain control affect patient satisfaction across surgical units in a tertiary teaching hospital? Am J Med Qual. 2012;27:411416.
  24. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with health care: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1244.
  25. Centers for Medicare 7(2):131136.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 9(9)
Page Number
553-558
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Patient satisfaction scores are being reported publicly and will affect hospital reimbursement rates under Hospital Value Based Purchasing.[1] Patient satisfaction scores are currently obtained through metrics such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)[2] and Press Ganey (PG)[3] surveys. Such surveys are mailed to a variable proportion of patients following their discharge from the hospital, and ask patients about the quality of care they received during their admission. Domains assessed regarding the patients' inpatient experiences range from room cleanliness to the amount of time the physician spent with them.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), the largest professional medical society representing hospitalists, encourages the use of patient satisfaction surveys to measure hospitalist providers' quality of patient care.[4] Ideally, accurate information would be delivered as feedback to individual providers in a timely manner in hopes of improving performance; however, the current methodology has shortcomings that limit its usefulness. First, several hospitalists and consultants may be involved in the care of 1 patient during the hospital stay, but the score can only be tied to a single physician. Current survey methods attribute all responses to that particular doctor, usually the attending of record, although patients may very well be thinking of other physicians when responding to questions. Second, only a few questions on the surveys ask about doctors' performance. Aforementioned surveys have 3 to 8 questions about doctors' care, which limits the ability to assess physician performance comprehensively. Finally, the surveys are mailed approximately 1 week after the patient's discharge, usually without a name or photograph of the physician to facilitate patient/caregiver recall. This time lag and lack of information to prompt patient recall likely lead to impreciseness in assessment. In addition, the response rates to these surveys are typically low, around 25% (personal oral communication with our division's service excellence stakeholder Dr. L.P. in September 2013). These deficiencies limit the usefulness of such data in coaching individual providers about their performance because they cannot be delivered in a timely fashion, and the reliability of the attribution is suspect.

With these considerations in mind, we developed and validated a new survey metric, the Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists (TAISCH). We hypothesized that the results would be different from those collected using conventional methodologies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study Design and Subjects

Our cross‐sectional study surveyed inpatients under the care of hospitalist physicians working without the support of trainees or allied health professionals (such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants). The subjects were hospitalized at a 560‐bed academic medical center on a general medical floor between September 2012 and December 2012. All participating hospitalist physicians were members of a division of hospital medicine.

TAISCH Development

Several steps were taken to establish content validity evidence.[5] We developed TAISCH by building upon the theoretical underpinnings of the quality of care measures that are endorsed by the SHM Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction.[4] This directive recommends that patient satisfaction with hospitalist care should be assessed across 6 domains: physician availability, physician concern for patients, physician communication skills, physician courteousness, physician clinical skills, and physician involvement of patients' families. Other existing validated measures tied to the quality of patient care were reviewed, and items related to the physician's care were considered for inclusion to further substantiate content validity.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] Input from colleagues with expertise in clinical excellence and service excellence was also solicited. This included the director of Hopkins' Miller Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence and the grant review committee members of the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence (who funded this study).[13, 14]

The preliminary instrument contained 17 items, including 2 conditional questions, and was first pilot tested on 5 hospitalized patients. We assessed the time it took to administer the surveys as well as patients' comments and questions about each survey item. This resulted in minor wording changes for clarification and changes in the order of the questions. We then pursued a second phase of piloting using the revised survey, which was administered to >20 patients. There were no further adjustments as patients reported that TAISCH was clear and concise.

From interviews with patients after pilot testing, it became clear that respondents were carefully reflecting on the quality of care and performance of their treating physician, thereby generating response process validity evidence.[5]

Data Collection

To ensure that patients had perspective upon which to base their assessment, they were only asked to appraise physicians after being cared for by the same hospitalist provider for at least 2 consecutive days. Patients who were on isolation, those who were non‐English speaking, and those with impaired decision‐making capacity (such as mental status change or dementia) were excluded. Patients were enrolled only if they could correctly name their doctor or at least identify a photograph of their hospitalist provider on a page that included pictures of all division members. Those patients who were able to name the provider or correctly select the provider from the page of photographs were considered to have correctly identified their provider. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the patients and their responses, all data collections were performed by a trained research assistant who had no patient‐care responsibilities. The survey was confidential, did not include any patient identifiers, and patients were assured that providers would never see their individual responses. The patients were given options to complete TAISCH either by verbally responding to the research assistant's questions, filling out the paper survey, or completing the survey online using an iPad at the bedside. TAISCH specifically asked the patients to rate their hospitalist provider's performance along several domains: communication skills, clinical skills, availability, empathy, courteousness, and discharge planning; 5‐point Likert scales were used exclusively.

In addition to the TAISCH questions, we asked patients (1) an overall satisfaction question, I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should he or she need hospitalization in the future (response options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree), (2) their pain level using the Wong‐Baker pain scale,[15] and (3) the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE).[16, 17] Associations between TAISCH and these variables (as well as PG data) would be examined to ascertain relations to other variables validity evidence.[5] Specifically, we sought to ascertain discriminant and convergent validity where the TAISCH is associated positively with constructs where we expect positive associations (convergent) and negatively with those we expect negative associations (discriminant).[18] The Wong‐Baker pain scale is a recommended pain‐assessment tool by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and is widely used in hospitals and various healthcare settings.[19] The scale has a range from 0 to 10 (0 for no pain and 10 indicating the worst pain). The hypothesis was that the patients' pain levels would adversely affect their perception of the physician's performance (discriminant validity). JSPPPE is a 5‐item validated scale developed to measure patients' perceptions of their physicians' empathic engagement. It has significant correlations with the American Board of Internal Medicine's patient rating surveys, and it is used in standardized patient examinations for medical students.[20] The hypothesis was that patient perception about the quality of physician care would correlate positively with their assessment of the physician's empathy (convergent validity).

Although all of the hospitalist providers in the division consented to participate in this study, only hospitalist providers for whom at least 4 patient surveys were collected were included in the analysis. The study was approved by our institutional review board.

Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using Stata 11 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data were analyzed to determine the potential for a single comprehensive assessment of physician performance with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood extraction. Additional factor analyses examined the potential for a multiple factor solution using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principle component factor analysis and varimax rotation. Examination of scree plots, factor loadings for individual items greater than 0.40, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and substantive meaning of the factors were all taken into consideration when determining the number of factors to retain from factor analytic models.[21] Cronbach's s were calculated for each factor to assess reliability. These data provided internal structure validity evidence (demonstrated by acceptable reliability and factor structure) to TAISCH.[5]

After arriving at the final TAISCH scale, composite TAISCH scores were computed. Associations between composite TAISCH scores with the Wong‐Baker pain scale, the JSPPPE, and the overall satisfaction question were assessed using linear regression with the svy command in Stata to account for the nested design of having each patient report on a single hospitalist provider. Correlation between composite TAISCH score and PG physician care scores (comprised of 5 questions: time physician spent with you, physician concern with questions/worries, physician kept you informed, friendliness/courtesy of physician, and skill of physician) were assessed at the provider level when both data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients were considered to be eligible through medical record screening. Of those patients, 73 (22%) were already discharged by the time the research assistant attempted to enroll them after 2 days of care by a single physician. Of 257 inpatients approached, 30 patients (12%) refused to participate. Among the 227 consented patients, 24 (9%) were excluded as they were unable to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. A total of 203 patients were enrolled, and each patient rated a single hospitalist; a total of 29 unique hospitalists were assessed by these patients. The patients' mean age was 60 years, 114 (56%) were female, and 61 (30%) were of nonwhite race (Table 1). The hospitalist physicians' demographic information is also shown in Table 1. Two hospitalists with fewer than 4 surveys collected were excluded from the analysis. Thus, final analysis included 200 unique patients assessing 1 of the 27 hospitalists (mean=7.4 surveys per hospitalist).

Characteristics of the 203 Patients and 29 Hospitalist Physicians Studied
CharacteristicsValue
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation.

Patients, N=203 
Age, y, mean (SD)60.0 (17.2)
Female, n (%)114 (56.1)
Nonwhite race, n (%)61 (30.5)
Observation stay, n (%)45 (22.1)
How are you feeling today? n (%) 
Very poor11 (5.5)
Poor14 (7.0)
Fair67 (33.5)
Good71 (35.5)
Very good33 (16.5)
Excellent4 (2.0)
Hospitalists, N=29 
Age, n (%) 
2630 years7 (24.1)
3135 years8 (27.6)
3640 years12 (41.4)
4145 years2 (6.9)
Female, n (%)11 (37.9)
International medical graduate, n (%)18 (62.1)
Years in current practice, n (%) 
<19 (31.0)
127 (24.1)
346 (20.7)
565 (17.2)
7 or more2 (6.9)
Race, n (%) 
Caucasian4 (13.8)
Asian19 (65.5)
African/African American5 (17.2)
Other1 (3.4)
Academic rank, n (%) 
Assistant professor9 (31.0)
Clinical instructor10 (34.5)
Clinical associate/nonfaculty10 (34.5)
Percentage of clinical effort, n (%) 
>70%6 (20.7)
50%70%19 (65.5)
<50%4 (13.8)

Validation of TAISCH

On the 17‐item TAISCH administered, the 2 conditional questions (When I asked to see Dr. X, s/he came within a reasonable amount of time. and If Dr. X interacted with your family, how well did s/he deal with them?) were applicable to fewer than 40% of patients. As such, they were not included in the analysis.

Internal Structure Validity Evidence

Results from factor analyses are shown in Table 2. The CFA modeling of a single factor solution with 15 items explained 42% of the total variance. The 27 hospitalists' average 15‐item TAISCH score ranged from 3.25 to 4.28 (mean [standard deviation]=3.82 [0.24]; possible score range: 15). Reliability of the 15‐item TAISCH was appropriate (Cronbach's =0.88).

Factor Loadings for 15‐Item TAISCH Measure Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis
TAISCH (Cronbach's =0.88)Factor Loading
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: TAISCH, Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists. *Response category: below average, average, above average, top 10% of all doctors, the very best of any doctor I have come across. Response category: none, a little, some, a lot, tremendously. Response category: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Response category: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent. Response category: never, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, every single time.

Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's compassion, empathy, and concern for you?*0.91
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's ability to communicate with you?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's skill in diagnosing and treating your medical conditions?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's fund of knowledge?*0.80
How much confidence do you have in Dr. X's plan for your care?0.71
Dr. X kept me informed of the plans for my care.0.69
Effectively preparing patients for discharge is an important part of what doctors in the hospital do. How well has Dr. X done in getting you ready to be discharged from the hospital?0.67
Dr. X let me talk without interrupting.0.60
Dr. X encouraged me to ask questions.0.59
Dr. X checks to be sure I understood everything.0.55
I sensed Dr. X was in a rush when s/he was with me. (reverse coded)0.55
Dr. X showed interest in my views and opinions about my health.0.54
Dr. X discusses options with me and involves me in decision making.0.47
Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer.0.25
Dr. X sat down when s/he visited my bedside.0.14

As shown in Table 2, 2 variables had factor loadings below the minimum threshold of 0.40 in the CFA for the 15‐item TAISCH when modeling a single factor solution. Both items were related to physician etiquette: Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer. and Dr. X sat down when he/she visited my bedside.

When CFA was executed again, as a single factor omitting the 2 items that demonstrated lower factor loadings, the 13‐item single factor solution explained 47% of the total variance, and the Cronbach's was 0.92.

EFA models were also explored for potential alternate solutions. These analyses resulted in lesser reliability (low Cronbach's ), weak construct operationalization, and poor face validity (as judged by the research team).

Both the 13‐ and 15‐item single factor solutions were examined further to determine whether associations with criterion variables (pain, empathy) differed substantively. Given that results were similar across both solutions, subsequent analyses were completed with the 15‐item single factor solution, which included the etiquette‐related variables.

Relationship to Other Variables Validity Evidence

The association between the 15‐item TAISCH and JSPPPE was significantly positive (=12.2, P<0.001). Additionally, there was a positive and significant association between TAISCH and the overall satisfaction question: I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should they need hospitalization in the future. (=11.2, P<0.001). This overall satisfaction question was also associated positively with JSPPPE (=13.2, P<0.001). There was a statistically significant negative association between TAISCH and Wong‐Baker pain scale (=2.42, P<0.05).

The PG data from the same period were available for 24 out of 27 hospitalists. The number of PG surveys collected per provider ranged from 5 to 30 (mean=14). At the provider level, there was not a statistically significant correlation between PG and the 15‐item TAISCH (P=0.51). Of note, PG was also not significantly correlated with the overall satisfaction question, JSPPPE, or the Wong‐Baker pain scale (all P>0.10).

DISCUSSION

Our new metric, TAISCH, was found to be a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess patient satisfaction with the hospitalist physician's care. Because we only surveyed patients who could correctly identify their hospitalist physicians after interacting for at least 2 consecutive days, the attribution of the data to the individual hospitalist is almost certainly correct. The high participation rate indicates that the patients were not hesitant about rating their hospitalist provider's quality of care, even when asked while they were still in the hospital.

The majority of the patients approached were able to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. This rate (91%) was much higher than the rate previously reported in the literature where a picture card was used to improve provider recognition.[22] It is also likely that 1 physician, rather than a team of physicians, taking care of patients make it easier for patients to recall the name and recognize the face of their inpatient provider.

