Just because elderly patients are having regular checkups does not necessarily mean they are receiving needed preventive services. For individuals who are ages 65 and older, such services include vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia, screenings for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, and screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers.¹

Recently analyzed state and national data for a cluster of 5 of these services indicate that fewer than 41% of men and 32.5% of women ages 65 and older were up to date.² Time constraints on health care providers and a lack of knowledge about guidelines are perhaps 2 of the biggest barriers to widespread provision of disease prevention services. In this study we extended an earlier analysis and examined, for individuals 65 years of age and older, the association between having a recent checkup and being up to date on a cluster of recommended preventive services. We also propose steps that will likely be needed to increase receipt of preventive services.

Methods

Data source
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), conducts annual state-based telephone surveys of noninstitutionalized US adults ages 18 years or older concerning health practices.³ We used data from 2006 BRFSS participants ages 65 years or older at the time they participated (32,243 male respondents and 58,762 female respondents). All results were based on weighted data that accounted for different probabilities of selection and were adjusted to reflect the population distribution in each state by age and sex, or by age, race, and sex.

Respondents queried about preventive services
We analyzed responses to BRFSS questions about the receipt of clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all adults ages 65 or older.* Services included colorectal cancer screening, influenza immunization, pneumococcal immunization, and, for women, mammography and the Papanicolaou (Pap) test. The USPSTF grades these measures* as A or B, meaning it finds “good” or at least “fair” evidence that a service improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.⁴ Questions about these services were asked in all 50 states in 2006.

*The recommendations and grading systems discussed here reflect those that were in place in 2006. There have been changes to both since this study was conducted.

Cardiovascular services excluded. The BRFSS has not asked questions about hypertension screening since 1999, when more than 95% of older adults reported they had their blood pressure checked in the past 2 years.⁵ Questions about cholesterol screening were not asked in all states in 2006 and were not incorporated into the composite measure. However, analysis from a prior study suggests that including cholesterol screening levels in such a composite measure would not have made a large difference in the percentage of older Americans up to date on all services.²

Were scheduled intervals for services met? Adults could meet the recommendation for colorectal cancer screening by either having a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 1 year or colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy within 10 years. The USPSTF and other national guidelines recommend a 5-year interval for sigmoidoscopy and a 10-year interval for colonoscopy.^6,7 However, no direct evidence has determined the optimal interval for either test,⁸ and the BRFSS question did not distinguish between the 2 interventions. Because either FOBT or endoscopy satisfies screening recommendations, we did not exclude respondents with missing values for 1 test if they had the other test within the recommended interval.

Other services and recommended intervals were pneumococcal vaccination (ever), influenza vaccination (in past year), and, for women, mammogram (within 2 years) and Pap test (within 3 years).

Assigning Yes or No to responses. If respondents had never received a particular preventive service or had received it outside the interval recommended by the USPSTF,⁴ we included them in the group answering No. We eliminated 3324 men and 6295 women with missing values for 1 or more measures.

Final determination of being “up to date.” After noting how many of the recommended services each individual had received according to age and sex, we dichotomized the sample according to whether all recommendations had been met—3 clinical preventive services for men 65 years and older (colorectal cancer screening, influenza, and pneumonia vaccination) and 5 for women (adding mammography and Pap test), with a single exception. Because Pap testing is often reported only for women with an intact cervix,⁹ we excused the lack of a Pap test for women who had undergone hysterectomy (47% of all women ages 65+, or 27,243). We required only that they meet 4 clinical preventive services to be considered up to date. A prior study revealed that excluding the Pap test entirely from the up-to-date measure for women 65 years and older had a minimal effect on up-to-date rates (34.2% when excluding the Pap test vs 32.5% including the Pap test).¹⁰

One of the strengths of the up-to-date measure is that it assesses the proportion of those fully up to date and thus allows for variability within subgroups, such as women who have had hysterectomies, without eliminating them arbitrarily from the sample.

Additional participant characteristics. We divided respondents into 4 racial/ethnic categories based on responses to BRFSS questions: White (non-Hispanic); Black (non-Hispanic); Hispanic of any race; or “Other” (American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and individuals of other or multiple race categories). Age categories were 65 to 69 years, 70 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, or >80 years. Education categories: less than high school, high school graduate or general equivalency diploma recipient, some college, or college graduate. We further dichotomized the sample according to marital status, having 1 or more personal health care providers (vs none), and health status (fair/poor or good/very good/excellent). Given the amount of missing data (20%), household income was not included in the analysis.

Quantifying health care access. We created a measure of health care access using 3 factors:

• health insurance (“Do you have any kind of health care coverage, including health insurance, prepaid plans such as HMOs, or government plans such as Medicare?”)
• one or more personal health care providers (see above)
• no cost barrier to seeing a doctor (“Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost?”).

To measure relative health care access, we scored each of the above items 1 for affirmative or 0 for negative. The sum (0, 1, 2, or 3) represented level of access. Lower numbers indicated more barriers and higher numbers represented greater access. Because only 48 older men and 59 older women had total scores of 0, the lower 2 levels were combined and the resulting 3 levels were termed “low” (0 & 1), “medium” (2) and “high” (3) access. Two of the measures used for health care access were also used to define 3 mutually exclusive health insurance categories: uninsured, fully insured, and underinsured (insured but reporting a cost barrier).²

We determined whether a routine checkup had occurred in the past 2 years by asking, “About how long has it been since you last visited a doctor for a routine checkup? A routine checkup is a general physical exam, not an exam for a specific injury, illness, or condition.”

Statistical analysis
We conducted statistical analysis using Stata, version 9.0 (Stata Corp; College Station, Tex). We used Pearson chi-square tests to determine whether selected demographic factors were associated with being up to date on all recommended services. We also used Stata in a logistic regression analysis to control simultaneously for age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance coverage, health care access, having one or more personal health care providers, having a routine checkup within 2 years, current smoking, and health status. We computed odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each variable in the model.

Results

Most adults ages 65 years and older were fully insured, had a personal health care provider, and reported no cost barrier to seeing a doctor in the past year (TABLE 1). Breaking out these measures into 3 levels of relative health care access, 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women were at the highest level. More than 90% of respondents reported having a routine checkup in the past 2 years. More than 60% reported receiving each of the separate immunizations and cancer screenings recommended for their age and sex, and almost all had received at least 1 service.

TABLE 2 shows the prevalence of being up to date by demographic group. Only 42.6% of all older men and 35.2% of all older women were up to date, with rates marginally better for those with high access to care (45.1% for men, 37% for women) or those reporting a recent routine checkup (44.8% for men, 36.8% for women). Low access to care yielded dramatically worse up-to-date rates (14.8% for men, 9.1% for women). Similarly, those reporting no recent routine checkup had poor up-to-date rates (20.5% for men, 15.4% for women). The highest rates of being up to date belonged to those with a college degree (49% for men, 42.1% for women). Higher rates were also found among the oldest age groups.

Results of the logistic regression analysis are shown in TABLE 3. Among men and women, being up to date was more likely for those who were older, married, better educated, had high access to health care, and had had a routine checkup in the past 2 years. The latter 2 groups had the highest odds ratios of all groups in the model. Less likely to be up to date were those who were Black, Hispanic, or of a race other than white, those who smoked cigarettes, and (for men) those who were in good or better health. For women, health status had no effect on being up to date.

Table 1
Characteristics of US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Table 2
Prevalence of being up to date* by demographic characteristics, US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

TABLE 3
Results of multiple logistic regression modeling* for being up to date^†for cancer screening and adult immunization, by sex and demographic characteristics: 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, adults ≥65 years

Discussion

The key finding in this study is that, although most adults ages 65 and older had high access to health care and recent routine checkups, their rates of being up to date with a recommended cluster of preventive services were only about 45% for men and 37% for women.

More than 91% of men and 93% of women reported they had a routine checkup during this timeframe, and 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women also reported they had high access to health care—ie, they had health insurance, at least 1 personal health care provider, and no cost barrier to seeing a doctor. Improving access to health care or increasing the use of routine medical checkups—even to 100%—would likely have a negligible impact on the delivery of recommended services. Despite the very modest composite delivery rates of recommended preventive services in this group, the rates were still 2 to 4 times higher than those of adults with low health care access or no recent routine checkup.

We also found that being up to date generally improves with age. Granted, there is uncertainty as to the appropriate age at which to stop specific screenings. And very elderly Americans may be receiving some services no longer of benefit. But the significance of our finding is that composite delivery rates were lowest among adults at the age for which broad consensus says services are beneficial. For example, the up-to-date rates for men and women ages 65 to 69 were 32% and 29.8%, respectively, compared with 48.7% and 40.2% for adults ages 75 to 79 (TABLE 2).

Our findings are consistent with research documenting inadequate time to incorporate preventive services into the typical office visit.^11,12 Similar barriers have been identified by general practitioners in the United Kingdom.^13,14 The time constraint is particularly consequential in high-volume primary care practices.¹⁵ Some investigations have calculated the actual or necessary time needed to deliver multiple recommended prevention and health promotion services and have found the requirement to be unrealistically high.^16-20 Our study suggests that increased access to and use of health care services is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving high up-to-date levels.