The CFA of TAISCH showed good fit but suggests that 2 variables, both from Kahn's etiquette‐based medicine (EtBM) checklist,[9] may not load in the same way as the other items. Tackett and colleagues reported that hospitalists who performed more EtBM behaviors scored higher on PG evaluations.[23] Such results, along with the comparable explanation of variance and reliability, convinced us to retain these 2 items in the final 15‐item TAISCH as dictated by the CFA. Although the literature supports the fact that physician etiquette is related to perception of high‐quality care, it is possible that these 2 questions were answered differently (and thereby failed to load the same way), because environmental limitations may be preventing physicians' ability to perform them consistently. We prefer the 15‐item version of TAISCH and future studies may provide additional information about its performance as compared to the 13‐item adaptation.

The significantly negative association between the Wong‐Baker pain scale and TAISCH stresses the importance of adequately addressing and treating the patient's pain. Hanna et al. showed that the patients' perceptions of pain control was associated with their overall satisfaction score measured by HCAHPS.[24] The association seen in our study was not unexpected, because TAISCH is administered while the patients are acutely ill in the hospital, when pain is likely more prevalent and severe than it is during the postdischarge settings (when the HCAHPS or PG surveys are administered). Interestingly, Hanna et al. discovered that the team's attention to controlling pain was more strongly correlated with overall satisfaction than was the actual pain control.[24] These data, now confirmed by our study, should serve to remind us that a hospitalist's concern and effort to relieve pain may augment patient satisfaction with the quality of care, even when eliminating the pain may be difficult or impossible.

TAISCH was found not to be correlated with PG scores. Several explanations for this deserve consideration. First, the postdischarge PG survey that is used for our institution does not list the name of the specific hospitalist providers for the patients to evaluate. Because patients encounter multiple physicians during their hospital stay (eg, emergency department physicians, hospitalist providers, consultants), it is possible that patients are not reflecting on the named doctor when assessing the the attending of record on the PG mailed questionnaire. Second, the representation of patients who responded to TAISCH and PG were different; almost all patients completed TAISCH as opposed to a small minority who decide to respond to the PG survey. Third, TAISCH measures the physicians' performance more comprehensively with a larger number of variables. Last, it is possible that we were underpowered to detect significant correlation, because there were only 24 providers who had data from both TAISCH and PG. However, our results endorse using caution in interpreting PG scores for individual hospitalist's performance, particularly for high‐stakes consequences (including the provision of incentives to high performer and the insistence on remediation for low performers).

Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, only hospitalist providers from a single division were assessed. This may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, although patients were assured about confidentiality of their responses, they might have provided more favorable answers, because they may have felt uncomfortable rating their physician poorly. One review article of the measurement of healthcare satisfaction indicated that impersonal (mailed) methods result in more criticism and lower satisfaction than assessments made in person using interviews. As the trade‐off, the mailed surveys yield lower response rates that may introduce other forms of bias.[25] Even on the HCHAPS survey report for the same period from our institution, 78% of patients gave top box ratings for our doctors' communication skills, which is at the state average.[26] Similarly, a study that used postdischarge telephone interviews to collect patients' satisfaction with hospitalists' care quality reported an average score of 4.20 out of 5.[27] These findings confirm that highly skewed ratings are common for these types of surveys, irrespective of how or when the data are collected.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, TAISCH use need not be limited to hospitalist physicians. It may also be used to assess allied health professionals or trainees performance, which cannot be assessed by HCHAPS or PG. Applying TAISCH in different hospital settings (eg, emergency department or critical care units), assessing hospitalists' reactions to TAISCH, learning whether TAISCH leads to hospitalists' behavior changes or appraising whether performance can improve in response to coaching interventions for those performing poorly are all research questions that merit additional consideration.

CONCLUSION

TAISCH allows for obtaining patient satisfaction data that are highly attributable to specific hospitalist providers. The data collection method also permits high response rates so that input comes from almost all patients. The timeliness of the TAISCH assessments also makes it possible for real‐time service recovery, which is impossible with other commonly used metrics assessing patient satisfaction. Our next step will include testing the most effective way to provide feedback to providers and to coach these individuals so as to improve performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Po‐Han Chen at the BEAD Core for his statistical analysis support.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence. Dr. Wright is a Miller‐Coulson Family Scholar and is supported through the Johns Hopkins Center for Innovative Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Patient satisfaction scores are being reported publicly and will affect hospital reimbursement rates under Hospital Value Based Purchasing.[1] Patient satisfaction scores are currently obtained through metrics such as Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)[2] and Press Ganey (PG)[3] surveys. Such surveys are mailed to a variable proportion of patients following their discharge from the hospital, and ask patients about the quality of care they received during their admission. Domains assessed regarding the patients' inpatient experiences range from room cleanliness to the amount of time the physician spent with them.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), the largest professional medical society representing hospitalists, encourages the use of patient satisfaction surveys to measure hospitalist providers' quality of patient care.[4] Ideally, accurate information would be delivered as feedback to individual providers in a timely manner in hopes of improving performance; however, the current methodology has shortcomings that limit its usefulness. First, several hospitalists and consultants may be involved in the care of 1 patient during the hospital stay, but the score can only be tied to a single physician. Current survey methods attribute all responses to that particular doctor, usually the attending of record, although patients may very well be thinking of other physicians when responding to questions. Second, only a few questions on the surveys ask about doctors' performance. Aforementioned surveys have 3 to 8 questions about doctors' care, which limits the ability to assess physician performance comprehensively. Finally, the surveys are mailed approximately 1 week after the patient's discharge, usually without a name or photograph of the physician to facilitate patient/caregiver recall. This time lag and lack of information to prompt patient recall likely lead to impreciseness in assessment. In addition, the response rates to these surveys are typically low, around 25% (personal oral communication with our division's service excellence stakeholder Dr. L.P. in September 2013). These deficiencies limit the usefulness of such data in coaching individual providers about their performance because they cannot be delivered in a timely fashion, and the reliability of the attribution is suspect.

With these considerations in mind, we developed and validated a new survey metric, the Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists (TAISCH). We hypothesized that the results would be different from those collected using conventional methodologies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study Design and Subjects

Our cross‐sectional study surveyed inpatients under the care of hospitalist physicians working without the support of trainees or allied health professionals (such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants). The subjects were hospitalized at a 560‐bed academic medical center on a general medical floor between September 2012 and December 2012. All participating hospitalist physicians were members of a division of hospital medicine.

TAISCH Development

Several steps were taken to establish content validity evidence.[5] We developed TAISCH by building upon the theoretical underpinnings of the quality of care measures that are endorsed by the SHM Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction.[4] This directive recommends that patient satisfaction with hospitalist care should be assessed across 6 domains: physician availability, physician concern for patients, physician communication skills, physician courteousness, physician clinical skills, and physician involvement of patients' families. Other existing validated measures tied to the quality of patient care were reviewed, and items related to the physician's care were considered for inclusion to further substantiate content validity.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] Input from colleagues with expertise in clinical excellence and service excellence was also solicited. This included the director of Hopkins' Miller Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence and the grant review committee members of the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence (who funded this study).[13, 14]

The preliminary instrument contained 17 items, including 2 conditional questions, and was first pilot tested on 5 hospitalized patients. We assessed the time it took to administer the surveys as well as patients' comments and questions about each survey item. This resulted in minor wording changes for clarification and changes in the order of the questions. We then pursued a second phase of piloting using the revised survey, which was administered to >20 patients. There were no further adjustments as patients reported that TAISCH was clear and concise.

From interviews with patients after pilot testing, it became clear that respondents were carefully reflecting on the quality of care and performance of their treating physician, thereby generating response process validity evidence.[5]

Data Collection

To ensure that patients had perspective upon which to base their assessment, they were only asked to appraise physicians after being cared for by the same hospitalist provider for at least 2 consecutive days. Patients who were on isolation, those who were non‐English speaking, and those with impaired decision‐making capacity (such as mental status change or dementia) were excluded. Patients were enrolled only if they could correctly name their doctor or at least identify a photograph of their hospitalist provider on a page that included pictures of all division members. Those patients who were able to name the provider or correctly select the provider from the page of photographs were considered to have correctly identified their provider. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the patients and their responses, all data collections were performed by a trained research assistant who had no patient‐care responsibilities. The survey was confidential, did not include any patient identifiers, and patients were assured that providers would never see their individual responses. The patients were given options to complete TAISCH either by verbally responding to the research assistant's questions, filling out the paper survey, or completing the survey online using an iPad at the bedside. TAISCH specifically asked the patients to rate their hospitalist provider's performance along several domains: communication skills, clinical skills, availability, empathy, courteousness, and discharge planning; 5‐point Likert scales were used exclusively.

In addition to the TAISCH questions, we asked patients (1) an overall satisfaction question, I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should he or she need hospitalization in the future (response options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree), (2) their pain level using the Wong‐Baker pain scale,[15] and (3) the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE).[16, 17] Associations between TAISCH and these variables (as well as PG data) would be examined to ascertain relations to other variables validity evidence.[5] Specifically, we sought to ascertain discriminant and convergent validity where the TAISCH is associated positively with constructs where we expect positive associations (convergent) and negatively with those we expect negative associations (discriminant).[18] The Wong‐Baker pain scale is a recommended pain‐assessment tool by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and is widely used in hospitals and various healthcare settings.[19] The scale has a range from 0 to 10 (0 for no pain and 10 indicating the worst pain). The hypothesis was that the patients' pain levels would adversely affect their perception of the physician's performance (discriminant validity). JSPPPE is a 5‐item validated scale developed to measure patients' perceptions of their physicians' empathic engagement. It has significant correlations with the American Board of Internal Medicine's patient rating surveys, and it is used in standardized patient examinations for medical students.[20] The hypothesis was that patient perception about the quality of physician care would correlate positively with their assessment of the physician's empathy (convergent validity).

Although all of the hospitalist providers in the division consented to participate in this study, only hospitalist providers for whom at least 4 patient surveys were collected were included in the analysis. The study was approved by our institutional review board.

Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using Stata 11 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data were analyzed to determine the potential for a single comprehensive assessment of physician performance with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood extraction. Additional factor analyses examined the potential for a multiple factor solution using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principle component factor analysis and varimax rotation. Examination of scree plots, factor loadings for individual items greater than 0.40, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and substantive meaning of the factors were all taken into consideration when determining the number of factors to retain from factor analytic models.[21] Cronbach's s were calculated for each factor to assess reliability. These data provided internal structure validity evidence (demonstrated by acceptable reliability and factor structure) to TAISCH.[5]

After arriving at the final TAISCH scale, composite TAISCH scores were computed. Associations between composite TAISCH scores with the Wong‐Baker pain scale, the JSPPPE, and the overall satisfaction question were assessed using linear regression with the svy command in Stata to account for the nested design of having each patient report on a single hospitalist provider. Correlation between composite TAISCH score and PG physician care scores (comprised of 5 questions: time physician spent with you, physician concern with questions/worries, physician kept you informed, friendliness/courtesy of physician, and skill of physician) were assessed at the provider level when both data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients were considered to be eligible through medical record screening. Of those patients, 73 (22%) were already discharged by the time the research assistant attempted to enroll them after 2 days of care by a single physician. Of 257 inpatients approached, 30 patients (12%) refused to participate. Among the 227 consented patients, 24 (9%) were excluded as they were unable to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. A total of 203 patients were enrolled, and each patient rated a single hospitalist; a total of 29 unique hospitalists were assessed by these patients. The patients' mean age was 60 years, 114 (56%) were female, and 61 (30%) were of nonwhite race (Table 1). The hospitalist physicians' demographic information is also shown in Table 1. Two hospitalists with fewer than 4 surveys collected were excluded from the analysis. Thus, final analysis included 200 unique patients assessing 1 of the 27 hospitalists (mean=7.4 surveys per hospitalist).

Characteristics of the 203 Patients and 29 Hospitalist Physicians Studied
CharacteristicsValue
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation.

Patients, N=203 
Age, y, mean (SD)60.0 (17.2)
Female, n (%)114 (56.1)
Nonwhite race, n (%)61 (30.5)
Observation stay, n (%)45 (22.1)
How are you feeling today? n (%) 
Very poor11 (5.5)
Poor14 (7.0)
Fair67 (33.5)
Good71 (35.5)
Very good33 (16.5)
Excellent4 (2.0)
Hospitalists, N=29 
Age, n (%) 
2630 years7 (24.1)
3135 years8 (27.6)
3640 years12 (41.4)
4145 years2 (6.9)
Female, n (%)11 (37.9)
International medical graduate, n (%)18 (62.1)
Years in current practice, n (%) 
<19 (31.0)
127 (24.1)
346 (20.7)
565 (17.2)
7 or more2 (6.9)
Race, n (%) 
Caucasian4 (13.8)
Asian19 (65.5)
African/African American5 (17.2)
Other1 (3.4)
Academic rank, n (%) 
Assistant professor9 (31.0)
Clinical instructor10 (34.5)
Clinical associate/nonfaculty10 (34.5)
Percentage of clinical effort, n (%) 
>70%6 (20.7)
50%70%19 (65.5)
<50%4 (13.8)

Validation of TAISCH

On the 17‐item TAISCH administered, the 2 conditional questions (When I asked to see Dr. X, s/he came within a reasonable amount of time. and If Dr. X interacted with your family, how well did s/he deal with them?) were applicable to fewer than 40% of patients. As such, they were not included in the analysis.

Internal Structure Validity Evidence

Results from factor analyses are shown in Table 2. The CFA modeling of a single factor solution with 15 items explained 42% of the total variance. The 27 hospitalists' average 15‐item TAISCH score ranged from 3.25 to 4.28 (mean [standard deviation]=3.82 [0.24]; possible score range: 15). Reliability of the 15‐item TAISCH was appropriate (Cronbach's =0.88).