To improve up-to-date rates, likely actions will include more efficient use of office time, increased reliance on nonphysician clinicians, greater use of electronic medical records, and prioritizing services for a routine checkup. External policy changes, such as pay-for-performance, may also enhance preventive service delivery rates. We hope that, in time, the composite measure used in this analysis will be adopted by both primary care clinicians and public health practitioners in the same way that tracking composite children’s vaccination levels are helpful to family practitioners, pediatricians, and local health departments. However, there is probably no easy answer; even the prompts enabled by electronic medical records are useless when ignored by providers.²¹ Improving delivery of preventive services in office settings will require multiple strategies sustained over many years.²²

Community-based efforts. There is a strong rationale for a more determined policy to expand community-based access. Many community-based approaches to individual preventive services have been developed over the last 10 years.²³ For example, the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program represents one model of a state-based program that can make local assistance available for uninsured women.²⁴ In addition, an evidence-based model developed by the nonprofit agency SPARC (Sickness Prevention Achieved through Regional Collaboration) suggests ways of creating community-based points of access for multiple preventive services.^25-27

Questions still unanswered. Although BRFSS data suggest older adults are regularly receiving “routine checkups,” it is not clear what kind of intervention this refers to beyond its nonacute nature. What characterizes routine checkups in patients’ minds, and how might such visits be limited as venues for providing preventive services? Furthermore, what are the characteristics of providers associated with different types of checkup services? How do primary care providers differ from subspecialists in the kinds of preventive services they provide? Answers to these questions have important implications for physician training and for targeted outreach to subspecialty groups. From a community standpoint, it would be helpful to know if there are specific untapped opportunities for delivering preventive services, particularly in underserved and minority communities where coverage rates are very low.

This study’s limitations. Because the BRFSS relies on self-reports, our findings are subject to various biases, including “telescoping,”²⁸ the tendency of people to remember events as having occurred more recently than they actually did.²⁹ Moreover, because BRFSS surveys exclude people in households without telephones (who are more likely to be poor and thus also less likely to have access to health care and preventive services), our estimates may be slightly higher than the true rates.³⁰ People with cell phone service only were not sampled; however, this had little impact on estimates for older adults, since just an estimated 2.2% use cell phones exclusively.³¹ People in institutions, such as nursing homes, which account for 3% to 4% of adults 65 and older were also excluded.³²

The strength of this study is that, based on a large sample of randomly selected respondents, it is the first report on the adoption of clinical preventive services in all states in relation to the use of routine checkups and a composite measure. However, as noted in the methods, although the interviewer provided a definition for the term routine checkup, the description may have been interpreted differently by survey respondents.

The provider’s office and medical home should remain at the center of a national strategy to increase the delivery of these services, but expanding these efforts to include community access is critical to improving overall rates of preventive services. We need more determined and strategic collaborations between medicine and public health that will facilitate access to, and use of, preventive services for all Americans.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Douglas Shenson, MD, MPH, 76 Prince Street, Newton, MA 02465; [email protected]

Just because elderly patients are having regular checkups does not necessarily mean they are receiving needed preventive services. For individuals who are ages 65 and older, such services include vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia, screenings for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, and screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers.¹

Recently analyzed state and national data for a cluster of 5 of these services indicate that fewer than 41% of men and 32.5% of women ages 65 and older were up to date.² Time constraints on health care providers and a lack of knowledge about guidelines are perhaps 2 of the biggest barriers to widespread provision of disease prevention services. In this study we extended an earlier analysis and examined, for individuals 65 years of age and older, the association between having a recent checkup and being up to date on a cluster of recommended preventive services. We also propose steps that will likely be needed to increase receipt of preventive services.

Methods

Data source
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), conducts annual state-based telephone surveys of noninstitutionalized US adults ages 18 years or older concerning health practices.³ We used data from 2006 BRFSS participants ages 65 years or older at the time they participated (32,243 male respondents and 58,762 female respondents). All results were based on weighted data that accounted for different probabilities of selection and were adjusted to reflect the population distribution in each state by age and sex, or by age, race, and sex.

Respondents queried about preventive services
We analyzed responses to BRFSS questions about the receipt of clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all adults ages 65 or older.* Services included colorectal cancer screening, influenza immunization, pneumococcal immunization, and, for women, mammography and the Papanicolaou (Pap) test. The USPSTF grades these measures* as A or B, meaning it finds “good” or at least “fair” evidence that a service improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.⁴ Questions about these services were asked in all 50 states in 2006.

*The recommendations and grading systems discussed here reflect those that were in place in 2006. There have been changes to both since this study was conducted.

Cardiovascular services excluded. The BRFSS has not asked questions about hypertension screening since 1999, when more than 95% of older adults reported they had their blood pressure checked in the past 2 years.⁵ Questions about cholesterol screening were not asked in all states in 2006 and were not incorporated into the composite measure. However, analysis from a prior study suggests that including cholesterol screening levels in such a composite measure would not have made a large difference in the percentage of older Americans up to date on all services.²

Were scheduled intervals for services met? Adults could meet the recommendation for colorectal cancer screening by either having a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 1 year or colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy within 10 years. The USPSTF and other national guidelines recommend a 5-year interval for sigmoidoscopy and a 10-year interval for colonoscopy.^6,7 However, no direct evidence has determined the optimal interval for either test,⁸ and the BRFSS question did not distinguish between the 2 interventions. Because either FOBT or endoscopy satisfies screening recommendations, we did not exclude respondents with missing values for 1 test if they had the other test within the recommended interval.

Other services and recommended intervals were pneumococcal vaccination (ever), influenza vaccination (in past year), and, for women, mammogram (within 2 years) and Pap test (within 3 years).

Assigning Yes or No to responses. If respondents had never received a particular preventive service or had received it outside the interval recommended by the USPSTF,⁴ we included them in the group answering No. We eliminated 3324 men and 6295 women with missing values for 1 or more measures.

Final determination of being “up to date.” After noting how many of the recommended services each individual had received according to age and sex, we dichotomized the sample according to whether all recommendations had been met—3 clinical preventive services for men 65 years and older (colorectal cancer screening, influenza, and pneumonia vaccination) and 5 for women (adding mammography and Pap test), with a single exception. Because Pap testing is often reported only for women with an intact cervix,⁹ we excused the lack of a Pap test for women who had undergone hysterectomy (47% of all women ages 65+, or 27,243). We required only that they meet 4 clinical preventive services to be considered up to date. A prior study revealed that excluding the Pap test entirely from the up-to-date measure for women 65 years and older had a minimal effect on up-to-date rates (34.2% when excluding the Pap test vs 32.5% including the Pap test).¹⁰

One of the strengths of the up-to-date measure is that it assesses the proportion of those fully up to date and thus allows for variability within subgroups, such as women who have had hysterectomies, without eliminating them arbitrarily from the sample.

Additional participant characteristics. We divided respondents into 4 racial/ethnic categories based on responses to BRFSS questions: White (non-Hispanic); Black (non-Hispanic); Hispanic of any race; or “Other” (American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and individuals of other or multiple race categories). Age categories were 65 to 69 years, 70 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, or >80 years. Education categories: less than high school, high school graduate or general equivalency diploma recipient, some college, or college graduate. We further dichotomized the sample according to marital status, having 1 or more personal health care providers (vs none), and health status (fair/poor or good/very good/excellent). Given the amount of missing data (20%), household income was not included in the analysis.

Quantifying health care access. We created a measure of health care access using 3 factors:

• health insurance (“Do you have any kind of health care coverage, including health insurance, prepaid plans such as HMOs, or government plans such as Medicare?”)
• one or more personal health care providers (see above)
• no cost barrier to seeing a doctor (“Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost?”).

To measure relative health care access, we scored each of the above items 1 for affirmative or 0 for negative. The sum (0, 1, 2, or 3) represented level of access. Lower numbers indicated more barriers and higher numbers represented greater access. Because only 48 older men and 59 older women had total scores of 0, the lower 2 levels were combined and the resulting 3 levels were termed “low” (0 & 1), “medium” (2) and “high” (3) access. Two of the measures used for health care access were also used to define 3 mutually exclusive health insurance categories: uninsured, fully insured, and underinsured (insured but reporting a cost barrier).²

We determined whether a routine checkup had occurred in the past 2 years by asking, “About how long has it been since you last visited a doctor for a routine checkup? A routine checkup is a general physical exam, not an exam for a specific injury, illness, or condition.”

Statistical analysis
We conducted statistical analysis using Stata, version 9.0 (Stata Corp; College Station, Tex). We used Pearson chi-square tests to determine whether selected demographic factors were associated with being up to date on all recommended services. We also used Stata in a logistic regression analysis to control simultaneously for age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance coverage, health care access, having one or more personal health care providers, having a routine checkup within 2 years, current smoking, and health status. We computed odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each variable in the model.

Results

Most adults ages 65 years and older were fully insured, had a personal health care provider, and reported no cost barrier to seeing a doctor in the past year (TABLE 1). Breaking out these measures into 3 levels of relative health care access, 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women were at the highest level. More than 90% of respondents reported having a routine checkup in the past 2 years. More than 60% reported receiving each of the separate immunizations and cancer screenings recommended for their age and sex, and almost all had received at least 1 service.

TABLE 2 shows the prevalence of being up to date by demographic group. Only 42.6% of all older men and 35.2% of all older women were up to date, with rates marginally better for those with high access to care (45.1% for men, 37% for women) or those reporting a recent routine checkup (44.8% for men, 36.8% for women). Low access to care yielded dramatically worse up-to-date rates (14.8% for men, 9.1% for women). Similarly, those reporting no recent routine checkup had poor up-to-date rates (20.5% for men, 15.4% for women). The highest rates of being up to date belonged to those with a college degree (49% for men, 42.1% for women). Higher rates were also found among the oldest age groups.

Results of the logistic regression analysis are shown in TABLE 3. Among men and women, being up to date was more likely for those who were older, married, better educated, had high access to health care, and had had a routine checkup in the past 2 years. The latter 2 groups had the highest odds ratios of all groups in the model. Less likely to be up to date were those who were Black, Hispanic, or of a race other than white, those who smoked cigarettes, and (for men) those who were in good or better health. For women, health status had no effect on being up to date.

Table 1
Characteristics of US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Table 2
Prevalence of being up to date* by demographic characteristics, US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

TABLE 3
Results of multiple logistic regression modeling* for being up to date^†for cancer screening and adult immunization, by sex and demographic characteristics: 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, adults ≥65 years

Discussion

The key finding in this study is that, although most adults ages 65 and older had high access to health care and recent routine checkups, their rates of being up to date with a recommended cluster of preventive services were only about 45% for men and 37% for women.

More than 91% of men and 93% of women reported they had a routine checkup during this timeframe, and 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women also reported they had high access to health care—ie, they had health insurance, at least 1 personal health care provider, and no cost barrier to seeing a doctor. Improving access to health care or increasing the use of routine medical checkups—even to 100%—would likely have a negligible impact on the delivery of recommended services. Despite the very modest composite delivery rates of recommended preventive services in this group, the rates were still 2 to 4 times higher than those of adults with low health care access or no recent routine checkup.

We also found that being up to date generally improves with age. Granted, there is uncertainty as to the appropriate age at which to stop specific screenings. And very elderly Americans may be receiving some services no longer of benefit. But the significance of our finding is that composite delivery rates were lowest among adults at the age for which broad consensus says services are beneficial. For example, the up-to-date rates for men and women ages 65 to 69 were 32% and 29.8%, respectively, compared with 48.7% and 40.2% for adults ages 75 to 79 (TABLE 2).

Our findings are consistent with research documenting inadequate time to incorporate preventive services into the typical office visit.^11,12 Similar barriers have been identified by general practitioners in the United Kingdom.^13,14 The time constraint is particularly consequential in high-volume primary care practices.¹⁵ Some investigations have calculated the actual or necessary time needed to deliver multiple recommended prevention and health promotion services and have found the requirement to be unrealistically high.^16-20 Our study suggests that increased access to and use of health care services is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving high up-to-date levels.

To improve up-to-date rates, likely actions will include more efficient use of office time, increased reliance on nonphysician clinicians, greater use of electronic medical records, and prioritizing services for a routine checkup. External policy changes, such as pay-for-performance, may also enhance preventive service delivery rates. We hope that, in time, the composite measure used in this analysis will be adopted by both primary care clinicians and public health practitioners in the same way that tracking composite children’s vaccination levels are helpful to family practitioners, pediatricians, and local health departments. However, there is probably no easy answer; even the prompts enabled by electronic medical records are useless when ignored by providers.²¹ Improving delivery of preventive services in office settings will require multiple strategies sustained over many years.²²

Community-based efforts. There is a strong rationale for a more determined policy to expand community-based access. Many community-based approaches to individual preventive services have been developed over the last 10 years.²³ For example, the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program represents one model of a state-based program that can make local assistance available for uninsured women.²⁴ In addition, an evidence-based model developed by the nonprofit agency SPARC (Sickness Prevention Achieved through Regional Collaboration) suggests ways of creating community-based points of access for multiple preventive services.^25-27

Questions still unanswered. Although BRFSS data suggest older adults are regularly receiving “routine checkups,” it is not clear what kind of intervention this refers to beyond its nonacute nature. What characterizes routine checkups in patients’ minds, and how might such visits be limited as venues for providing preventive services? Furthermore, what are the characteristics of providers associated with different types of checkup services? How do primary care providers differ from subspecialists in the kinds of preventive services they provide? Answers to these questions have important implications for physician training and for targeted outreach to subspecialty groups. From a community standpoint, it would be helpful to know if there are specific untapped opportunities for delivering preventive services, particularly in underserved and minority communities where coverage rates are very low.

This study’s limitations. Because the BRFSS relies on self-reports, our findings are subject to various biases, including “telescoping,”²⁸ the tendency of people to remember events as having occurred more recently than they actually did.²⁹ Moreover, because BRFSS surveys exclude people in households without telephones (who are more likely to be poor and thus also less likely to have access to health care and preventive services), our estimates may be slightly higher than the true rates.³⁰ People with cell phone service only were not sampled; however, this had little impact on estimates for older adults, since just an estimated 2.2% use cell phones exclusively.³¹ People in institutions, such as nursing homes, which account for 3% to 4% of adults 65 and older were also excluded.³²

The strength of this study is that, based on a large sample of randomly selected respondents, it is the first report on the adoption of clinical preventive services in all states in relation to the use of routine checkups and a composite measure. However, as noted in the methods, although the interviewer provided a definition for the term routine checkup, the description may have been interpreted differently by survey respondents.

The provider’s office and medical home should remain at the center of a national strategy to increase the delivery of these services, but expanding these efforts to include community access is critical to improving overall rates of preventive services. We need more determined and strategic collaborations between medicine and public health that will facilitate access to, and use of, preventive services for all Americans.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Douglas Shenson, MD, MPH, 76 Prince Street, Newton, MA 02465; [email protected]

Just because elderly patients are having regular checkups does not necessarily mean they are receiving needed preventive services. For individuals who are ages 65 and older, such services include vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia, screenings for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, and screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers.¹

Recently analyzed state and national data for a cluster of 5 of these services indicate that fewer than 41% of men and 32.5% of women ages 65 and older were up to date.² Time constraints on health care providers and a lack of knowledge about guidelines are perhaps 2 of the biggest barriers to widespread provision of disease prevention services. In this study we extended an earlier analysis and examined, for individuals 65 years of age and older, the association between having a recent checkup and being up to date on a cluster of recommended preventive services. We also propose steps that will likely be needed to increase receipt of preventive services.

Methods

Data source
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), conducts annual state-based telephone surveys of noninstitutionalized US adults ages 18 years or older concerning health practices.³ We used data from 2006 BRFSS participants ages 65 years or older at the time they participated (32,243 male respondents and 58,762 female respondents). All results were based on weighted data that accounted for different probabilities of selection and were adjusted to reflect the population distribution in each state by age and sex, or by age, race, and sex.

Respondents queried about preventive services
We analyzed responses to BRFSS questions about the receipt of clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all adults ages 65 or older.* Services included colorectal cancer screening, influenza immunization, pneumococcal immunization, and, for women, mammography and the Papanicolaou (Pap) test. The USPSTF grades these measures* as A or B, meaning it finds “good” or at least “fair” evidence that a service improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.⁴ Questions about these services were asked in all 50 states in 2006.

*The recommendations and grading systems discussed here reflect those that were in place in 2006. There have been changes to both since this study was conducted.

Cardiovascular services excluded. The BRFSS has not asked questions about hypertension screening since 1999, when more than 95% of older adults reported they had their blood pressure checked in the past 2 years.⁵ Questions about cholesterol screening were not asked in all states in 2006 and were not incorporated into the composite measure. However, analysis from a prior study suggests that including cholesterol screening levels in such a composite measure would not have made a large difference in the percentage of older Americans up to date on all services.²

Were scheduled intervals for services met? Adults could meet the recommendation for colorectal cancer screening by either having a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 1 year or colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy within 10 years. The USPSTF and other national guidelines recommend a 5-year interval for sigmoidoscopy and a 10-year interval for colonoscopy.^6,7 However, no direct evidence has determined the optimal interval for either test,⁸ and the BRFSS question did not distinguish between the 2 interventions. Because either FOBT or endoscopy satisfies screening recommendations, we did not exclude respondents with missing values for 1 test if they had the other test within the recommended interval.

Other services and recommended intervals were pneumococcal vaccination (ever), influenza vaccination (in past year), and, for women, mammogram (within 2 years) and Pap test (within 3 years).

Assigning Yes or No to responses. If respondents had never received a particular preventive service or had received it outside the interval recommended by the USPSTF,⁴ we included them in the group answering No. We eliminated 3324 men and 6295 women with missing values for 1 or more measures.

Final determination of being “up to date.” After noting how many of the recommended services each individual had received according to age and sex, we dichotomized the sample according to whether all recommendations had been met—3 clinical preventive services for men 65 years and older (colorectal cancer screening, influenza, and pneumonia vaccination) and 5 for women (adding mammography and Pap test), with a single exception. Because Pap testing is often reported only for women with an intact cervix,⁹ we excused the lack of a Pap test for women who had undergone hysterectomy (47% of all women ages 65+, or 27,243). We required only that they meet 4 clinical preventive services to be considered up to date. A prior study revealed that excluding the Pap test entirely from the up-to-date measure for women 65 years and older had a minimal effect on up-to-date rates (34.2% when excluding the Pap test vs 32.5% including the Pap test).¹⁰

One of the strengths of the up-to-date measure is that it assesses the proportion of those fully up to date and thus allows for variability within subgroups, such as women who have had hysterectomies, without eliminating them arbitrarily from the sample.

Additional participant characteristics. We divided respondents into 4 racial/ethnic categories based on responses to BRFSS questions: White (non-Hispanic); Black (non-Hispanic); Hispanic of any race; or “Other” (American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and individuals of other or multiple race categories). Age categories were 65 to 69 years, 70 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, or >80 years. Education categories: less than high school, high school graduate or general equivalency diploma recipient, some college, or college graduate. We further dichotomized the sample according to marital status, having 1 or more personal health care providers (vs none), and health status (fair/poor or good/very good/excellent). Given the amount of missing data (20%), household income was not included in the analysis.

Quantifying health care access. We created a measure of health care access using 3 factors:

• health insurance (“Do you have any kind of health care coverage, including health insurance, prepaid plans such as HMOs, or government plans such as Medicare?”)
• one or more personal health care providers (see above)
• no cost barrier to seeing a doctor (“Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost?”).

To measure relative health care access, we scored each of the above items 1 for affirmative or 0 for negative. The sum (0, 1, 2, or 3) represented level of access. Lower numbers indicated more barriers and higher numbers represented greater access. Because only 48 older men and 59 older women had total scores of 0, the lower 2 levels were combined and the resulting 3 levels were termed “low” (0 & 1), “medium” (2) and “high” (3) access. Two of the measures used for health care access were also used to define 3 mutually exclusive health insurance categories: uninsured, fully insured, and underinsured (insured but reporting a cost barrier).²

We determined whether a routine checkup had occurred in the past 2 years by asking, “About how long has it been since you last visited a doctor for a routine checkup? A routine checkup is a general physical exam, not an exam for a specific injury, illness, or condition.”