Factor Loadings for 15‐Item TAISCH Measure Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis
TAISCH (Cronbach's =0.88)Factor Loading
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: TAISCH, Tool to Assess Inpatient Satisfaction with Care from Hospitalists. *Response category: below average, average, above average, top 10% of all doctors, the very best of any doctor I have come across. Response category: none, a little, some, a lot, tremendously. Response category: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Response category: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent. Response category: never, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, every single time.

Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's compassion, empathy, and concern for you?*0.91
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's ability to communicate with you?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's skill in diagnosing and treating your medical conditions?*0.88
Compared to all other physicians that you know, how do you rate Dr. X's fund of knowledge?*0.80
How much confidence do you have in Dr. X's plan for your care?0.71
Dr. X kept me informed of the plans for my care.0.69
Effectively preparing patients for discharge is an important part of what doctors in the hospital do. How well has Dr. X done in getting you ready to be discharged from the hospital?0.67
Dr. X let me talk without interrupting.0.60
Dr. X encouraged me to ask questions.0.59
Dr. X checks to be sure I understood everything.0.55
I sensed Dr. X was in a rush when s/he was with me. (reverse coded)0.55
Dr. X showed interest in my views and opinions about my health.0.54
Dr. X discusses options with me and involves me in decision making.0.47
Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer.0.25
Dr. X sat down when s/he visited my bedside.0.14

As shown in Table 2, 2 variables had factor loadings below the minimum threshold of 0.40 in the CFA for the 15‐item TAISCH when modeling a single factor solution. Both items were related to physician etiquette: Dr. X asked permission to enter the room and waited for an answer. and Dr. X sat down when he/she visited my bedside.

When CFA was executed again, as a single factor omitting the 2 items that demonstrated lower factor loadings, the 13‐item single factor solution explained 47% of the total variance, and the Cronbach's was 0.92.

EFA models were also explored for potential alternate solutions. These analyses resulted in lesser reliability (low Cronbach's ), weak construct operationalization, and poor face validity (as judged by the research team).

Both the 13‐ and 15‐item single factor solutions were examined further to determine whether associations with criterion variables (pain, empathy) differed substantively. Given that results were similar across both solutions, subsequent analyses were completed with the 15‐item single factor solution, which included the etiquette‐related variables.

Relationship to Other Variables Validity Evidence

The association between the 15‐item TAISCH and JSPPPE was significantly positive (=12.2, P<0.001). Additionally, there was a positive and significant association between TAISCH and the overall satisfaction question: I would recommend Dr. X to my loved ones should they need hospitalization in the future. (=11.2, P<0.001). This overall satisfaction question was also associated positively with JSPPPE (=13.2, P<0.001). There was a statistically significant negative association between TAISCH and Wong‐Baker pain scale (=2.42, P<0.05).

The PG data from the same period were available for 24 out of 27 hospitalists. The number of PG surveys collected per provider ranged from 5 to 30 (mean=14). At the provider level, there was not a statistically significant correlation between PG and the 15‐item TAISCH (P=0.51). Of note, PG was also not significantly correlated with the overall satisfaction question, JSPPPE, or the Wong‐Baker pain scale (all P>0.10).

DISCUSSION

Our new metric, TAISCH, was found to be a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess patient satisfaction with the hospitalist physician's care. Because we only surveyed patients who could correctly identify their hospitalist physicians after interacting for at least 2 consecutive days, the attribution of the data to the individual hospitalist is almost certainly correct. The high participation rate indicates that the patients were not hesitant about rating their hospitalist provider's quality of care, even when asked while they were still in the hospital.

The majority of the patients approached were able to correctly identify their hospitalist provider. This rate (91%) was much higher than the rate previously reported in the literature where a picture card was used to improve provider recognition.[22] It is also likely that 1 physician, rather than a team of physicians, taking care of patients make it easier for patients to recall the name and recognize the face of their inpatient provider.

The CFA of TAISCH showed good fit but suggests that 2 variables, both from Kahn's etiquette‐based medicine (EtBM) checklist,[9] may not load in the same way as the other items. Tackett and colleagues reported that hospitalists who performed more EtBM behaviors scored higher on PG evaluations.[23] Such results, along with the comparable explanation of variance and reliability, convinced us to retain these 2 items in the final 15‐item TAISCH as dictated by the CFA. Although the literature supports the fact that physician etiquette is related to perception of high‐quality care, it is possible that these 2 questions were answered differently (and thereby failed to load the same way), because environmental limitations may be preventing physicians' ability to perform them consistently. We prefer the 15‐item version of TAISCH and future studies may provide additional information about its performance as compared to the 13‐item adaptation.

The significantly negative association between the Wong‐Baker pain scale and TAISCH stresses the importance of adequately addressing and treating the patient's pain. Hanna et al. showed that the patients' perceptions of pain control was associated with their overall satisfaction score measured by HCAHPS.[24] The association seen in our study was not unexpected, because TAISCH is administered while the patients are acutely ill in the hospital, when pain is likely more prevalent and severe than it is during the postdischarge settings (when the HCAHPS or PG surveys are administered). Interestingly, Hanna et al. discovered that the team's attention to controlling pain was more strongly correlated with overall satisfaction than was the actual pain control.[24] These data, now confirmed by our study, should serve to remind us that a hospitalist's concern and effort to relieve pain may augment patient satisfaction with the quality of care, even when eliminating the pain may be difficult or impossible.

TAISCH was found not to be correlated with PG scores. Several explanations for this deserve consideration. First, the postdischarge PG survey that is used for our institution does not list the name of the specific hospitalist providers for the patients to evaluate. Because patients encounter multiple physicians during their hospital stay (eg, emergency department physicians, hospitalist providers, consultants), it is possible that patients are not reflecting on the named doctor when assessing the the attending of record on the PG mailed questionnaire. Second, the representation of patients who responded to TAISCH and PG were different; almost all patients completed TAISCH as opposed to a small minority who decide to respond to the PG survey. Third, TAISCH measures the physicians' performance more comprehensively with a larger number of variables. Last, it is possible that we were underpowered to detect significant correlation, because there were only 24 providers who had data from both TAISCH and PG. However, our results endorse using caution in interpreting PG scores for individual hospitalist's performance, particularly for high‐stakes consequences (including the provision of incentives to high performer and the insistence on remediation for low performers).

Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, only hospitalist providers from a single division were assessed. This may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, although patients were assured about confidentiality of their responses, they might have provided more favorable answers, because they may have felt uncomfortable rating their physician poorly. One review article of the measurement of healthcare satisfaction indicated that impersonal (mailed) methods result in more criticism and lower satisfaction than assessments made in person using interviews. As the trade‐off, the mailed surveys yield lower response rates that may introduce other forms of bias.[25] Even on the HCHAPS survey report for the same period from our institution, 78% of patients gave top box ratings for our doctors' communication skills, which is at the state average.[26] Similarly, a study that used postdischarge telephone interviews to collect patients' satisfaction with hospitalists' care quality reported an average score of 4.20 out of 5.[27] These findings confirm that highly skewed ratings are common for these types of surveys, irrespective of how or when the data are collected.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, TAISCH use need not be limited to hospitalist physicians. It may also be used to assess allied health professionals or trainees performance, which cannot be assessed by HCHAPS or PG. Applying TAISCH in different hospital settings (eg, emergency department or critical care units), assessing hospitalists' reactions to TAISCH, learning whether TAISCH leads to hospitalists' behavior changes or appraising whether performance can improve in response to coaching interventions for those performing poorly are all research questions that merit additional consideration.

CONCLUSION

TAISCH allows for obtaining patient satisfaction data that are highly attributable to specific hospitalist providers. The data collection method also permits high response rates so that input comes from almost all patients. The timeliness of the TAISCH assessments also makes it possible for real‐time service recovery, which is impossible with other commonly used metrics assessing patient satisfaction. Our next step will include testing the most effective way to provide feedback to providers and to coach these individuals so as to improve performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Po‐Han Chen at the BEAD Core for his statistical analysis support.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Johns Hopkins Osler Center for Clinical Excellence. Dr. Wright is a Miller‐Coulson Family Scholar and is supported through the Johns Hopkins Center for Innovative Medicine. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References
  1. Brumenthal D, Jena AB. Hospital value‐based purchasing. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:271277.
  2. HCAHPS survey. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems website. Available at: http://www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed August 27, 2011.
  3. Press Ganey survey. Press Ganey website. Available at: http://www.pressganey.com/index.aspx. Accessed February 12, 2013.
  4. Society of Hospital Medicine. Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction Surveys. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Practice_Resources119:166.e7e16.
  5. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:333342.
  6. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in‐patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:353358.
  7. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire from RAND Health. RAND Health website. Available at: http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/psq.html. Accessed December 30, 2011.
  8. Kahn MW. Etiquette‐based medicine. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:19881989.
  9. Christmas C, Kravet S, Durso C, Wright SM. Defining clinical excellence in academic medicine: a qualitative study of the master clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:989994.
  10. Wright SM, Christmas C, Burkhart K, Kravet S, Durso C. Creating an academy of clinical excellence at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center: a 3‐year experience. Acad Med. 2010;85:18331839.
  11. Bendapudi NM, Berry LL, Keith FA, Turner Parish J, Rayburn WL. Patients' perspectives on ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(3):338344.
  12. The Miller‐Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/innovative/signature_programs/academy_of_clinical_excellence/. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  13. Osler Center for Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/johns_hopkins_bayview/education_training/continuing_education/osler_center_for_clinical_excellence. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  14. Wong‐Baker FACES Foundation. Available at: http://www.wongbakerfaces.org. Accessed July 8, 2013.
  15. Kane GC, Gotto JL, Mangione S, West S, Hojat M. Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy: preliminary psychometric data. Croat Med J. 2007;48:8186.
  16. Glaser KM, Markham FW, Adler HM, McManus PR, Hojat M. Relationships between scores on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, patient perceptions of physician empathy, and humanistic approaches to patient care: a validity study. Med Sci Monit. 2007;13(7):CR291CR294.
  17. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait‐multimethod matrix. Psychol Bul. 1959;56(2):81105.
  18. The Joint Commission. Facts about pain management. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/pain_management. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  19. Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, et al. Medical students' self‐reported empathy and simulated patients' assessments of student empathy: an analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):984988.
  20. Gorsuch RL. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
  21. Arora VM, Schaninger C, D'Arcy M, et al. Improving inpatients' identification of their doctors: use of FACE cards. Jt Comm J Qual Pateint Saf. 1009;35(12):613619.
  22. Tackett S, Tad‐y D, Rios R et al. Appraising the practice of etiquette‐based medicine in the inpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(7):908913.
  23. Hanna MN, Gonzalez‐Fernandez M, Barrett AD, et al. Does patient perception of pain control affect patient satisfaction across surgical units in a tertiary teaching hospital? Am J Med Qual. 2012;27:411416.
  24. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with health care: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1244.
  25. Centers for Medicare 7(2):131136.
References
  1. Brumenthal D, Jena AB. Hospital value‐based purchasing. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:271277.
  2. HCAHPS survey. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems website. Available at: http://www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed August 27, 2011.
  3. Press Ganey survey. Press Ganey website. Available at: http://www.pressganey.com/index.aspx. Accessed February 12, 2013.
  4. Society of Hospital Medicine. Membership Committee Guidelines for Hospitalists Patient Satisfaction Surveys. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Practice_Resources119:166.e7e16.
  5. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:333342.
  6. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in‐patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:353358.
  7. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire from RAND Health. RAND Health website. Available at: http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/psq.html. Accessed December 30, 2011.
  8. Kahn MW. Etiquette‐based medicine. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:19881989.
  9. Christmas C, Kravet S, Durso C, Wright SM. Defining clinical excellence in academic medicine: a qualitative study of the master clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:989994.
  10. Wright SM, Christmas C, Burkhart K, Kravet S, Durso C. Creating an academy of clinical excellence at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center: a 3‐year experience. Acad Med. 2010;85:18331839.
  11. Bendapudi NM, Berry LL, Keith FA, Turner Parish J, Rayburn WL. Patients' perspectives on ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(3):338344.
  12. The Miller‐Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/innovative/signature_programs/academy_of_clinical_excellence/. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  13. Osler Center for Clinical Excellence at Johns Hopkins. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/johns_hopkins_bayview/education_training/continuing_education/osler_center_for_clinical_excellence. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  14. Wong‐Baker FACES Foundation. Available at: http://www.wongbakerfaces.org. Accessed July 8, 2013.
  15. Kane GC, Gotto JL, Mangione S, West S, Hojat M. Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy: preliminary psychometric data. Croat Med J. 2007;48:8186.
  16. Glaser KM, Markham FW, Adler HM, McManus PR, Hojat M. Relationships between scores on the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, patient perceptions of physician empathy, and humanistic approaches to patient care: a validity study. Med Sci Monit. 2007;13(7):CR291CR294.
  17. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait‐multimethod matrix. Psychol Bul. 1959;56(2):81105.
  18. The Joint Commission. Facts about pain management. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/pain_management. Accessed April 25, 2014.
  19. Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, et al. Medical students' self‐reported empathy and simulated patients' assessments of student empathy: an analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):984988.
  20. Gorsuch RL. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
  21. Arora VM, Schaninger C, D'Arcy M, et al. Improving inpatients' identification of their doctors: use of FACE cards. Jt Comm J Qual Pateint Saf. 1009;35(12):613619.
  22. Tackett S, Tad‐y D, Rios R et al. Appraising the practice of etiquette‐based medicine in the inpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(7):908913.
  23. Hanna MN, Gonzalez‐Fernandez M, Barrett AD, et al. Does patient perception of pain control affect patient satisfaction across surgical units in a tertiary teaching hospital? Am J Med Qual. 2012;27:411416.
  24. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with health care: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1244.
  25. Centers for Medicare 7(2):131136.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 9(9)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 9(9)
Page Number
553-558
Page Number
553-558
Article Type
Display Headline
Development and validation of the tool to assess inpatient satisfaction with care from hospitalists
Display Headline
Development and validation of the tool to assess inpatient satisfaction with care from hospitalists
Sections
Article Source