Statistical analysis
We conducted statistical analysis using Stata, version 9.0 (Stata Corp; College Station, Tex). We used Pearson chi-square tests to determine whether selected demographic factors were associated with being up to date on all recommended services. We also used Stata in a logistic regression analysis to control simultaneously for age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance coverage, health care access, having one or more personal health care providers, having a routine checkup within 2 years, current smoking, and health status. We computed odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each variable in the model.

Results

Most adults ages 65 years and older were fully insured, had a personal health care provider, and reported no cost barrier to seeing a doctor in the past year (TABLE 1). Breaking out these measures into 3 levels of relative health care access, 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women were at the highest level. More than 90% of respondents reported having a routine checkup in the past 2 years. More than 60% reported receiving each of the separate immunizations and cancer screenings recommended for their age and sex, and almost all had received at least 1 service.

TABLE 2 shows the prevalence of being up to date by demographic group. Only 42.6% of all older men and 35.2% of all older women were up to date, with rates marginally better for those with high access to care (45.1% for men, 37% for women) or those reporting a recent routine checkup (44.8% for men, 36.8% for women). Low access to care yielded dramatically worse up-to-date rates (14.8% for men, 9.1% for women). Similarly, those reporting no recent routine checkup had poor up-to-date rates (20.5% for men, 15.4% for women). The highest rates of being up to date belonged to those with a college degree (49% for men, 42.1% for women). Higher rates were also found among the oldest age groups.

Results of the logistic regression analysis are shown in TABLE 3. Among men and women, being up to date was more likely for those who were older, married, better educated, had high access to health care, and had had a routine checkup in the past 2 years. The latter 2 groups had the highest odds ratios of all groups in the model. Less likely to be up to date were those who were Black, Hispanic, or of a race other than white, those who smoked cigarettes, and (for men) those who were in good or better health. For women, health status had no effect on being up to date.

Table 1
Characteristics of US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Table 2
Prevalence of being up to date* by demographic characteristics, US adults ≥65 years, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

TABLE 3
Results of multiple logistic regression modeling* for being up to date^†for cancer screening and adult immunization, by sex and demographic characteristics: 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, adults ≥65 years

Discussion

The key finding in this study is that, although most adults ages 65 and older had high access to health care and recent routine checkups, their rates of being up to date with a recommended cluster of preventive services were only about 45% for men and 37% for women.

More than 91% of men and 93% of women reported they had a routine checkup during this timeframe, and 88.6% of men and 90.2% of women also reported they had high access to health care—ie, they had health insurance, at least 1 personal health care provider, and no cost barrier to seeing a doctor. Improving access to health care or increasing the use of routine medical checkups—even to 100%—would likely have a negligible impact on the delivery of recommended services. Despite the very modest composite delivery rates of recommended preventive services in this group, the rates were still 2 to 4 times higher than those of adults with low health care access or no recent routine checkup.

We also found that being up to date generally improves with age. Granted, there is uncertainty as to the appropriate age at which to stop specific screenings. And very elderly Americans may be receiving some services no longer of benefit. But the significance of our finding is that composite delivery rates were lowest among adults at the age for which broad consensus says services are beneficial. For example, the up-to-date rates for men and women ages 65 to 69 were 32% and 29.8%, respectively, compared with 48.7% and 40.2% for adults ages 75 to 79 (TABLE 2).

Our findings are consistent with research documenting inadequate time to incorporate preventive services into the typical office visit.^11,12 Similar barriers have been identified by general practitioners in the United Kingdom.^13,14 The time constraint is particularly consequential in high-volume primary care practices.¹⁵ Some investigations have calculated the actual or necessary time needed to deliver multiple recommended prevention and health promotion services and have found the requirement to be unrealistically high.^16-20 Our study suggests that increased access to and use of health care services is a necessary but insufficient condition for achieving high up-to-date levels.

To improve up-to-date rates, likely actions will include more efficient use of office time, increased reliance on nonphysician clinicians, greater use of electronic medical records, and prioritizing services for a routine checkup. External policy changes, such as pay-for-performance, may also enhance preventive service delivery rates. We hope that, in time, the composite measure used in this analysis will be adopted by both primary care clinicians and public health practitioners in the same way that tracking composite children’s vaccination levels are helpful to family practitioners, pediatricians, and local health departments. However, there is probably no easy answer; even the prompts enabled by electronic medical records are useless when ignored by providers.²¹ Improving delivery of preventive services in office settings will require multiple strategies sustained over many years.²²

Community-based efforts. There is a strong rationale for a more determined policy to expand community-based access. Many community-based approaches to individual preventive services have been developed over the last 10 years.²³ For example, the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program represents one model of a state-based program that can make local assistance available for uninsured women.²⁴ In addition, an evidence-based model developed by the nonprofit agency SPARC (Sickness Prevention Achieved through Regional Collaboration) suggests ways of creating community-based points of access for multiple preventive services.^25-27

Questions still unanswered. Although BRFSS data suggest older adults are regularly receiving “routine checkups,” it is not clear what kind of intervention this refers to beyond its nonacute nature. What characterizes routine checkups in patients’ minds, and how might such visits be limited as venues for providing preventive services? Furthermore, what are the characteristics of providers associated with different types of checkup services? How do primary care providers differ from subspecialists in the kinds of preventive services they provide? Answers to these questions have important implications for physician training and for targeted outreach to subspecialty groups. From a community standpoint, it would be helpful to know if there are specific untapped opportunities for delivering preventive services, particularly in underserved and minority communities where coverage rates are very low.

This study’s limitations. Because the BRFSS relies on self-reports, our findings are subject to various biases, including “telescoping,”²⁸ the tendency of people to remember events as having occurred more recently than they actually did.²⁹ Moreover, because BRFSS surveys exclude people in households without telephones (who are more likely to be poor and thus also less likely to have access to health care and preventive services), our estimates may be slightly higher than the true rates.³⁰ People with cell phone service only were not sampled; however, this had little impact on estimates for older adults, since just an estimated 2.2% use cell phones exclusively.³¹ People in institutions, such as nursing homes, which account for 3% to 4% of adults 65 and older were also excluded.³²

The strength of this study is that, based on a large sample of randomly selected respondents, it is the first report on the adoption of clinical preventive services in all states in relation to the use of routine checkups and a composite measure. However, as noted in the methods, although the interviewer provided a definition for the term routine checkup, the description may have been interpreted differently by survey respondents.

The provider’s office and medical home should remain at the center of a national strategy to increase the delivery of these services, but expanding these efforts to include community access is critical to improving overall rates of preventive services. We need more determined and strategic collaborations between medicine and public health that will facilitate access to, and use of, preventive services for all Americans.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Douglas Shenson, MD, MPH, 76 Prince Street, Newton, MA 02465; [email protected]

The basic function of a suicide assessment is to identify fixed and modifiable risk factors for suicide and existing or amendable protective factors.¹ Epidemiologic studies have defined a range of suicide risk and protective factors for the general population.² Other research has delineated suicide risk and protective factors for individuals with specific psychiatric disorders.³ The presence of disorder-specific risk and protective factors for suicide must be identified during suicide risk assessment.

Risk factors

Lack of support from family, peers, or the community is a critical concern. Noncompliance with treatment may be associated with onset of suicidality. Help-seeking is impeded by stigma associated with suicide and shame for past attempts. History of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse is tied to subsequent suicidal behavior. Alcohol abuse plays a role in suicide. Many patients who attempt suicide have backgrounds involving suicide loss or attempts by family members. Recurring psychiatric symptoms—particularly depression, anxiety, and panic—can trigger suicidality. Symptom relapse may lead to hospitalization, which is followed by a high-risk period after discharge.

These suicide risk factors can be summarized by the mnemonic UNSAFE:

Unconnected—no support; sense of not belonging or being a burden

Nonadherence—unmanaged mental illness or co-occurring disorders

Stigma/shame related to past attempts or suicidal behavior

Abuse history and/or alcohol misuse; prior attempt

Family history of suicide or suicide attempts

Exacerbations—worsened mental illness, hospitalizations

Protective factors

The presence of a personal crisis or safety self-help plan shows patient insight. Maintaining prescribed treatment indicates a patient’s likelihood of complying with clinical and self-care measures to avert future suicidality. Accessible support from family, peers, and the community demonstrates social integration. The recovery concept promotes these factors as well as wellness and resilience. Awareness of the warning signs of suicide and personal risk factors and precipitants is essential for self-help and help-seeking.

Protective factors for suicide can be summarized by the mnemonic SAFER:

Self-help skills, personal crisis/suicide prevention plan

Adherence to treatment plan

Family and community support

Education about risk factors, warning signs, and triggers for suicide

Recovery and resilience

In our emergency psychiatric facility the UNSAFE and SAFE mnemonics are posted next to the desk of the on-duty psychiatrist. Crisis center staff use these mnemonics to screen patients during psychiatric evaluations. Allied therapists use them during in-patient psychoeducation about suicidality. Peer specialists use them to help patients prepare personal safety plans.

Disclosure

The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.

These mnemonics were developed by Tony Salvatore in consultation with Rocio Nell, MD, CPE.

The basic function of a suicide assessment is to identify fixed and modifiable risk factors for suicide and existing or amendable protective factors.¹ Epidemiologic studies have defined a range of suicide risk and protective factors for the general population.² Other research has delineated suicide risk and protective factors for individuals with specific psychiatric disorders.³ The presence of disorder-specific risk and protective factors for suicide must be identified during suicide risk assessment.

Risk factors

Lack of support from family, peers, or the community is a critical concern. Noncompliance with treatment may be associated with onset of suicidality. Help-seeking is impeded by stigma associated with suicide and shame for past attempts. History of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse is tied to subsequent suicidal behavior. Alcohol abuse plays a role in suicide. Many patients who attempt suicide have backgrounds involving suicide loss or attempts by family members. Recurring psychiatric symptoms—particularly depression, anxiety, and panic—can trigger suicidality. Symptom relapse may lead to hospitalization, which is followed by a high-risk period after discharge.

These suicide risk factors can be summarized by the mnemonic UNSAFE:

Unconnected—no support; sense of not belonging or being a burden

Nonadherence—unmanaged mental illness or co-occurring disorders

Stigma/shame related to past attempts or suicidal behavior

Abuse history and/or alcohol misuse; prior attempt

Family history of suicide or suicide attempts

Exacerbations—worsened mental illness, hospitalizations

Protective factors

The presence of a personal crisis or safety self-help plan shows patient insight. Maintaining prescribed treatment indicates a patient’s likelihood of complying with clinical and self-care measures to avert future suicidality. Accessible support from family, peers, and the community demonstrates social integration. The recovery concept promotes these factors as well as wellness and resilience. Awareness of the warning signs of suicide and personal risk factors and precipitants is essential for self-help and help-seeking.

Protective factors for suicide can be summarized by the mnemonic SAFER:

Self-help skills, personal crisis/suicide prevention plan

Adherence to treatment plan

Family and community support

Education about risk factors, warning signs, and triggers for suicide

Recovery and resilience

In our emergency psychiatric facility the UNSAFE and SAFE mnemonics are posted next to the desk of the on-duty psychiatrist. Crisis center staff use these mnemonics to screen patients during psychiatric evaluations. Allied therapists use them during in-patient psychoeducation about suicidality. Peer specialists use them to help patients prepare personal safety plans.

Disclosure

The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.

These mnemonics were developed by Tony Salvatore in consultation with Rocio Nell, MD, CPE.

The basic function of a suicide assessment is to identify fixed and modifiable risk factors for suicide and existing or amendable protective factors.¹ Epidemiologic studies have defined a range of suicide risk and protective factors for the general population.² Other research has delineated suicide risk and protective factors for individuals with specific psychiatric disorders.³ The presence of disorder-specific risk and protective factors for suicide must be identified during suicide risk assessment.

Risk factors

Lack of support from family, peers, or the community is a critical concern. Noncompliance with treatment may be associated with onset of suicidality. Help-seeking is impeded by stigma associated with suicide and shame for past attempts. History of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse is tied to subsequent suicidal behavior. Alcohol abuse plays a role in suicide. Many patients who attempt suicide have backgrounds involving suicide loss or attempts by family members. Recurring psychiatric symptoms—particularly depression, anxiety, and panic—can trigger suicidality. Symptom relapse may lead to hospitalization, which is followed by a high-risk period after discharge.

These suicide risk factors can be summarized by the mnemonic UNSAFE:

Unconnected—no support; sense of not belonging or being a burden

Nonadherence—unmanaged mental illness or co-occurring disorders

Stigma/shame related to past attempts or suicidal behavior

Abuse history and/or alcohol misuse; prior attempt

Family history of suicide or suicide attempts

Exacerbations—worsened mental illness, hospitalizations

Protective factors

The presence of a personal crisis or safety self-help plan shows patient insight. Maintaining prescribed treatment indicates a patient’s likelihood of complying with clinical and self-care measures to avert future suicidality. Accessible support from family, peers, and the community demonstrates social integration. The recovery concept promotes these factors as well as wellness and resilience. Awareness of the warning signs of suicide and personal risk factors and precipitants is essential for self-help and help-seeking.

Protective factors for suicide can be summarized by the mnemonic SAFER:

Self-help skills, personal crisis/suicide prevention plan

Adherence to treatment plan

Family and community support

Education about risk factors, warning signs, and triggers for suicide

Recovery and resilience

In our emergency psychiatric facility the UNSAFE and SAFE mnemonics are posted next to the desk of the on-duty psychiatrist. Crisis center staff use these mnemonics to screen patients during psychiatric evaluations. Allied therapists use them during in-patient psychoeducation about suicidality. Peer specialists use them to help patients prepare personal safety plans.

Disclosure

The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufactures of competing products.

These mnemonics were developed by Tony Salvatore in consultation with Rocio Nell, MD, CPE.

Adolescents value confidentiality with their health care clinicians very highly. To support the opportunity for confidentiality, you should speak with female adolescents without a parent in the room for at least part of each visit. This fosters an honest conversation about the sensitive issues around contraception, including any intimate relationships, current or planned sexual activity, and the safety and protection afforded by contraception.

Girls are allowed to discuss sexually transmitted infections confidentially with their physicians, and hopefully can be offered a confidential discussion of their sexual activity as well. Ideally, a girl also feels comfortable talking with a parent about her concerns, but this scenario may not be an option for all your patients.

Begin with a discussion about relationships. Avoid preaching to them or asking blunt questions such as: “Hey, are you having sex?” Acknowledge that “sex” can refer to activities beyond sexual intercourse as well.

Ask your patients if they are in a relationship with a girl, a boy, or both. A teenager who is not heterosexual or is unsure will then know you are willing to discuss any specific concerns.

Make sure the teenager knows that abstinence is always the best protection against sexually transmitted infection and/or pregnancy.

Once you ascertain she is heterosexual or bisexual, is sexually active, and needs contraception, focus next on safety. Ask the patient: Are you doing anything to protect yourself against the consequences of sexual activity? Also ensure her participation in the intimate relationship is voluntary and free of any coercion, particularly among younger teenage girls.

There are multiple means of protection against sexually transmitted infections. Educate her that, aside from abstinence, the use of condoms is her best strategy. Make sure the girl understands that she is equally responsible for the proper use of condoms. If you take care of a lot of adolescents, it is reasonable to have a supply of condoms on hand so you can provide them.

Also consider providing a patient who is sexually active (or contemplating sexual activity) with a prescription for emergency, postcoital contraception. She could fill the prescription as needed, within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, to decrease the likelihood of pregnancy considerably. Even if she regularly uses a birth control method, this prescription provides a good backup plan.

Keep the child's developmental level in mind when discussing contraception and sexuality. In general, a 14-year-old girl who is sexually active or considering sex is vastly different from a 17-year-old patient. Also consider the patient and family's culture, ethnic, and/or religious background. For example, there are some religious groups where the kids cannot tell parents they have become sexually active – it could mortify the parents and be dangerous for the teenager.

Title X–funded projects are an option if a girl cannot tell her parent she wants to use contraception and/or if a third party (such as an insurance company) makes confidentiality impossible. Become familiar with the Title X–funded contraception projects in your area, which are frequently run through Planned Parenthood or a university obstetrics and gynecology program (www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

You really should get to the point where you feel moderately comfortable talking about the basics of contraception and sexuality. There are not enough adolescent medicine specialists in the world to take care of all the teenagers out there, and most ob. gyns. do not see very many teenagers.

Some pediatricians may be comfortable prescribing the birth control pill, but they may not know much about the patch, the contraceptive ring, the implant, or the IUD. If a patient is interested in one of these options, you can refer her to a gynecologist or a family practitioner in your area who is particularly adept at young women's health issues. Planned Parenthood also is a good resource.

The birth control pill and the patch are the two most common birth control methods for first-time users. You do not need to know all the different types of birth control pills; it is sufficient to become comfortable prescribing one or two brands.

Check for any contraindications, such as a history of migraine headache with aura or a clotting abnormality (personal or in a first-degree relative) before prescribing oral contraception. If your patient is having regular, monthly periods, and she's had a period in the last month, some pediatricians still will feel comfortable prescribing only if they get a urine pregnancy test. On the other hand, if you give contraception without the test and the girl does miss her next period, you can always give the pregnancy test then.

If you prescribe contraception for sexual activity only, keep in mind that most teenagers have a passionate relationship that lasts a few months, followed by an interval without a relationship, followed by involvement with another person. These intermittent relationships mean that they are likely to start and stop contraception. Keep this in mind when discussing contraception options and monitor compliance with less-permanent options over time.

Children's Hospital of Boston produces www.youngwomenshealth.orgwww.acog.org/publications/patient_education/ab020.cfmaappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;120/5/1135

Adolescents value confidentiality with their health care clinicians very highly. To support the opportunity for confidentiality, you should speak with female adolescents without a parent in the room for at least part of each visit. This fosters an honest conversation about the sensitive issues around contraception, including any intimate relationships, current or planned sexual activity, and the safety and protection afforded by contraception.

Girls are allowed to discuss sexually transmitted infections confidentially with their physicians, and hopefully can be offered a confidential discussion of their sexual activity as well. Ideally, a girl also feels comfortable talking with a parent about her concerns, but this scenario may not be an option for all your patients.

Begin with a discussion about relationships. Avoid preaching to them or asking blunt questions such as: “Hey, are you having sex?” Acknowledge that “sex” can refer to activities beyond sexual intercourse as well.

Ask your patients if they are in a relationship with a girl, a boy, or both. A teenager who is not heterosexual or is unsure will then know you are willing to discuss any specific concerns.

Make sure the teenager knows that abstinence is always the best protection against sexually transmitted infection and/or pregnancy.

Once you ascertain she is heterosexual or bisexual, is sexually active, and needs contraception, focus next on safety. Ask the patient: Are you doing anything to protect yourself against the consequences of sexual activity? Also ensure her participation in the intimate relationship is voluntary and free of any coercion, particularly among younger teenage girls.