© 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Haruka Torok, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 5200 Eastern Ave., MFL Bldg, West Tower 6th Floor CIMS Suite, Baltimore, MD 21224; Telephone: 410‐550‐5018; Fax: 410‐550‐2972; E‐mail: [email protected]
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 11:09
Display Headline
Guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas

At the 2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network annual conference in Hollywood, Florida, Dr Andrew D Zelenetz, chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas Guidelines panel, presented guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

 

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
193-194
Legacy Keywords
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, MYC, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, DLBCL, T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia, TLGLL
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF

At the 2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network annual conference in Hollywood, Florida, Dr Andrew D Zelenetz, chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas Guidelines panel, presented guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

 

At the 2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network annual conference in Hollywood, Florida, Dr Andrew D Zelenetz, chair of the NCCN Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas Guidelines panel, presented guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

 

Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Page Number
193-194
Page Number
193-194
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas
Display Headline
Guideline updates for non-Hodgkin lymphomas
Legacy Keywords
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, MYC, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, DLBCL, T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia, TLGLL
Legacy Keywords
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, MYC, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, DLBCL, T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia, TLGLL
Sections
Citation Override
JCSO 2014;12:193-194
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

The importance of hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular testing and mutational analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 11:09
Display Headline
The importance of hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular testing and mutational analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has made it possible for this cancer to be controlled in many patients for long periods with chronic medication and regular monitoring of disease status. Hematologic and cytogenetic testing, molecular monitoring, and BCR-ABL1 mutational analysis have become integral to the routine management of CML. The information that each type of test provides is essential to confirm a diagnosis, determine the disease stage, assess response to treatment, and monitor for signals of disease progression – all of which can be used to identify patients who might require further evaluation, closer follow-up, and additional intervention, and to guide clinical decisions.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Article PDF
Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
179-187
Legacy Keywords
chronic myeloid leukemia, CML, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has made it possible for this cancer to be controlled in many patients for long periods with chronic medication and regular monitoring of disease status. Hematologic and cytogenetic testing, molecular monitoring, and BCR-ABL1 mutational analysis have become integral to the routine management of CML. The information that each type of test provides is essential to confirm a diagnosis, determine the disease stage, assess response to treatment, and monitor for signals of disease progression – all of which can be used to identify patients who might require further evaluation, closer follow-up, and additional intervention, and to guide clinical decisions.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has made it possible for this cancer to be controlled in many patients for long periods with chronic medication and regular monitoring of disease status. Hematologic and cytogenetic testing, molecular monitoring, and BCR-ABL1 mutational analysis have become integral to the routine management of CML. The information that each type of test provides is essential to confirm a diagnosis, determine the disease stage, assess response to treatment, and monitor for signals of disease progression – all of which can be used to identify patients who might require further evaluation, closer follow-up, and additional intervention, and to guide clinical decisions.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Page Number
179-187
Page Number
179-187
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The importance of hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular testing and mutational analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia
Display Headline
The importance of hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular testing and mutational analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia
Legacy Keywords
chronic myeloid leukemia, CML, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI
Legacy Keywords
chronic myeloid leukemia, CML, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI
Sections
Citation Override
JCSO 2014;12(5):179-187
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Molecular monitoring and minimal residual disease in the management of chronic myelogenous leukemia

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 09:38
Display Headline
Molecular monitoring and minimal residual disease in the management of chronic myelogenous leukemia

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2001 for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) marked a paradigm shift in management of the disease. With that advance, CML has been largely managed as a chronic condition, with daily medication and frequent monitoring. Optimizing monitoring methods and identifying factors associated with response and long-term outcomes has thus been a major clinical research focus. Given the improved understanding of surveillance techniques in CML and the advent of several recently approved second- and third-generation TKIs, there have been recent updates to clinical practice guidelines.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael R Savona, MD, FACP

Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
171-178
Legacy Keywords
chronic myelogenous leukemia, CML, minimal residual disease, MRD, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael R Savona, MD, FACP

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael R Savona, MD, FACP

Article PDF
Article PDF

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2001 for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) marked a paradigm shift in management of the disease. With that advance, CML has been largely managed as a chronic condition, with daily medication and frequent monitoring. Optimizing monitoring methods and identifying factors associated with response and long-term outcomes has thus been a major clinical research focus. Given the improved understanding of surveillance techniques in CML and the advent of several recently approved second- and third-generation TKIs, there have been recent updates to clinical practice guidelines.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

The introduction of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2001 for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) marked a paradigm shift in management of the disease. With that advance, CML has been largely managed as a chronic condition, with daily medication and frequent monitoring. Optimizing monitoring methods and identifying factors associated with response and long-term outcomes has thus been a major clinical research focus. Given the improved understanding of surveillance techniques in CML and the advent of several recently approved second- and third-generation TKIs, there have been recent updates to clinical practice guidelines.

 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Issue
The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology - 12(5)
Page Number
171-178
Page Number
171-178
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Molecular monitoring and minimal residual disease in the management of chronic myelogenous leukemia
Display Headline
Molecular monitoring and minimal residual disease in the management of chronic myelogenous leukemia
Legacy Keywords
chronic myelogenous leukemia, CML, minimal residual disease, MRD, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI,
Legacy Keywords
chronic myelogenous leukemia, CML, minimal residual disease, MRD, BCR-ABL1, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKI,
Sections
Citation Override
JCSO 2014;12(5):171-178
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Distinguishing the killers among us

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 04/16/2018 - 13:31
Display Headline
Distinguishing the killers among us

When I was in high school, one of my friends told me he intended to kill another one of my friends. It was a different day and age back then, and with more than 4,000 students, my high school was rather large and impersonal – it was easy to get lost in the crowd.

"Juan" (not his real name) confided in me that he wanted to kill "Joe" (also not his real name), which I found a bit odd. Joe was well liked but not did really stand out. Juan was perhaps quieter and more studious, but he also did not stand out. Both boys had friends, did well in school, and were not obviously troubled. When I asked Juan why he wanted to kill Joe, he responded, "Because he’s the all-American boy."

I worried about this. I told my mother, and I told a teacher I trusted. No one knew what to do, and Juan’s plan did not sound feasible. He was going to bring a knife to school in a folder, and when Joe was walking in a crowded hallway, Juan would walk behind him and thrust out the folder to sent the knife flying. The physics of this just didn’t make sense to me, and I didn’t see how the knife would gain enough momentum to travel very far, much less penetrate a person through their clothes. Feasible, or not, however, the equation changed on a day that Juan and I were sitting together in the back row of Latin class. Juan opened his calculus book and showed me the butcher knife.

I excused myself from class, went to a pay phone, and called my mother. She called the school, the principal called the police, and Juan was quietly removed from school when the period ended. It would be hard to imagine that a teenager who plotted the murder of another student, by illogical means for an illogical reason, wasn’t emotionally disturbed. I don’t know what happens to someone like Juan in 2014 – I’m thinking nothing good – but let me tell you what happened to Juan in the late 1970s.

Juan was out of high school for 6 weeks. I heard he had psychological testing, but aside from that, I have no idea what transpired. One of his friends told me it was a joke. He returned to high school, never said another word to me, graduated, and attended an Ivy League university – one of several prestigious schools to which he gained admission. A Google search reveals that Juan later earned a graduate degree and works as an executive making a six-figure salary. (Isn’t Google great?) He’s an adjunct professor at a college where he gets glowing reviews on RateMyProfessors.com. He was elected to serve on a local government committee. He’s married and has children. Compliments of Facebook, I know that he continues to have contact with high school friends.

From what I can tell, Juan’s brief period of being a disturbed adolescent did not progress to a life defined by chronic mental illness, and he did not go on to become a violent felon. I have no idea if I did Juan a favor, prevented a murder, got him much-needed treatment, or simply added an embarrassing diversion to his life. I don’t know if he ever really would have harmed Joe, or if it was in fact a joke designed to yank my chain.

Apparently, my threshold is on the low side, and not long ago I called a friend late one night and insisted she check on her teenager when a Facebook post struck me as alarming and a bit too final. The response I got was, "They were lyrics from a song and you’re overreacting." So be it. I called the mother and not the National Guard, and if the teen had become a statistic, I would have regretted not reacting.

I did wonder, while writing this article, how it would be received if I were to contact Juan and ask his thoughts on those events decades ago. Somehow, it seemed best not to uncover old wounds.

The media talk about the dangerously mentally ill as though they are a separate breed of humans, ones who can be easily distinguished by simply assessing who stands on which side of a well-marked "us-versus-them" line. Human beings, especially young human beings, may go through phases, and they may struggle with controlling their emotions, behaviors, and impulses and with finding their identity at a time in life when fitting in has undue importance. Some of them, no doubt, have these crises in the throes of an acute episode of mental distress – illness, if you’d prefer – and others do so at the genesis of what will prove to be a chronic and persistent psychiatric disorder. It may not be clear at any given moment who is going through a phase, who is suffering from an acute episode of mental illness, and who is beginning their course of a severe and persistent disorder.

 

 

Still, there are those who want to neatly categorize those with "serious" mental illness so that we can focus more of our resources on their needs and not on those who they deem to be the "worried well." Juan, it appears, did not fall into that category of chronically or persistently mentally ill. Similarly, all of us know chaotic, misbehaving, and even suicidal teenagers who go on to live productive lives. Does that designation matter if those not-so-seriously (or not-so-obviously) mentally ill individuals kill someone or die during their brief moments of emotional turbulence?

It seems to me that the goal is to keep people safe and help usher them through difficult periods in their lives, regardless of any diagnostic certainty or severity. I would contend that the mentally healthy among us also are subject to impulsive, distressed, and dangerous moments and that the world does not always neatly divide people into proper categorical entities.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

When I was in high school, one of my friends told me he intended to kill another one of my friends. It was a different day and age back then, and with more than 4,000 students, my high school was rather large and impersonal – it was easy to get lost in the crowd.

"Juan" (not his real name) confided in me that he wanted to kill "Joe" (also not his real name), which I found a bit odd. Joe was well liked but not did really stand out. Juan was perhaps quieter and more studious, but he also did not stand out. Both boys had friends, did well in school, and were not obviously troubled. When I asked Juan why he wanted to kill Joe, he responded, "Because he’s the all-American boy."

I worried about this. I told my mother, and I told a teacher I trusted. No one knew what to do, and Juan’s plan did not sound feasible. He was going to bring a knife to school in a folder, and when Joe was walking in a crowded hallway, Juan would walk behind him and thrust out the folder to sent the knife flying. The physics of this just didn’t make sense to me, and I didn’t see how the knife would gain enough momentum to travel very far, much less penetrate a person through their clothes. Feasible, or not, however, the equation changed on a day that Juan and I were sitting together in the back row of Latin class. Juan opened his calculus book and showed me the butcher knife.

I excused myself from class, went to a pay phone, and called my mother. She called the school, the principal called the police, and Juan was quietly removed from school when the period ended. It would be hard to imagine that a teenager who plotted the murder of another student, by illogical means for an illogical reason, wasn’t emotionally disturbed. I don’t know what happens to someone like Juan in 2014 – I’m thinking nothing good – but let me tell you what happened to Juan in the late 1970s.

Juan was out of high school for 6 weeks. I heard he had psychological testing, but aside from that, I have no idea what transpired. One of his friends told me it was a joke. He returned to high school, never said another word to me, graduated, and attended an Ivy League university – one of several prestigious schools to which he gained admission. A Google search reveals that Juan later earned a graduate degree and works as an executive making a six-figure salary. (Isn’t Google great?) He’s an adjunct professor at a college where he gets glowing reviews on RateMyProfessors.com. He was elected to serve on a local government committee. He’s married and has children. Compliments of Facebook, I know that he continues to have contact with high school friends.

From what I can tell, Juan’s brief period of being a disturbed adolescent did not progress to a life defined by chronic mental illness, and he did not go on to become a violent felon. I have no idea if I did Juan a favor, prevented a murder, got him much-needed treatment, or simply added an embarrassing diversion to his life. I don’t know if he ever really would have harmed Joe, or if it was in fact a joke designed to yank my chain.

Apparently, my threshold is on the low side, and not long ago I called a friend late one night and insisted she check on her teenager when a Facebook post struck me as alarming and a bit too final. The response I got was, "They were lyrics from a song and you’re overreacting." So be it. I called the mother and not the National Guard, and if the teen had become a statistic, I would have regretted not reacting.

I did wonder, while writing this article, how it would be received if I were to contact Juan and ask his thoughts on those events decades ago. Somehow, it seemed best not to uncover old wounds.

The media talk about the dangerously mentally ill as though they are a separate breed of humans, ones who can be easily distinguished by simply assessing who stands on which side of a well-marked "us-versus-them" line. Human beings, especially young human beings, may go through phases, and they may struggle with controlling their emotions, behaviors, and impulses and with finding their identity at a time in life when fitting in has undue importance. Some of them, no doubt, have these crises in the throes of an acute episode of mental distress – illness, if you’d prefer – and others do so at the genesis of what will prove to be a chronic and persistent psychiatric disorder. It may not be clear at any given moment who is going through a phase, who is suffering from an acute episode of mental illness, and who is beginning their course of a severe and persistent disorder.