There are multiple means of protection against sexually transmitted infections. Educate her that, aside from abstinence, the use of condoms is her best strategy. Make sure the girl understands that she is equally responsible for the proper use of condoms. If you take care of a lot of adolescents, it is reasonable to have a supply of condoms on hand so you can provide them.

Also consider providing a patient who is sexually active (or contemplating sexual activity) with a prescription for emergency, postcoital contraception. She could fill the prescription as needed, within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, to decrease the likelihood of pregnancy considerably. Even if she regularly uses a birth control method, this prescription provides a good backup plan.

Keep the child's developmental level in mind when discussing contraception and sexuality. In general, a 14-year-old girl who is sexually active or considering sex is vastly different from a 17-year-old patient. Also consider the patient and family's culture, ethnic, and/or religious background. For example, there are some religious groups where the kids cannot tell parents they have become sexually active – it could mortify the parents and be dangerous for the teenager.

Title X–funded projects are an option if a girl cannot tell her parent she wants to use contraception and/or if a third party (such as an insurance company) makes confidentiality impossible. Become familiar with the Title X–funded contraception projects in your area, which are frequently run through Planned Parenthood or a university obstetrics and gynecology program (www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

You really should get to the point where you feel moderately comfortable talking about the basics of contraception and sexuality. There are not enough adolescent medicine specialists in the world to take care of all the teenagers out there, and most ob. gyns. do not see very many teenagers.

Some pediatricians may be comfortable prescribing the birth control pill, but they may not know much about the patch, the contraceptive ring, the implant, or the IUD. If a patient is interested in one of these options, you can refer her to a gynecologist or a family practitioner in your area who is particularly adept at young women's health issues. Planned Parenthood also is a good resource.

The birth control pill and the patch are the two most common birth control methods for first-time users. You do not need to know all the different types of birth control pills; it is sufficient to become comfortable prescribing one or two brands.

Check for any contraindications, such as a history of migraine headache with aura or a clotting abnormality (personal or in a first-degree relative) before prescribing oral contraception. If your patient is having regular, monthly periods, and she's had a period in the last month, some pediatricians still will feel comfortable prescribing only if they get a urine pregnancy test. On the other hand, if you give contraception without the test and the girl does miss her next period, you can always give the pregnancy test then.

If you prescribe contraception for sexual activity only, keep in mind that most teenagers have a passionate relationship that lasts a few months, followed by an interval without a relationship, followed by involvement with another person. These intermittent relationships mean that they are likely to start and stop contraception. Keep this in mind when discussing contraception options and monitor compliance with less-permanent options over time.

Children's Hospital of Boston produces www.youngwomenshealth.orgwww.acog.org/publications/patient_education/ab020.cfmaappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;120/5/1135

Adolescents value confidentiality with their health care clinicians very highly. To support the opportunity for confidentiality, you should speak with female adolescents without a parent in the room for at least part of each visit. This fosters an honest conversation about the sensitive issues around contraception, including any intimate relationships, current or planned sexual activity, and the safety and protection afforded by contraception.

Girls are allowed to discuss sexually transmitted infections confidentially with their physicians, and hopefully can be offered a confidential discussion of their sexual activity as well. Ideally, a girl also feels comfortable talking with a parent about her concerns, but this scenario may not be an option for all your patients.

Begin with a discussion about relationships. Avoid preaching to them or asking blunt questions such as: “Hey, are you having sex?” Acknowledge that “sex” can refer to activities beyond sexual intercourse as well.

Ask your patients if they are in a relationship with a girl, a boy, or both. A teenager who is not heterosexual or is unsure will then know you are willing to discuss any specific concerns.

Make sure the teenager knows that abstinence is always the best protection against sexually transmitted infection and/or pregnancy.

Once you ascertain she is heterosexual or bisexual, is sexually active, and needs contraception, focus next on safety. Ask the patient: Are you doing anything to protect yourself against the consequences of sexual activity? Also ensure her participation in the intimate relationship is voluntary and free of any coercion, particularly among younger teenage girls.

There are multiple means of protection against sexually transmitted infections. Educate her that, aside from abstinence, the use of condoms is her best strategy. Make sure the girl understands that she is equally responsible for the proper use of condoms. If you take care of a lot of adolescents, it is reasonable to have a supply of condoms on hand so you can provide them.

Also consider providing a patient who is sexually active (or contemplating sexual activity) with a prescription for emergency, postcoital contraception. She could fill the prescription as needed, within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, to decrease the likelihood of pregnancy considerably. Even if she regularly uses a birth control method, this prescription provides a good backup plan.

Keep the child's developmental level in mind when discussing contraception and sexuality. In general, a 14-year-old girl who is sexually active or considering sex is vastly different from a 17-year-old patient. Also consider the patient and family's culture, ethnic, and/or religious background. For example, there are some religious groups where the kids cannot tell parents they have become sexually active – it could mortify the parents and be dangerous for the teenager.

Title X–funded projects are an option if a girl cannot tell her parent she wants to use contraception and/or if a third party (such as an insurance company) makes confidentiality impossible. Become familiar with the Title X–funded contraception projects in your area, which are frequently run through Planned Parenthood or a university obstetrics and gynecology program (www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

You really should get to the point where you feel moderately comfortable talking about the basics of contraception and sexuality. There are not enough adolescent medicine specialists in the world to take care of all the teenagers out there, and most ob. gyns. do not see very many teenagers.

Some pediatricians may be comfortable prescribing the birth control pill, but they may not know much about the patch, the contraceptive ring, the implant, or the IUD. If a patient is interested in one of these options, you can refer her to a gynecologist or a family practitioner in your area who is particularly adept at young women's health issues. Planned Parenthood also is a good resource.

The birth control pill and the patch are the two most common birth control methods for first-time users. You do not need to know all the different types of birth control pills; it is sufficient to become comfortable prescribing one or two brands.

Check for any contraindications, such as a history of migraine headache with aura or a clotting abnormality (personal or in a first-degree relative) before prescribing oral contraception. If your patient is having regular, monthly periods, and she's had a period in the last month, some pediatricians still will feel comfortable prescribing only if they get a urine pregnancy test. On the other hand, if you give contraception without the test and the girl does miss her next period, you can always give the pregnancy test then.

If you prescribe contraception for sexual activity only, keep in mind that most teenagers have a passionate relationship that lasts a few months, followed by an interval without a relationship, followed by involvement with another person. These intermittent relationships mean that they are likely to start and stop contraception. Keep this in mind when discussing contraception options and monitor compliance with less-permanent options over time.

Children's Hospital of Boston produces www.youngwomenshealth.orgwww.acog.org/publications/patient_education/ab020.cfmaappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;120/5/1135

Pneumonia is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by hospitalists, if not the most common, and its presentation continues to become more complicated, says Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. Dr. Flanders has published on pneumonia (J Hosp Med. 2006;1(3):177-190), and this past fall he gave presentations on the subject at hospitalist conferences in San Francisco and Chicago—with a particular emphasis on how to prevent its recurrence in hospitalized patients at risk.

“The causative agents for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) evolve over time,” even though the actual source of a hospitalized patient’s pneumonia may never be known, says Dr. Flanders, past president of SHM. The swine flu (H1N1) and community-acquired MRSA “are two examples of etiologic agents that were not even a consideration five years ago—and now are something hospitalists have to be aware of, understand, and recognize that they can cause pneumonia in patients who are admitted to the hospital from the community,” he says. “They need to be considered as potential etiologic agents first and foremost, because the treatments for them differ from usual empiric pneumonia treatments.

There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs. Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.

—Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, SHM past president

“As hospitalists, we spend a lot of time trying to think what we can do to prevent recurrent pneumonia episodes in our patients and looking for what could have caused the initial incident,” Dr. Flanders says. “Pneumococcal vaccination is not as good as we’d like it to be in preventing recurrent pneumonia. We have to look to see if there’s anything else we can do to help prevent it.”

One simple step is to review the patient’s medication list, see if proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for reducing gastric acid or antipsychotic medications are on the list, then ask whether they can be discontinued; both treatments are associated in the medical literature with higher rates of pneumonia recurrence. Patients often receive PPIs for empiric prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU, a risk that might have ceased.

“There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs,” Dr. Flanders explains. “Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.”

Dr. Flanders also points out hospitalists should keep an eye out for antipsychotic medications. “Many patients absolutely need these medications and are functional because they are on them,” he says. “We’d never consider stopping them for those patients. But some patients get them started for episodes of delirium in the hospital that have resolved or to enhance their sleep. I’d strongly recommend considering stopping them in that case.”

By contrast, statin use might improve outcomes associated with pneumonia.

Antibiotic selection is another big issue, and Dr. Flanders says hospitalists will be judged by how closely they stick to the recommended treatment guidelines. “They should be familiar with what the guidelines recommend, and recognize the types of variables they need to document if they are going to deviate from the recommendations,” he says. The evidence also says to stop routinely treating pneumonia with antibiotics beyond seven days, he adds.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer based in Oakland, Calif. 

Pneumonia is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by hospitalists, if not the most common, and its presentation continues to become more complicated, says Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. Dr. Flanders has published on pneumonia (J Hosp Med. 2006;1(3):177-190), and this past fall he gave presentations on the subject at hospitalist conferences in San Francisco and Chicago—with a particular emphasis on how to prevent its recurrence in hospitalized patients at risk.

“The causative agents for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) evolve over time,” even though the actual source of a hospitalized patient’s pneumonia may never be known, says Dr. Flanders, past president of SHM. The swine flu (H1N1) and community-acquired MRSA “are two examples of etiologic agents that were not even a consideration five years ago—and now are something hospitalists have to be aware of, understand, and recognize that they can cause pneumonia in patients who are admitted to the hospital from the community,” he says. “They need to be considered as potential etiologic agents first and foremost, because the treatments for them differ from usual empiric pneumonia treatments.

There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs. Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.

—Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, SHM past president

“As hospitalists, we spend a lot of time trying to think what we can do to prevent recurrent pneumonia episodes in our patients and looking for what could have caused the initial incident,” Dr. Flanders says. “Pneumococcal vaccination is not as good as we’d like it to be in preventing recurrent pneumonia. We have to look to see if there’s anything else we can do to help prevent it.”

One simple step is to review the patient’s medication list, see if proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for reducing gastric acid or antipsychotic medications are on the list, then ask whether they can be discontinued; both treatments are associated in the medical literature with higher rates of pneumonia recurrence. Patients often receive PPIs for empiric prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU, a risk that might have ceased.

“There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs,” Dr. Flanders explains. “Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.”

Dr. Flanders also points out hospitalists should keep an eye out for antipsychotic medications. “Many patients absolutely need these medications and are functional because they are on them,” he says. “We’d never consider stopping them for those patients. But some patients get them started for episodes of delirium in the hospital that have resolved or to enhance their sleep. I’d strongly recommend considering stopping them in that case.”

By contrast, statin use might improve outcomes associated with pneumonia.

Antibiotic selection is another big issue, and Dr. Flanders says hospitalists will be judged by how closely they stick to the recommended treatment guidelines. “They should be familiar with what the guidelines recommend, and recognize the types of variables they need to document if they are going to deviate from the recommendations,” he says. The evidence also says to stop routinely treating pneumonia with antibiotics beyond seven days, he adds.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer based in Oakland, Calif. 

Pneumonia is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by hospitalists, if not the most common, and its presentation continues to become more complicated, says Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. Dr. Flanders has published on pneumonia (J Hosp Med. 2006;1(3):177-190), and this past fall he gave presentations on the subject at hospitalist conferences in San Francisco and Chicago—with a particular emphasis on how to prevent its recurrence in hospitalized patients at risk.

“The causative agents for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) evolve over time,” even though the actual source of a hospitalized patient’s pneumonia may never be known, says Dr. Flanders, past president of SHM. The swine flu (H1N1) and community-acquired MRSA “are two examples of etiologic agents that were not even a consideration five years ago—and now are something hospitalists have to be aware of, understand, and recognize that they can cause pneumonia in patients who are admitted to the hospital from the community,” he says. “They need to be considered as potential etiologic agents first and foremost, because the treatments for them differ from usual empiric pneumonia treatments.

There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs. Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.

—Scott Flanders, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and director of the hospitalist program at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, SHM past president

“As hospitalists, we spend a lot of time trying to think what we can do to prevent recurrent pneumonia episodes in our patients and looking for what could have caused the initial incident,” Dr. Flanders says. “Pneumococcal vaccination is not as good as we’d like it to be in preventing recurrent pneumonia. We have to look to see if there’s anything else we can do to help prevent it.”

One simple step is to review the patient’s medication list, see if proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for reducing gastric acid or antipsychotic medications are on the list, then ask whether they can be discontinued; both treatments are associated in the medical literature with higher rates of pneumonia recurrence. Patients often receive PPIs for empiric prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU, a risk that might have ceased.

“There is a subset of patients with bad reflux disease, history of GI bleeds, on anticoagulants, who have more potential benefit than harm from PPIs,” Dr. Flanders explains. “Hospitalists should see if their patients fall into these categories and, if they don’t, consider discontinuing these medications.”

Dr. Flanders also points out hospitalists should keep an eye out for antipsychotic medications. “Many patients absolutely need these medications and are functional because they are on them,” he says. “We’d never consider stopping them for those patients. But some patients get them started for episodes of delirium in the hospital that have resolved or to enhance their sleep. I’d strongly recommend considering stopping them in that case.”

By contrast, statin use might improve outcomes associated with pneumonia.

Antibiotic selection is another big issue, and Dr. Flanders says hospitalists will be judged by how closely they stick to the recommended treatment guidelines. “They should be familiar with what the guidelines recommend, and recognize the types of variables they need to document if they are going to deviate from the recommendations,” he says. The evidence also says to stop routinely treating pneumonia with antibiotics beyond seven days, he adds.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer based in Oakland, Calif. 

About a year ago, Ira Horowitz, MD, chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, went to his COO and said, “Something is happening.”

While this would usually be cause for concern, Dr. Horowitz was referring to the landmark changes occurring in the Emory Healthcare System as a result of quality initiatives like the venous thromboembolism (VTE) dashboard, a computerized system that allows hospital staff, in real time, to identify patients on prophylaxis at any of Emory’s three hospitals.

Because VTE is one of the most preventable causes of death in hospitals, the dashboard allows nurses to “take the lead” and build monitoring into their workflow, Dr. Horowitz says. Nurses can begin their shifts by identifying which patients are on prophylaxis. The dashboard also gives them the opportunity, when the physicians are rounding, to discuss whether prophylaxis is appropriate.

Emory hospitalist Jason Stein, MD, SFHM, spearheaded the VTE dashboard team, which included 24 other hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, and IT personnel. The new system was initiated during Dr. Stein’s research in HM process improvement, at the time Dr. Horowitz and others were doing parallel work in VTE prevention.

“What’s really exciting is having the troops on the ground, so to speak—having the physicians intimately involved with the patients, and the nurses really taking the lead. That’s what this study or this process improvement really illustrates,” says Dr. Horowitz, who cosponsored the research that won SHM’s 2010 Award of Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement. The award was given for both the creation of the dashboard and the monumental changes the new system inspired in Emory’s approach to QI.

Sharlene Toney, RN, PhD, associate chief nursing officer for research and executive director for Emory’s professional nursing practice, says that while the dashboard concept focused on how to prepare physicians and nurses to make a difference in patience outcomes, the QI movement has spread to all parts of the Emory system.

“We actually have housekeeping staff who have had a discussion with patients about the importance of wearing [sequential compression devices],” she says. “This is really about an organizational culture. … You’re in this as a team, and this research is about the synergistic relationship of every employee. You can’t see it as hierarchal; it’s truly partnerships.”

While the dashboard is a start, Drs. Horowitz and Toney say that the positive shift happening at Emory can only be reproduced by first establishing a level of respect among and for all hospital employees, and by breaking down silos.

“I think in medicine, in order for us to provide the best and the safest care for our patients, the physicians have to start realizing they’re not captain of a ship, they’re captain of a team,” Dr. Horowitz says, “and with that comes very different behaviors.”

For more information about SHM's Awards of Excellence winners, visit our website.

About a year ago, Ira Horowitz, MD, chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, went to his COO and said, “Something is happening.”

While this would usually be cause for concern, Dr. Horowitz was referring to the landmark changes occurring in the Emory Healthcare System as a result of quality initiatives like the venous thromboembolism (VTE) dashboard, a computerized system that allows hospital staff, in real time, to identify patients on prophylaxis at any of Emory’s three hospitals.

Because VTE is one of the most preventable causes of death in hospitals, the dashboard allows nurses to “take the lead” and build monitoring into their workflow, Dr. Horowitz says. Nurses can begin their shifts by identifying which patients are on prophylaxis. The dashboard also gives them the opportunity, when the physicians are rounding, to discuss whether prophylaxis is appropriate.

Emory hospitalist Jason Stein, MD, SFHM, spearheaded the VTE dashboard team, which included 24 other hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, and IT personnel. The new system was initiated during Dr. Stein’s research in HM process improvement, at the time Dr. Horowitz and others were doing parallel work in VTE prevention.

“What’s really exciting is having the troops on the ground, so to speak—having the physicians intimately involved with the patients, and the nurses really taking the lead. That’s what this study or this process improvement really illustrates,” says Dr. Horowitz, who cosponsored the research that won SHM’s 2010 Award of Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement. The award was given for both the creation of the dashboard and the monumental changes the new system inspired in Emory’s approach to QI.

Sharlene Toney, RN, PhD, associate chief nursing officer for research and executive director for Emory’s professional nursing practice, says that while the dashboard concept focused on how to prepare physicians and nurses to make a difference in patience outcomes, the QI movement has spread to all parts of the Emory system.

“We actually have housekeeping staff who have had a discussion with patients about the importance of wearing [sequential compression devices],” she says. “This is really about an organizational culture. … You’re in this as a team, and this research is about the synergistic relationship of every employee. You can’t see it as hierarchal; it’s truly partnerships.”

While the dashboard is a start, Drs. Horowitz and Toney say that the positive shift happening at Emory can only be reproduced by first establishing a level of respect among and for all hospital employees, and by breaking down silos.

“I think in medicine, in order for us to provide the best and the safest care for our patients, the physicians have to start realizing they’re not captain of a ship, they’re captain of a team,” Dr. Horowitz says, “and with that comes very different behaviors.”

For more information about SHM's Awards of Excellence winners, visit our website.

About a year ago, Ira Horowitz, MD, chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, went to his COO and said, “Something is happening.”

While this would usually be cause for concern, Dr. Horowitz was referring to the landmark changes occurring in the Emory Healthcare System as a result of quality initiatives like the venous thromboembolism (VTE) dashboard, a computerized system that allows hospital staff, in real time, to identify patients on prophylaxis at any of Emory’s three hospitals.

Because VTE is one of the most preventable causes of death in hospitals, the dashboard allows nurses to “take the lead” and build monitoring into their workflow, Dr. Horowitz says. Nurses can begin their shifts by identifying which patients are on prophylaxis. The dashboard also gives them the opportunity, when the physicians are rounding, to discuss whether prophylaxis is appropriate.

Emory hospitalist Jason Stein, MD, SFHM, spearheaded the VTE dashboard team, which included 24 other hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, and IT personnel. The new system was initiated during Dr. Stein’s research in HM process improvement, at the time Dr. Horowitz and others were doing parallel work in VTE prevention.