 

 

Still, there are those who want to neatly categorize those with "serious" mental illness so that we can focus more of our resources on their needs and not on those who they deem to be the "worried well." Juan, it appears, did not fall into that category of chronically or persistently mentally ill. Similarly, all of us know chaotic, misbehaving, and even suicidal teenagers who go on to live productive lives. Does that designation matter if those not-so-seriously (or not-so-obviously) mentally ill individuals kill someone or die during their brief moments of emotional turbulence?

It seems to me that the goal is to keep people safe and help usher them through difficult periods in their lives, regardless of any diagnostic certainty or severity. I would contend that the mentally healthy among us also are subject to impulsive, distressed, and dangerous moments and that the world does not always neatly divide people into proper categorical entities.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

When I was in high school, one of my friends told me he intended to kill another one of my friends. It was a different day and age back then, and with more than 4,000 students, my high school was rather large and impersonal – it was easy to get lost in the crowd.

"Juan" (not his real name) confided in me that he wanted to kill "Joe" (also not his real name), which I found a bit odd. Joe was well liked but not did really stand out. Juan was perhaps quieter and more studious, but he also did not stand out. Both boys had friends, did well in school, and were not obviously troubled. When I asked Juan why he wanted to kill Joe, he responded, "Because he’s the all-American boy."

I worried about this. I told my mother, and I told a teacher I trusted. No one knew what to do, and Juan’s plan did not sound feasible. He was going to bring a knife to school in a folder, and when Joe was walking in a crowded hallway, Juan would walk behind him and thrust out the folder to sent the knife flying. The physics of this just didn’t make sense to me, and I didn’t see how the knife would gain enough momentum to travel very far, much less penetrate a person through their clothes. Feasible, or not, however, the equation changed on a day that Juan and I were sitting together in the back row of Latin class. Juan opened his calculus book and showed me the butcher knife.

I excused myself from class, went to a pay phone, and called my mother. She called the school, the principal called the police, and Juan was quietly removed from school when the period ended. It would be hard to imagine that a teenager who plotted the murder of another student, by illogical means for an illogical reason, wasn’t emotionally disturbed. I don’t know what happens to someone like Juan in 2014 – I’m thinking nothing good – but let me tell you what happened to Juan in the late 1970s.

Juan was out of high school for 6 weeks. I heard he had psychological testing, but aside from that, I have no idea what transpired. One of his friends told me it was a joke. He returned to high school, never said another word to me, graduated, and attended an Ivy League university – one of several prestigious schools to which he gained admission. A Google search reveals that Juan later earned a graduate degree and works as an executive making a six-figure salary. (Isn’t Google great?) He’s an adjunct professor at a college where he gets glowing reviews on RateMyProfessors.com. He was elected to serve on a local government committee. He’s married and has children. Compliments of Facebook, I know that he continues to have contact with high school friends.

From what I can tell, Juan’s brief period of being a disturbed adolescent did not progress to a life defined by chronic mental illness, and he did not go on to become a violent felon. I have no idea if I did Juan a favor, prevented a murder, got him much-needed treatment, or simply added an embarrassing diversion to his life. I don’t know if he ever really would have harmed Joe, or if it was in fact a joke designed to yank my chain.

Apparently, my threshold is on the low side, and not long ago I called a friend late one night and insisted she check on her teenager when a Facebook post struck me as alarming and a bit too final. The response I got was, "They were lyrics from a song and you’re overreacting." So be it. I called the mother and not the National Guard, and if the teen had become a statistic, I would have regretted not reacting.

I did wonder, while writing this article, how it would be received if I were to contact Juan and ask his thoughts on those events decades ago. Somehow, it seemed best not to uncover old wounds.

The media talk about the dangerously mentally ill as though they are a separate breed of humans, ones who can be easily distinguished by simply assessing who stands on which side of a well-marked "us-versus-them" line. Human beings, especially young human beings, may go through phases, and they may struggle with controlling their emotions, behaviors, and impulses and with finding their identity at a time in life when fitting in has undue importance. Some of them, no doubt, have these crises in the throes of an acute episode of mental distress – illness, if you’d prefer – and others do so at the genesis of what will prove to be a chronic and persistent psychiatric disorder. It may not be clear at any given moment who is going through a phase, who is suffering from an acute episode of mental illness, and who is beginning their course of a severe and persistent disorder.

 

 

Still, there are those who want to neatly categorize those with "serious" mental illness so that we can focus more of our resources on their needs and not on those who they deem to be the "worried well." Juan, it appears, did not fall into that category of chronically or persistently mentally ill. Similarly, all of us know chaotic, misbehaving, and even suicidal teenagers who go on to live productive lives. Does that designation matter if those not-so-seriously (or not-so-obviously) mentally ill individuals kill someone or die during their brief moments of emotional turbulence?

It seems to me that the goal is to keep people safe and help usher them through difficult periods in their lives, regardless of any diagnostic certainty or severity. I would contend that the mentally healthy among us also are subject to impulsive, distressed, and dangerous moments and that the world does not always neatly divide people into proper categorical entities.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Distinguishing the killers among us
Display Headline
Distinguishing the killers among us
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

New and Noteworthy Information—June 2014

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 09:50
Display Headline
New and Noteworthy Information—June 2014

Older patients with migraine may be more likely to have silent brain injury than older patients without migraine, according to research published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers analyzed data from the Northern Manhattan Study, which quantified subclinical brain infarctions and white matter hyperintensity volumes among participants with migraine. Of the 546 participants analyzed, 41% were men, 65% were Hispanic, and mean age at MRI was 71. Patients with migraine had double the odds of subclinical brain infarction, compared with those reporting no migraine, after the investigators adjusted for sociodemographics and vascular risk factors. No association was observed between migraine with or without aura and white matter hyperintensity volume. Patients with migraine should not worry, because their risk of ischemic stroke is small, said the authors.

People who are exposed to paint, glue, or degreaser fumes at work may experience memory and thinking problems in retirement, according to a study published May 13 in Neurology. Researchers examined data for 2,143 retired utility workers who underwent cognitive testing in 2010. The authors assessed workers’ lifetime exposure to chlorinated solvents, petroleum solvents, and benzene using a job exposure matrix. Approximately 33% of participants were exposed to chlorinated solvents, 26% to benzene, and 25% to petroleum solvents. Workers highly exposed to chlorinated solvents were at risk of impairment on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, semantic fluency test, and the Trail Making Test B. Retirees at greatest risk for deficits had high lifetime exposure to solvents and were last exposed 12 to 30 years before testing.

Females susceptible to multiple sclerosis (MS) produce higher levels of the blood vessel receptor protein S1PR2 than males, according to data published online ahead of print May 8 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. S1PR2 is present at high levels in the brain areas that MS typically damages. Investigators studied a mouse model of MS and found increased activity of S1PR2, which opens up the blood–brain barrier. When the researchers tested brain tissue samples obtained from 20 human patients after death, they found more S1PR2 in patients with MS than in those without the disorder. Brain tissue from females also had higher levels of S1PR2, compared with male brain tissue. These findings may help explain why more women than men get the disease, said the authors.

The FDA has required the manufacturer of the sleep drug Lunesta (eszopiclone) to lower the recommended starting dose from 2 mg to 1 mg for men and women. Data show that eszopiclone levels in some patients may be high enough on the morning after treatment to impair activities that require alertness, including driving. The 1-mg dose, taken at bedtime, can be increased to 2 mg or 3 mg if needed, but the higher doses are more likely to result in next-day impairment. Using lower doses ensures that less drug will remain in the body during the morning hours. Patients currently taking the 2-mg and 3-mg doses of Lunesta should contact their health care professional to ask for instructions, according to the FDA.

The rate of visits to an emergency department (ED) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) increased by approximately 30% between 2006 and 2010, according to research published in the May 14 issue of JAMA. The increase may be attributable to various factors, including increased awareness and diagnoses, said the authors. The investigators examined data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to determine national trends in ED visits for TBI from 2006 through 2010. An estimated 2.5 million ED visits for TBI occurred in 2010, representing a 29% increase in the rate of visits for TBI during the study period. By comparison, total ED visits increased by 3.6%. Children younger than 3 and adults older than 60 had the largest increase in TBI rates.

The pathophysiologic biomarkers and the topographic markers of Alzheimer’s disease should be revised, according to a position paper by the International Working Group published in the June issue of Lancet Neurology. The group proposed that biomarkers of Alzheimer’s pathology be restricted to those indicating the presence of tau pathology (ie, CSF or PET tau) and amyloid pathology (ie, CSF or PET amyloid). These biomarkers are specific enough to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease at any point on the disease continuum, said the authors. Downstream topographic markers of brain regional structural and metabolic changes have insufficient pathologic specificity and should not be used in diagnosis, according to the researchers. Instead, these markers can be used to measure disease progression. The group also provided diagnostic criteria for atypical, mixed, and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease.

 

 

Prenatal supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) does not result in improved cognitive, problem-solving, or language abilities for children at age 4, according to the results of a trial published in the May 7 issue of JAMA. Investigators conducted longer-term follow-up from a previous study in which pregnant women received 800 mg/day of DHA or placebo. In the initial study, the researchers found that average cognitive, language, and motor scores did not differ between children at 18 months of age. Approximately 92% of eligible families participated in the follow-up study. The DHA group included 313 participants, and the control group included 333 participants. The investigators found that measures of cognition, the ability to perform complex mental processing, language, and executive functioning (eg, memory, reasoning, and problem solving) did not differ significantly between groups at age 4.

The FDA has informed Acorda Therapeutics that it has completed its review of the company’s new drug application for Plumiaz (diazepam) nasal spray and that the application cannot be approved in its present form. The drug was developed for the treatment of people with epilepsy who experience cluster seizures. Acorda Therapeutics is developing a response to address the items outlined in the letter. Based on the requirements for approval outlined in the letter, the company does not expect Plumiaz to receive FDA approval in 2014. Plumiaz previously received orphan drug designation for the treatment of cluster seizures. [For related news, see page 9.]

Older people with memory and thinking problems who do not have dementia may have a lower risk of dying from cancer than people who have no memory and thinking problems, according to a study published April 22 in Neurology. Researchers studied 2,627 people age 65 and older who did not have dementia at baseline. Participants underwent tests of memory and thinking skills at baseline and at three years. Follow-up lasted for an average of approximately 13 years. During the study, 1,003 participants died. About 34% of deaths occurred among patients with the fastest decline in thinking skills. Approximately 21% of participants in the group with the fastest decline in thinking skills died of cancer, compared with 29% of participants in the other two groups.

A new technique may predict with 95% accuracy which patients with stroke will benefit from IV t-PA and which will have potentially lethal bleeding in the brain, according to a study published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers used a computer program that shows physicians the amount of gadolinium, injected during an MRI scan, that has leaked into the brain tissue from surrounding blood vessels. By quantifying this damage in 75 patients with stroke, the researchers identified a threshold for determining how much leakage was dangerous. They applied this threshold to the records for the 75 patients to determine how well it would predict who had had a brain hemorrhage and who had not. The new test correctly predicted the outcome with 95% accuracy.

Freezing of gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease may correlate with poor quality of life, disease severity, apathy, and exposure to antimuscarinics, according to a study published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA Neurology. Investigators performed a cross-sectional survey of 672 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Patients with freezing of gait were identified as those with a score of 1 or greater on item 14 of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) in the on condition. Approximately 38% of patients reported freezing of gait during the on state, which was significantly related to lower quality of life scores. Freezing of gait was also correlated with longer disease duration, higher UPDRS parts II and III scores, apathy, and a higher levodopa equivalent daily dose.

Among college football players, concussion and years of football played may have a significant inverse relationship with hippocampal volume, according to research published May 14 in JAMA. Years of football experience also may correlate with slower reaction time. Investigators conducted a cross-sectional study of 25 college football players with a history of clinician-diagnosed concussion, 25 college football players without a history of concussion, and 25 nonfootball-playing, age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls. Players with and without a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes, compared with healthy controls. Players with a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes than players without concussion. In both athlete groups, investigators found a statistically significant inverse relationship between left hippocampal volume and number of years of football played.

Deficiencies in hyaluronan can lead to spontaneous epileptic seizures, according to research published April 30 in the Journal of Neuroscience. In a multicenter study, investigators examined the role of hyaluronan using mutant mice deficient in each of the three hyaluronan synthase genes (ie, Has1, Has2, Has3). The mutant mice were prone to epileptic seizures. In Has3(-/-) mice, this phenotype likely results from a reduction in the size of the brain extracellular space (ECS), said the researchers. Among the three Has knockout models, seizures were most prevalent in Has3(-/-) mice, which also had the greatest hyaluronan reduction in the hippocampus. The results provide the first direct evidence for the physiologic role of hyaluronan in the regulation of ECS volume, according to the investigators.

 

 

Erik Greb

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
3-7
Legacy Keywords
neurology reviews, erik greb, silent brain injury, lunesta, biomarkers, DHA
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Older patients with migraine may be more likely to have silent brain injury than older patients without migraine, according to research published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers analyzed data from the Northern Manhattan Study, which quantified subclinical brain infarctions and white matter hyperintensity volumes among participants with migraine. Of the 546 participants analyzed, 41% were men, 65% were Hispanic, and mean age at MRI was 71. Patients with migraine had double the odds of subclinical brain infarction, compared with those reporting no migraine, after the investigators adjusted for sociodemographics and vascular risk factors. No association was observed between migraine with or without aura and white matter hyperintensity volume. Patients with migraine should not worry, because their risk of ischemic stroke is small, said the authors.