“What’s really exciting is having the troops on the ground, so to speak—having the physicians intimately involved with the patients, and the nurses really taking the lead. That’s what this study or this process improvement really illustrates,” says Dr. Horowitz, who cosponsored the research that won SHM’s 2010 Award of Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement. The award was given for both the creation of the dashboard and the monumental changes the new system inspired in Emory’s approach to QI.

Sharlene Toney, RN, PhD, associate chief nursing officer for research and executive director for Emory’s professional nursing practice, says that while the dashboard concept focused on how to prepare physicians and nurses to make a difference in patience outcomes, the QI movement has spread to all parts of the Emory system.

“We actually have housekeeping staff who have had a discussion with patients about the importance of wearing [sequential compression devices],” she says. “This is really about an organizational culture. … You’re in this as a team, and this research is about the synergistic relationship of every employee. You can’t see it as hierarchal; it’s truly partnerships.”

While the dashboard is a start, Drs. Horowitz and Toney say that the positive shift happening at Emory can only be reproduced by first establishing a level of respect among and for all hospital employees, and by breaking down silos.

“I think in medicine, in order for us to provide the best and the safest care for our patients, the physicians have to start realizing they’re not captain of a ship, they’re captain of a team,” Dr. Horowitz says, “and with that comes very different behaviors.”

For more information about SHM's Awards of Excellence winners, visit our website.

Clinical question: In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, what is the incidence of PcP among patients with CD4 counts less than 200 cells/µL across a spectrum of virologic suppression?

Background: The incidence of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PcP) has decreased significantly with the advent of effective combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Guidelines have historically recommended PcP prophylaxis for HIV patients once the CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/µL. The incidence of PcP in the era of cART, and by extension the ongoing applicability of this traditional prophylaxis guideline, is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective observational cohort.

Setting: Twelve European HIV cohorts.

Synopsis: The investigators combined data from 12 prospective HIV cohorts representing 107,016 patient-years of follow-up (PYFU), with a median of 4.7 years. There were 11,932 PYFU for those with CD4 cell counts below 200 cells/µL. Across all CD4 cell counts, 76% of PcP infections occurred among patients with viral loads >10,000 copies/mL. Among all patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL, there was a nonsignificant trend towards lower PcP rates with prophylaxis. For the subset of patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL, PcP rates were quite low and no different among those taking and not taking prophylaxis.

Bottom line: PcP is uncommon in HIV patients taking cART with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL. Discontinuing prophylaxis might be safe in these well-controlled patients.

Citation: The Opportunistic Infections Project Team of the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research in Europe (COHERE), Mocroft A, Reiss P, Kirk O, et al. Is it safe to discontinue primary Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis in patients with virologically suppressed HIV infection and a CD4 cell count <200 cells/microL? Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(5):611-619.

Reviewed for TH eWire by Alexis E. Shanahan, MD, Chad R. Stickrath, MD, Mel L. Anderson, MD, Section of Hospital Medicine, Denver VA Medical Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado

For more physician reviews of HM-related research, visit our website.

Clinical question: In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, what is the incidence of PcP among patients with CD4 counts less than 200 cells/µL across a spectrum of virologic suppression?

Background: The incidence of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PcP) has decreased significantly with the advent of effective combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Guidelines have historically recommended PcP prophylaxis for HIV patients once the CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/µL. The incidence of PcP in the era of cART, and by extension the ongoing applicability of this traditional prophylaxis guideline, is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective observational cohort.

Setting: Twelve European HIV cohorts.

Synopsis: The investigators combined data from 12 prospective HIV cohorts representing 107,016 patient-years of follow-up (PYFU), with a median of 4.7 years. There were 11,932 PYFU for those with CD4 cell counts below 200 cells/µL. Across all CD4 cell counts, 76% of PcP infections occurred among patients with viral loads >10,000 copies/mL. Among all patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL, there was a nonsignificant trend towards lower PcP rates with prophylaxis. For the subset of patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL, PcP rates were quite low and no different among those taking and not taking prophylaxis.

Bottom line: PcP is uncommon in HIV patients taking cART with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL. Discontinuing prophylaxis might be safe in these well-controlled patients.

Citation: The Opportunistic Infections Project Team of the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research in Europe (COHERE), Mocroft A, Reiss P, Kirk O, et al. Is it safe to discontinue primary Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis in patients with virologically suppressed HIV infection and a CD4 cell count <200 cells/microL? Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(5):611-619.

Reviewed for TH eWire by Alexis E. Shanahan, MD, Chad R. Stickrath, MD, Mel L. Anderson, MD, Section of Hospital Medicine, Denver VA Medical Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado

For more physician reviews of HM-related research, visit our website.

Clinical question: In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, what is the incidence of PcP among patients with CD4 counts less than 200 cells/µL across a spectrum of virologic suppression?

Background: The incidence of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PcP) has decreased significantly with the advent of effective combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Guidelines have historically recommended PcP prophylaxis for HIV patients once the CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/µL. The incidence of PcP in the era of cART, and by extension the ongoing applicability of this traditional prophylaxis guideline, is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective observational cohort.

Setting: Twelve European HIV cohorts.

Synopsis: The investigators combined data from 12 prospective HIV cohorts representing 107,016 patient-years of follow-up (PYFU), with a median of 4.7 years. There were 11,932 PYFU for those with CD4 cell counts below 200 cells/µL. Across all CD4 cell counts, 76% of PcP infections occurred among patients with viral loads >10,000 copies/mL. Among all patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL, there was a nonsignificant trend towards lower PcP rates with prophylaxis. For the subset of patients with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL, PcP rates were quite low and no different among those taking and not taking prophylaxis.

Bottom line: PcP is uncommon in HIV patients taking cART with CD4 cell counts from 101 cells/µL and 200 cells/µL and viral load <400 copies/mL. Discontinuing prophylaxis might be safe in these well-controlled patients.

Citation: The Opportunistic Infections Project Team of the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research in Europe (COHERE), Mocroft A, Reiss P, Kirk O, et al. Is it safe to discontinue primary Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis in patients with virologically suppressed HIV infection and a CD4 cell count <200 cells/microL? Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(5):611-619.

Reviewed for TH eWire by Alexis E. Shanahan, MD, Chad R. Stickrath, MD, Mel L. Anderson, MD, Section of Hospital Medicine, Denver VA Medical Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado

For more physician reviews of HM-related research, visit our website.

HM leaders are in a position to advocate for the potential cost savings and care efficiencies associated with gainsharing, according to a hospitalist who coauthored a study on the topic in this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine. Gainsharing is a pay-for-performance model that tabulates the cost savings achieved via the adoption of best practices, then pays physicians bonuses with a portion of the savings.

The study found that in a three-year period ending June 2009, Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City reported a $25.1 million reduction in hospital costs, $16 million of which was attributed to physicians participating in the gainsharing program and $9.1 million from nonparticipating doctors (P<0.01) (DOI: 10.1002/jhm.788). In the same time frame, delinquent medical records dropped an average of 43% (P<0.0001).

Latha Sivaprasad, MD, FACP, FHM, medical director of quality management and patient safety and an internal-medicine attending at Beth Israel, says the data shows the viability of pay-for-performance programs.

“Gainsharing essentially aligns the incentives of physicians and hospitals to provide cost-efficient care without compromising patient safety,” says Dr. Sivaprasad. “Who better in the hospital to understand those principles than the hospitalist?”

Dr. Sivaprasad, who has been a hospitalist for eight years and is also an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says the majority of eligible physicians are now participating in Beth Israel’s gainsharing program, which started in 2006. She says that the validation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—evidenced by the Medicare demonstration project, which started in 2008—counters arguments about ethical concerns over pay for performance, as does the level of buy-in by physicians.

As it relates to HM groups, she adds, most already have some level of pay-for-performance budgeting in place.

“Pieces of it are there, even though they don’t call it gainsharing,” Dr. Sivaprasad says. “If hospitalists are incentivized for appropriate testing or streamlining throughput, pieces of this program are in place because efficient utilization of healthcare dollars is the heart of gainsharing. … Don’t excessively use precious resources you don’t need to in order to deliver quality medical care.”

HM leaders are in a position to advocate for the potential cost savings and care efficiencies associated with gainsharing, according to a hospitalist who coauthored a study on the topic in this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine. Gainsharing is a pay-for-performance model that tabulates the cost savings achieved via the adoption of best practices, then pays physicians bonuses with a portion of the savings.

The study found that in a three-year period ending June 2009, Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City reported a $25.1 million reduction in hospital costs, $16 million of which was attributed to physicians participating in the gainsharing program and $9.1 million from nonparticipating doctors (P<0.01) (DOI: 10.1002/jhm.788). In the same time frame, delinquent medical records dropped an average of 43% (P<0.0001).

Latha Sivaprasad, MD, FACP, FHM, medical director of quality management and patient safety and an internal-medicine attending at Beth Israel, says the data shows the viability of pay-for-performance programs.

“Gainsharing essentially aligns the incentives of physicians and hospitals to provide cost-efficient care without compromising patient safety,” says Dr. Sivaprasad. “Who better in the hospital to understand those principles than the hospitalist?”

Dr. Sivaprasad, who has been a hospitalist for eight years and is also an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says the majority of eligible physicians are now participating in Beth Israel’s gainsharing program, which started in 2006. She says that the validation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—evidenced by the Medicare demonstration project, which started in 2008—counters arguments about ethical concerns over pay for performance, as does the level of buy-in by physicians.

As it relates to HM groups, she adds, most already have some level of pay-for-performance budgeting in place.

“Pieces of it are there, even though they don’t call it gainsharing,” Dr. Sivaprasad says. “If hospitalists are incentivized for appropriate testing or streamlining throughput, pieces of this program are in place because efficient utilization of healthcare dollars is the heart of gainsharing. … Don’t excessively