People who are exposed to paint, glue, or degreaser fumes at work may experience memory and thinking problems in retirement, according to a study published May 13 in Neurology. Researchers examined data for 2,143 retired utility workers who underwent cognitive testing in 2010. The authors assessed workers’ lifetime exposure to chlorinated solvents, petroleum solvents, and benzene using a job exposure matrix. Approximately 33% of participants were exposed to chlorinated solvents, 26% to benzene, and 25% to petroleum solvents. Workers highly exposed to chlorinated solvents were at risk of impairment on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, semantic fluency test, and the Trail Making Test B. Retirees at greatest risk for deficits had high lifetime exposure to solvents and were last exposed 12 to 30 years before testing.

Females susceptible to multiple sclerosis (MS) produce higher levels of the blood vessel receptor protein S1PR2 than males, according to data published online ahead of print May 8 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. S1PR2 is present at high levels in the brain areas that MS typically damages. Investigators studied a mouse model of MS and found increased activity of S1PR2, which opens up the blood–brain barrier. When the researchers tested brain tissue samples obtained from 20 human patients after death, they found more S1PR2 in patients with MS than in those without the disorder. Brain tissue from females also had higher levels of S1PR2, compared with male brain tissue. These findings may help explain why more women than men get the disease, said the authors.

The FDA has required the manufacturer of the sleep drug Lunesta (eszopiclone) to lower the recommended starting dose from 2 mg to 1 mg for men and women. Data show that eszopiclone levels in some patients may be high enough on the morning after treatment to impair activities that require alertness, including driving. The 1-mg dose, taken at bedtime, can be increased to 2 mg or 3 mg if needed, but the higher doses are more likely to result in next-day impairment. Using lower doses ensures that less drug will remain in the body during the morning hours. Patients currently taking the 2-mg and 3-mg doses of Lunesta should contact their health care professional to ask for instructions, according to the FDA.

The rate of visits to an emergency department (ED) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) increased by approximately 30% between 2006 and 2010, according to research published in the May 14 issue of JAMA. The increase may be attributable to various factors, including increased awareness and diagnoses, said the authors. The investigators examined data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to determine national trends in ED visits for TBI from 2006 through 2010. An estimated 2.5 million ED visits for TBI occurred in 2010, representing a 29% increase in the rate of visits for TBI during the study period. By comparison, total ED visits increased by 3.6%. Children younger than 3 and adults older than 60 had the largest increase in TBI rates.

The pathophysiologic biomarkers and the topographic markers of Alzheimer’s disease should be revised, according to a position paper by the International Working Group published in the June issue of Lancet Neurology. The group proposed that biomarkers of Alzheimer’s pathology be restricted to those indicating the presence of tau pathology (ie, CSF or PET tau) and amyloid pathology (ie, CSF or PET amyloid). These biomarkers are specific enough to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease at any point on the disease continuum, said the authors. Downstream topographic markers of brain regional structural and metabolic changes have insufficient pathologic specificity and should not be used in diagnosis, according to the researchers. Instead, these markers can be used to measure disease progression. The group also provided diagnostic criteria for atypical, mixed, and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease.

 

 

Prenatal supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) does not result in improved cognitive, problem-solving, or language abilities for children at age 4, according to the results of a trial published in the May 7 issue of JAMA. Investigators conducted longer-term follow-up from a previous study in which pregnant women received 800 mg/day of DHA or placebo. In the initial study, the researchers found that average cognitive, language, and motor scores did not differ between children at 18 months of age. Approximately 92% of eligible families participated in the follow-up study. The DHA group included 313 participants, and the control group included 333 participants. The investigators found that measures of cognition, the ability to perform complex mental processing, language, and executive functioning (eg, memory, reasoning, and problem solving) did not differ significantly between groups at age 4.

The FDA has informed Acorda Therapeutics that it has completed its review of the company’s new drug application for Plumiaz (diazepam) nasal spray and that the application cannot be approved in its present form. The drug was developed for the treatment of people with epilepsy who experience cluster seizures. Acorda Therapeutics is developing a response to address the items outlined in the letter. Based on the requirements for approval outlined in the letter, the company does not expect Plumiaz to receive FDA approval in 2014. Plumiaz previously received orphan drug designation for the treatment of cluster seizures. [For related news, see page 9.]

Older people with memory and thinking problems who do not have dementia may have a lower risk of dying from cancer than people who have no memory and thinking problems, according to a study published April 22 in Neurology. Researchers studied 2,627 people age 65 and older who did not have dementia at baseline. Participants underwent tests of memory and thinking skills at baseline and at three years. Follow-up lasted for an average of approximately 13 years. During the study, 1,003 participants died. About 34% of deaths occurred among patients with the fastest decline in thinking skills. Approximately 21% of participants in the group with the fastest decline in thinking skills died of cancer, compared with 29% of participants in the other two groups.

A new technique may predict with 95% accuracy which patients with stroke will benefit from IV t-PA and which will have potentially lethal bleeding in the brain, according to a study published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers used a computer program that shows physicians the amount of gadolinium, injected during an MRI scan, that has leaked into the brain tissue from surrounding blood vessels. By quantifying this damage in 75 patients with stroke, the researchers identified a threshold for determining how much leakage was dangerous. They applied this threshold to the records for the 75 patients to determine how well it would predict who had had a brain hemorrhage and who had not. The new test correctly predicted the outcome with 95% accuracy.

Freezing of gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease may correlate with poor quality of life, disease severity, apathy, and exposure to antimuscarinics, according to a study published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA Neurology. Investigators performed a cross-sectional survey of 672 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Patients with freezing of gait were identified as those with a score of 1 or greater on item 14 of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) in the on condition. Approximately 38% of patients reported freezing of gait during the on state, which was significantly related to lower quality of life scores. Freezing of gait was also correlated with longer disease duration, higher UPDRS parts II and III scores, apathy, and a higher levodopa equivalent daily dose.

Among college football players, concussion and years of football played may have a significant inverse relationship with hippocampal volume, according to research published May 14 in JAMA. Years of football experience also may correlate with slower reaction time. Investigators conducted a cross-sectional study of 25 college football players with a history of clinician-diagnosed concussion, 25 college football players without a history of concussion, and 25 nonfootball-playing, age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls. Players with and without a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes, compared with healthy controls. Players with a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes than players without concussion. In both athlete groups, investigators found a statistically significant inverse relationship between left hippocampal volume and number of years of football played.

Deficiencies in hyaluronan can lead to spontaneous epileptic seizures, according to research published April 30 in the Journal of Neuroscience. In a multicenter study, investigators examined the role of hyaluronan using mutant mice deficient in each of the three hyaluronan synthase genes (ie, Has1, Has2, Has3). The mutant mice were prone to epileptic seizures. In Has3(-/-) mice, this phenotype likely results from a reduction in the size of the brain extracellular space (ECS), said the researchers. Among the three Has knockout models, seizures were most prevalent in Has3(-/-) mice, which also had the greatest hyaluronan reduction in the hippocampus. The results provide the first direct evidence for the physiologic role of hyaluronan in the regulation of ECS volume, according to the investigators.

 

 

Erik Greb

Older patients with migraine may be more likely to have silent brain injury than older patients without migraine, according to research published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers analyzed data from the Northern Manhattan Study, which quantified subclinical brain infarctions and white matter hyperintensity volumes among participants with migraine. Of the 546 participants analyzed, 41% were men, 65% were Hispanic, and mean age at MRI was 71. Patients with migraine had double the odds of subclinical brain infarction, compared with those reporting no migraine, after the investigators adjusted for sociodemographics and vascular risk factors. No association was observed between migraine with or without aura and white matter hyperintensity volume. Patients with migraine should not worry, because their risk of ischemic stroke is small, said the authors.

People who are exposed to paint, glue, or degreaser fumes at work may experience memory and thinking problems in retirement, according to a study published May 13 in Neurology. Researchers examined data for 2,143 retired utility workers who underwent cognitive testing in 2010. The authors assessed workers’ lifetime exposure to chlorinated solvents, petroleum solvents, and benzene using a job exposure matrix. Approximately 33% of participants were exposed to chlorinated solvents, 26% to benzene, and 25% to petroleum solvents. Workers highly exposed to chlorinated solvents were at risk of impairment on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, semantic fluency test, and the Trail Making Test B. Retirees at greatest risk for deficits had high lifetime exposure to solvents and were last exposed 12 to 30 years before testing.

Females susceptible to multiple sclerosis (MS) produce higher levels of the blood vessel receptor protein S1PR2 than males, according to data published online ahead of print May 8 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. S1PR2 is present at high levels in the brain areas that MS typically damages. Investigators studied a mouse model of MS and found increased activity of S1PR2, which opens up the blood–brain barrier. When the researchers tested brain tissue samples obtained from 20 human patients after death, they found more S1PR2 in patients with MS than in those without the disorder. Brain tissue from females also had higher levels of S1PR2, compared with male brain tissue. These findings may help explain why more women than men get the disease, said the authors.

The FDA has required the manufacturer of the sleep drug Lunesta (eszopiclone) to lower the recommended starting dose from 2 mg to 1 mg for men and women. Data show that eszopiclone levels in some patients may be high enough on the morning after treatment to impair activities that require alertness, including driving. The 1-mg dose, taken at bedtime, can be increased to 2 mg or 3 mg if needed, but the higher doses are more likely to result in next-day impairment. Using lower doses ensures that less drug will remain in the body during the morning hours. Patients currently taking the 2-mg and 3-mg doses of Lunesta should contact their health care professional to ask for instructions, according to the FDA.

The rate of visits to an emergency department (ED) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) increased by approximately 30% between 2006 and 2010, according to research published in the May 14 issue of JAMA. The increase may be attributable to various factors, including increased awareness and diagnoses, said the authors. The investigators examined data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample database to determine national trends in ED visits for TBI from 2006 through 2010. An estimated 2.5 million ED visits for TBI occurred in 2010, representing a 29% increase in the rate of visits for TBI during the study period. By comparison, total ED visits increased by 3.6%. Children younger than 3 and adults older than 60 had the largest increase in TBI rates.

The pathophysiologic biomarkers and the topographic markers of Alzheimer’s disease should be revised, according to a position paper by the International Working Group published in the June issue of Lancet Neurology. The group proposed that biomarkers of Alzheimer’s pathology be restricted to those indicating the presence of tau pathology (ie, CSF or PET tau) and amyloid pathology (ie, CSF or PET amyloid). These biomarkers are specific enough to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease at any point on the disease continuum, said the authors. Downstream topographic markers of brain regional structural and metabolic changes have insufficient pathologic specificity and should not be used in diagnosis, according to the researchers. Instead, these markers can be used to measure disease progression. The group also provided diagnostic criteria for atypical, mixed, and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease.

 

 

Prenatal supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) does not result in improved cognitive, problem-solving, or language abilities for children at age 4, according to the results of a trial published in the May 7 issue of JAMA. Investigators conducted longer-term follow-up from a previous study in which pregnant women received 800 mg/day of DHA or placebo. In the initial study, the researchers found that average cognitive, language, and motor scores did not differ between children at 18 months of age. Approximately 92% of eligible families participated in the follow-up study. The DHA group included 313 participants, and the control group included 333 participants. The investigators found that measures of cognition, the ability to perform complex mental processing, language, and executive functioning (eg, memory, reasoning, and problem solving) did not differ significantly between groups at age 4.

The FDA has informed Acorda Therapeutics that it has completed its review of the company’s new drug application for Plumiaz (diazepam) nasal spray and that the application cannot be approved in its present form. The drug was developed for the treatment of people with epilepsy who experience cluster seizures. Acorda Therapeutics is developing a response to address the items outlined in the letter. Based on the requirements for approval outlined in the letter, the company does not expect Plumiaz to receive FDA approval in 2014. Plumiaz previously received orphan drug designation for the treatment of cluster seizures. [For related news, see page 9.]

Older people with memory and thinking problems who do not have dementia may have a lower risk of dying from cancer than people who have no memory and thinking problems, according to a study published April 22 in Neurology. Researchers studied 2,627 people age 65 and older who did not have dementia at baseline. Participants underwent tests of memory and thinking skills at baseline and at three years. Follow-up lasted for an average of approximately 13 years. During the study, 1,003 participants died. About 34% of deaths occurred among patients with the fastest decline in thinking skills. Approximately 21% of participants in the group with the fastest decline in thinking skills died of cancer, compared with 29% of participants in the other two groups.

A new technique may predict with 95% accuracy which patients with stroke will benefit from IV t-PA and which will have potentially lethal bleeding in the brain, according to a study published online ahead of print May 15 in Stroke. Researchers used a computer program that shows physicians the amount of gadolinium, injected during an MRI scan, that has leaked into the brain tissue from surrounding blood vessels. By quantifying this damage in 75 patients with stroke, the researchers identified a threshold for determining how much leakage was dangerous. They applied this threshold to the records for the 75 patients to determine how well it would predict who had had a brain hemorrhage and who had not. The new test correctly predicted the outcome with 95% accuracy.

Freezing of gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease may correlate with poor quality of life, disease severity, apathy, and exposure to antimuscarinics, according to a study published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA Neurology. Investigators performed a cross-sectional survey of 672 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Patients with freezing of gait were identified as those with a score of 1 or greater on item 14 of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) in the on condition. Approximately 38% of patients reported freezing of gait during the on state, which was significantly related to lower quality of life scores. Freezing of gait was also correlated with longer disease duration, higher UPDRS parts II and III scores, apathy, and a higher levodopa equivalent daily dose.

Among college football players, concussion and years of football played may have a significant inverse relationship with hippocampal volume, according to research published May 14 in JAMA. Years of football experience also may correlate with slower reaction time. Investigators conducted a cross-sectional study of 25 college football players with a history of clinician-diagnosed concussion, 25 college football players without a history of concussion, and 25 nonfootball-playing, age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls. Players with and without a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes, compared with healthy controls. Players with a history of concussion had smaller hippocampal volumes than players without concussion. In both athlete groups, investigators found a statistically significant inverse relationship between left hippocampal volume and number of years of football played.

Deficiencies in hyaluronan can lead to spontaneous epileptic seizures, according to research published April 30 in the Journal of Neuroscience. In a multicenter study, investigators examined the role of hyaluronan using mutant mice deficient in each of the three hyaluronan synthase genes (ie, Has1, Has2, Has3). The mutant mice were prone to epileptic seizures. In Has3(-/-) mice, this phenotype likely results from a reduction in the size of the brain extracellular space (ECS), said the researchers. Among the three Has knockout models, seizures were most prevalent in Has3(-/-) mice, which also had the greatest hyaluronan reduction in the hippocampus. The results provide the first direct evidence for the physiologic role of hyaluronan in the regulation of ECS volume, according to the investigators.

 

 

Erik Greb

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(6)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 22(6)
Page Number
3-7
Page Number
3-7
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
New and Noteworthy Information—June 2014
Display Headline
New and Noteworthy Information—June 2014
Legacy Keywords
neurology reviews, erik greb, silent brain injury, lunesta, biomarkers, DHA
Legacy Keywords
neurology reviews, erik greb, silent brain injury, lunesta, biomarkers, DHA
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Hepatitis B screening recommended for high-risk patients

A ‘long overdue’ update
Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:37
Display Headline
Hepatitis B screening recommended for high-risk patients

Physicians should screen all asymptomatic but high-risk adolescents and adults for hepatitis B virus infection, according to an updated recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that was published online May 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Since the last USPSTF recommendation on HBV screening in 2004, which focused on the general population and didn’t advocate screening of this subset of patients, research has documented that antiviral treatment improves both intermediate outcomes such as virologic and histologic responses and long-term outcomes such as prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease.

Dr. Michael LeFevre

Given this effectiveness, along with the 98% sensitivity and specificity of HBV screening tests, the group has now issued a level B recommendation that high-risk patients be screened, said Dr. Michael L. LeFevre, chair of the USPSTF and professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and his associates.

High-risk patients include the following:

• People born in regions where the prevalence of HBV infection is 2% or greater, such as sub-Saharan Africa, central and southeast Asia, China, the Pacific Islands, and parts of Latin America. People born in these areas account for 47%-95% of the chronic HBV infection in the United States.

• American-born children of parents from these regions, who may not have been vaccinated in infancy.

• HIV-positive persons.

• IV-drug users.

• Household contacts of people with HBV infection.

• Men who have sex with men.

The updated USPSTF recommendations are in line with those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Institute of Medicine, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. The CDC additionally recommends HBV screening for blood, organ, or tissue donors; people with occupational or other exposure to infectious blood or body fluids; and patients receiving hemodialysis, cytotoxic therapy, or immunosuppressive therapy.

The USPSTF still does not recommend HBV screening for the general population. The prevalence of the infection is low in the U.S. general population, and most members of the general population who are infected with HBV do not develop the chronic form of the infection and do not develop complications like hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis. The potential harms of general screening, then, probably exceed the potential benefits, Dr. LeFevre and his associates noted (Ann Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1018]).

The USPSTF has separate recommendations regarding hepatitis B in pregnant women. These, along with the updated recommendations for high-risk patients, are available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.

The USPSTF is a voluntary group funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but otherwise independent of the federal government. Dr. LeFevre and his associates reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Body

These "long overdue" recommendations are "a dramatic and welcome upgrade from the 2004 USPSTF guidelines, which issued a grade D recommendation against screening asymptomatic persons for HBV infection," said Dr. Ruma Rajbhandari and Dr. Raymond T. Chung.

"Many would argue that the USPSTF should have endorsed screening for HBV infection in high-risk populations a decade ago," they wrote. The group lagged far behind the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases’ recommendations in 2001 and the CDC’s recommendations in 2005. "We may have thus missed an opportunity to screen many high-risk persons in the United States," Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung said.

The USPSTF update "would be more useful if they provided a clearer definition of the high-risk patient. ... We worry that busy generalist clinicians do not have the time to estimate their patients’ risks for HBV infection." Physicians may find it more helpful to look up the CDC’s table listing all the factors that render a patient high risk, they added.

Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung are with the liver center and gastrointestinal division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. They reported no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were taken from their editorial accompanying Dr. Lefevre’s report (Ann. Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1153]).

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
hepatitis B virus infection, USPSTF, HBV screening, antiviral treatment, virologic, histologic responses, hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, liver disease,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Body

These "long overdue" recommendations are "a dramatic and welcome upgrade from the 2004 USPSTF guidelines, which issued a grade D recommendation against screening asymptomatic persons for HBV infection," said Dr. Ruma Rajbhandari and Dr. Raymond T. Chung.

"Many would argue that the USPSTF should have endorsed screening for HBV infection in high-risk populations a decade ago," they wrote. The group lagged far behind the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases’ recommendations in 2001 and the CDC’s recommendations in 2005. "We may have thus missed an opportunity to screen many high-risk persons in the United States," Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung said.

The USPSTF update "would be more useful if they provided a clearer definition of the high-risk patient. ... We worry that busy generalist clinicians do not have the time to estimate their patients’ risks for HBV infection." Physicians may find it more helpful to look up the CDC’s table listing all the factors that render a patient high risk, they added.

Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung are with the liver center and gastrointestinal division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. They reported no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were taken from their editorial accompanying Dr. Lefevre’s report (Ann. Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1153]).

Body

These "long overdue" recommendations are "a dramatic and welcome upgrade from the 2004 USPSTF guidelines, which issued a grade D recommendation against screening asymptomatic persons for HBV infection," said Dr. Ruma Rajbhandari and Dr. Raymond T. Chung.

"Many would argue that the USPSTF should have endorsed screening for HBV infection in high-risk populations a decade ago," they wrote. The group lagged far behind the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases’ recommendations in 2001 and the CDC’s recommendations in 2005. "We may have thus missed an opportunity to screen many high-risk persons in the United States," Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung said.

The USPSTF update "would be more useful if they provided a clearer definition of the high-risk patient. ... We worry that busy generalist clinicians do not have the time to estimate their patients’ risks for HBV infection." Physicians may find it more helpful to look up the CDC’s table listing all the factors that render a patient high risk, they added.

Dr. Rajbhandari and Dr. Chung are with the liver center and gastrointestinal division at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. They reported no relevant conflicts of interest. These remarks were taken from their editorial accompanying Dr. Lefevre’s report (Ann. Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1153]).

Title
A ‘long overdue’ update
A ‘long overdue’ update

Physicians should screen all asymptomatic but high-risk adolescents and adults for hepatitis B virus infection, according to an updated recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that was published online May 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Since the last USPSTF recommendation on HBV screening in 2004, which focused on the general population and didn’t advocate screening of this subset of patients, research has documented that antiviral treatment improves both intermediate outcomes such as virologic and histologic responses and long-term outcomes such as prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease.

Dr. Michael LeFevre

Given this effectiveness, along with the 98% sensitivity and specificity of HBV screening tests, the group has now issued a level B recommendation that high-risk patients be screened, said Dr. Michael L. LeFevre, chair of the USPSTF and professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and his associates.

High-risk patients include the following:

• People born in regions where the prevalence of HBV infection is 2% or greater, such as sub-Saharan Africa, central and southeast Asia, China, the Pacific Islands, and parts of Latin America. People born in these areas account for 47%-95% of the chronic HBV infection in the United States.

• American-born children of parents from these regions, who may not have been vaccinated in infancy.

• HIV-positive persons.

• IV-drug users.

• Household contacts of people with HBV infection.

• Men who have sex with men.

The updated USPSTF recommendations are in line with those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Institute of Medicine, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. The CDC additionally recommends HBV screening for blood, organ, or tissue donors; people with occupational or other exposure to infectious blood or body fluids; and patients receiving hemodialysis, cytotoxic therapy, or immunosuppressive therapy.

The USPSTF still does not recommend HBV screening for the general population. The prevalence of the infection is low in the U.S. general population, and most members of the general population who are infected with HBV do not develop the chronic form of the infection and do not develop complications like hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis. The potential harms of general screening, then, probably exceed the potential benefits, Dr. LeFevre and his associates noted (Ann Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1018]).

The USPSTF has separate recommendations regarding hepatitis B in pregnant women. These, along with the updated recommendations for high-risk patients, are available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.

The USPSTF is a voluntary group funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but otherwise independent of the federal government. Dr. LeFevre and his associates reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Physicians should screen all asymptomatic but high-risk adolescents and adults for hepatitis B virus infection, according to an updated recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that was published online May 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Since the last USPSTF recommendation on HBV screening in 2004, which focused on the general population and didn’t advocate screening of this subset of patients, research has documented that antiviral treatment improves both intermediate outcomes such as virologic and histologic responses and long-term outcomes such as prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease.

Dr. Michael LeFevre

Given this effectiveness, along with the 98% sensitivity and specificity of HBV screening tests, the group has now issued a level B recommendation that high-risk patients be screened, said Dr. Michael L. LeFevre, chair of the USPSTF and professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and his associates.

High-risk patients include the following:

• People born in regions where the prevalence of HBV infection is 2% or greater, such as sub-Saharan Africa, central and southeast Asia, China, the Pacific Islands, and parts of Latin America. People born in these areas account for 47%-95% of the chronic HBV infection in the United States.

• American-born children of parents from these regions, who may not have been vaccinated in infancy.

• HIV-positive persons.

• IV-drug users.

• Household contacts of people with HBV infection.

• Men who have sex with men.

The updated USPSTF recommendations are in line with those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Institute of Medicine, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. The CDC additionally recommends HBV screening for blood, organ, or tissue donors; people with occupational or other exposure to infectious blood or body fluids; and patients receiving hemodialysis, cytotoxic therapy, or immunosuppressive therapy.

The USPSTF still does not recommend HBV screening for the general population. The prevalence of the infection is low in the U.S. general population, and most members of the general population who are infected with HBV do not develop the chronic form of the infection and do not develop complications like hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis. The potential harms of general screening, then, probably exceed the potential benefits, Dr. LeFevre and his associates noted (Ann Intern. Med. 2014 May 27 [doi:10.7326/M14-1018]).

The USPSTF has separate recommendations regarding hepatitis B in pregnant women. These, along with the updated recommendations for high-risk patients, are available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.

The USPSTF is a voluntary group funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but otherwise independent of the federal government. Dr. LeFevre and his associates reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Hepatitis B screening recommended for high-risk patients
Display Headline
Hepatitis B screening recommended for high-risk patients
Legacy Keywords
hepatitis B virus infection, USPSTF, HBV screening, antiviral treatment, virologic, histologic responses, hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, liver disease,
Legacy Keywords
hepatitis B virus infection, USPSTF, HBV screening, antiviral treatment, virologic, histologic responses, hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, liver disease,
Sections
Article Source

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: HBV screening is appropriate in all at-risk populations.

Major finding: Physicians should screen all adolescents and adults at high risk for HBV infection, including those born in regions where the virus is endemic, American-born children of such parents, household contacts of people with HBV, people with HIV, IV-drug users, and men who have sex with men.

Data source: A comprehensive review of the literature since 2004 regarding the benefits and harms of screening high-risk patients for HBV infection, and a compilation of recommendations for screening high-risk patients.

Disclosures: The USPSTF is a voluntary group funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but otherwise independent of the federal government. Dr. LeFevre and his associates reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Refugees struggle to access cancer treatment

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 05:00
Display Headline
Refugees struggle to access cancer treatment

Doctor with Syrian refugees

Credit: UK Department

for International Development

A new study published in The Lancet Oncology reveals a high demand for costly cancer treatment among refugees from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, with host countries struggling to find the money and medicine to treat their new patients.

The findings prompted a call from study author Paul Spiegel, MD, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Chief Medical Expert, for schemes to improve access to affordable cancer care for refugees.

In the first study of its kind, Dr Spiegel and his colleagues examined data from funding applications made to the UNHCR Exceptional Care Committee (ECC) from refugees in Jordan and Syria whose cancer treatment costs were likely to exceed US$2000 a year.

The results indicate that cancer is an important public health problem in refugee settings, the researchers said. The study also highlights the challenges and costs national health systems and humanitarian organizations face when overwhelmed by massive influxes of refugees.

For example, in Jordan, the ECC assessed 1989 applications for treatment between 2010 and 2012. Roughly a quarter of these (511) were for cancer, with breast cancer and colorectal cancer being the most common. Around half (48%) of these cases were approved and funded.

Funding was often denied because the patient had a poor prognosis (43% of cases in 2011 and 31% in 2012) or the treatment was too costly (25% in 2011). The average amount requested from the ECC for cancer treatment was $11,540 in 2011 and $5151 in 2012. However, the amounts approved were substantially lower—$4626 in 2011 and $3501 in 2012.

“The countries in the Middle East have welcomed millions of refugees, first from Iraq and then Syria,” Dr Spiegel said. “This massive influx has strained health systems at all levels. Despite help from international organizations and donors to expand health facilities and pay for additional personnel and drugs, it has been insufficient.”

“The burden has fallen disproportionately on the host countries to absorb the costs. For example, the Jordanian Ministry of Health footed an estimated $53 million bill for medical care for refugees in the first 4 months of 2013.”

Dr Spiegel and his colleagues are therefore calling for improved cancer prevention and treatment in refugee settings through the use of innovative financing schemes; better primary care, including screening for common cancers (eg, colonoscopies and mammograms); and the development of web-based cancer registries to prevent the interruption of treatment.

“Until now, the responses to humanitarian crises have been primarily based on experiences from refugee camps in sub-Saharan Africa where infectious diseases and malnutrition have been the priority,” Dr Spiegel said. “In the 21st century, refugee situations are substantially longer and increasingly occur in middle-income countries where the levels of chronic diseases, including cancer, are higher.”

“Cancer diagnosis and care in humanitarian emergencies typifies a growing trend towards more costly chronic disease care, something that seems to have been overlooked but is of increasing importance because the number of refugees is growing.”

Publications
Topics

Doctor with Syrian refugees

Credit: UK Department

for International Development

A new study published in The Lancet Oncology reveals a high demand for costly cancer treatment among refugees from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, with host countries struggling to find the money and medicine to treat their new patients.

The findings prompted a call from study author Paul Spiegel, MD, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Chief Medical Expert, for schemes to improve access to affordable cancer care for refugees.

In the first study of its kind, Dr Spiegel and his colleagues examined data from funding applications made to the UNHCR Exceptional Care Committee (ECC) from refugees in Jordan and Syria whose cancer treatment costs were likely to exceed US$2000 a year.

The results indicate that cancer is an important public health problem in refugee settings, the researchers said. The study also highlights the challenges and costs national health systems and humanitarian organizations face when overwhelmed by massive influxes of refugees.

For example, in Jordan, the ECC assessed 1989 applications for treatment between 2010 and 2012. Roughly a quarter of these (511) were for cancer, with breast cancer and colorectal cancer being the most common. Around half (48%) of these cases were approved and funded.

Funding was often denied because the patient had a poor prognosis (43% of cases in 2011 and 31% in 2012) or the treatment was too costly (25% in 2011). The average amount requested from the ECC for cancer treatment was $11,540 in 2011 and $5151 in 2012. However, the amounts approved were substantially lower—$4626 in 2011 and $3501 in 2012.

“The countries in the Middle East have welcomed millions of refugees, first from Iraq and then Syria,” Dr Spiegel said. “This massive influx has strained health systems at all levels. Despite help from international organizations and donors to expand health facilities and pay for additional personnel and drugs, it has been insufficient.”

“The burden has fallen disproportionately on the host countries to absorb the costs. For example, the Jordanian Ministry of Health footed an estimated $53 million bill for medical care for refugees in the first 4 months of 2013.”

Dr Spiegel and his colleagues are therefore calling for improved cancer prevention and treatment in refugee settings through the use of innovative financing schemes; better primary care, including screening for common cancers (eg, colonoscopies and mammograms); and the development of web-based cancer registries to prevent the interruption of treatment.

“Until now, the responses to humanitarian crises have been primarily based on experiences from refugee camps in sub-Saharan Africa where infectious diseases and malnutrition have been the priority,” Dr Spiegel said. “In the 21st century, refugee situations are substantially longer and increasingly occur in middle-income countries where the levels of chronic diseases, including cancer, are higher.”

“Cancer diagnosis and care in humanitarian emergencies typifies a growing trend towards more costly chronic disease care, something that seems to have been overlooked but is of increasing importance because the number of refugees is growing.”

Doctor with Syrian refugees

Credit: UK Department

for International Development

A new study published in The Lancet Oncology reveals a high demand for costly cancer treatment among refugees from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, with host countries struggling to find the money and medicine to treat their new patients.

The findings prompted a call from study author Paul Spiegel, MD, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Chief Medical Expert, for schemes to improve access to affordable cancer care for refugees.

In the first study of its kind, Dr Spiegel and his colleagues examined data from funding applications made to the UNHCR Exceptional Care Committee (ECC) from refugees in Jordan and Syria whose cancer treatment costs were likely to exceed US$2000 a year.

The results indicate that cancer is an important public health problem in refugee settings, the researchers said. The study also highlights the challenges and costs national health systems and humanitarian organizations face when overwhelmed by massive influxes of refugees.

For example, in Jordan, the ECC assessed 1989 applications for treatment between 2010 and 2012. Roughly a quarter of these (511) were for cancer, with breast cancer and colorectal cancer being the most common. Around half (48%) of these cases were approved and funded.

Funding was often denied because the patient had a poor prognosis (43% of cases in 2011 and 31% in 2012) or the treatment was too costly (25% in 2011). The average amount requested from the ECC for cancer treatment was $11,540 in 2011 and $5151 in 2012. However, the amounts approved were substantially lower—$4626 in 2011 and $3501 in 2012.

“The countries in the Middle East have welcomed millions of refugees, first from Iraq and then Syria,” Dr Spiegel said. “This massive influx has strained health systems at all levels. Despite help from international organizations and donors to expand health facilities and pay for additional personnel and drugs, it has been insufficient.”

“The burden has fallen disproportionately on the host countries to absorb the costs. For example, the Jordanian Ministry of Health footed an estimated $53 million bill for medical care for refugees in the first 4 months of 2013.”

Dr Spiegel and his colleagues are therefore calling for improved cancer prevention and treatment in refugee settings through the use of innovative financing schemes; better primary care, including screening for common cancers (eg, colonoscopies and mammograms); and the development of web-based cancer registries to prevent the interruption of treatment.

“Until now, the responses to humanitarian crises have been primarily based on experiences from refugee camps in sub-Saharan Africa where infectious diseases and malnutrition have been the priority,” Dr Spiegel said. “In the 21st century, refugee situations are substantially longer and increasingly occur in middle-income countries where the levels of chronic diseases, including cancer, are higher.”

“Cancer diagnosis and care in humanitarian emergencies typifies a growing trend towards more costly chronic disease care, something that seems to have been overlooked but is of increasing importance because the number of refugees is growing.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Refugees struggle to access cancer treatment
Display Headline
Refugees struggle to access cancer treatment
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Study explains why pneumococcal vaccines fall short in SCD

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/26/2014 - 05:00
Display Headline
Study explains why pneumococcal vaccines fall short in SCD

Doctor examines SCD patient

Credit: St Jude Children’s

Research Hospital

A new study reveals differences in the pneumococcal genome that explain why current vaccines do not sufficiently protect children with sickle cell disease (SCD) from pneumococcal infections.

Researchers performed whole-genome sequencing of hundreds of pneumococcal bacteria collected from healthy subjects and patients with SCD.

The team found that disease-causing strains of the bacteria differed between the 2 groups.

And the pneumococcal strains from the SCD patients differed from the 13 pneumococcal strains included in the current vaccine recommended for children age 5 and younger.

“The results help explain why current vaccines haven’t been as successful at protecting children with sickle cell disease from pneumococcal infections as they have in protecting other children,” said Joshua Wolf, MD, of St Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

Dr Wolf and his colleagues detailed these results in Cell Host & Microbe.

The researchers had compared the genomes of 322 pneumococcal bacteria collected from SCD patients between 1994 and 2011 to DNA from 327 strains obtained from individuals without SCD.

The analysis revealed that, over time, the genomes of bacteria isolated from SCD patients shrank, as genes and the corresponding DNA were discarded or combined. The changes reflected bacterial adaptation to the SCD host and contributed to the bacteria’s ability to persist despite advances in preventive care.

The researchers then used transposon sequencing to compare the bacterial fitness of pneumococcal genes in mice with and without SCD. This revealed 60 genes whose transposon disruption resulted in fitness differences between the 2 types of mice.

So the bacteria faced different conditions in animals with and without SCD. The bloodstream of normal mice was a more hostile environment for pneumococcal bacteria than the bloodstream of mice with SCD.

When the researchers evaluated the aforementioned 60 genes in bacteria isolated from SCD patients, they found 6 that were missing or altered in a significant percentage of samples (P<0.05). This included SP0511, SP0946, SP1032, SP1449, SP1483, and SP1835.

These genes are involved in transporting iron into bacteria, bacterial metabolism, and other processes that are likely altered in patients with SCD.

“We demonstrated that genes necessary to cause disease in the general public are expendable in patients with sickle cell disease,” said study author Jason Rosch, PhD, also of St Jude.

The researchers believe these findings will aid efforts to improve vaccine effectiveness and inform research into new ways to protect young SCD patients from life-threatening pneumococcal infections that can lead to pneumonia, meningitis, bloodstream infections, and other problems.

Publications
Topics

Doctor examines SCD patient

Credit: St Jude Children’s

Research Hospital

A new study reveals differences in the pneumococcal genome that explain why current vaccines do not sufficiently protect children with sickle cell disease (SCD) from pneumococcal infections.

Researchers performed whole-genome sequencing of hundreds of pneumococcal bacteria collected from healthy subjects and patients with SCD.

The team found that disease-causing strains of the bacteria differed between the 2 groups.

And the pneumococcal strains from the SCD patients differed from the 13 pneumococcal strains included in the current vaccine recommended for children age 5 and younger.

“The results help explain why current vaccines haven’t been as successful at protecting children with sickle cell disease from pneumococcal infections as they have in protecting other children,” said Joshua Wolf, MD, of St Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

Dr Wolf and his colleagues detailed these results in Cell Host & Microbe.

The researchers had compared the genomes of 322 pneumococcal bacteria collected from SCD patients between 1994 and 2011 to DNA from 327 strains obtained from individuals without SCD.

The analysis revealed that, over time, the genomes of bacteria isolated from SCD patients shrank, as genes and the corresponding DNA were discarded or combined. The changes reflected bacterial adaptation to the SCD host and contributed to the bacteria’s ability to persist despite advances in preventive care.

The researchers then used transposon sequencing to compare the bacterial fitness of pneumococcal genes in mice with and without SCD. This revealed 60 genes whose transposon disruption resulted in fitness differences between the 2 types of mice.

So the bacteria faced different conditions in animals with and without SCD. The bloodstream of normal mice was a more hostile environment for pneumococcal bacteria than the bloodstream of mice with SCD.

When the researchers evaluated the aforementioned 60 genes in bacteria isolated from SCD patients, they found 6 that were missing or altered in a significant percentage of samples (P<0.05). This included SP0511, SP0946, SP1032, SP1449, SP1483, and SP1835.

These genes are involved in transporting iron into bacteria, bacterial metabolism, and other processes that are likely altered in patients with SCD.

“We demonstrated that genes necessary to cause disease in the general public are expendable in patients with sickle cell disease,” said study author Jason Rosch, PhD, also of St Jude.

The researchers believe these findings will aid efforts to improve vaccine effectiveness and inform research into new ways to protect young SCD patients from life-threatening pneumococcal infections that can lead to pneumonia, meningitis, bloodstream infections, and other problems.

Doctor examines SCD patient

Credit: St Jude Children’s

Research Hospital

A new study reveals differences in the pneumococcal genome that explain why current vaccines do not sufficiently protect children with sickle cell disease (SCD) from pneumococcal infections.

Researchers performed whole-genome sequencing of hundreds of pneumococcal bacteria collected from healthy subjects and patients with SCD.

The team found that disease-causing strains of the bacteria differed between the 2 groups.

And the pneumococcal strains from the SCD patients differed from the 13 pneumococcal strains included in the current vaccine recommended for children age 5 and younger.

“The results help explain why current vaccines haven’t been as successful at protecting children with sickle cell disease from pneumococcal infections as they have in protecting other children,” said Joshua Wolf, MD, of St Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

Dr Wolf and his colleagues detailed these results in Cell Host & Microbe.

The researchers had compared the genomes of 322 pneumococcal bacteria collected from SCD patients between 1994 and 2011 to DNA from 327 strains obtained from individuals without SCD.

The analysis revealed that, over time, the genomes of bacteria isolated from SCD patients shrank, as genes and the corresponding DNA were discarded or combined. The changes reflected bacterial adaptation to the SCD host and contributed to the bacteria’s ability to persist despite advances in preventive care.

The researchers then used transposon sequencing to compare the bacterial fitness of pneumococcal genes in mice with and without SCD. This revealed 60 genes whose transposon disruption resulted in fitness differences between the 2 types of mice.

So the bacteria faced different conditions in animals with and without SCD. The bloodstream of normal mice was a more hostile environment for pneumococcal bacteria than the bloodstream of mice with SCD.

When the researchers evaluated the aforementioned 60 genes in bacteria isolated from SCD patients, they found 6 that were missing or altered in a significant percentage of samples (P<0.05). This included SP0511, SP0946, SP1032, SP1449, SP1483, and SP1835.

These genes are involved in transporting iron into bacteria, bacterial metabolism, and other processes that are likely altered in patients with SCD.

“We demonstrated that genes necessary to cause disease in the general public are expendable in patients with sickle cell disease,” said study author Jason Rosch, PhD, also of St Jude.

The researchers believe these findings will aid efforts to improve vaccine effectiveness and inform research into new ways to protect young SCD patients from life-threatening pneumococcal infections that can lead to pneumonia, meningitis, bloodstream infections, and other problems.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Study explains why pneumococcal vaccines fall short in SCD
Display Headline
Study explains why pneumococcal vaccines fall short in SCD
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica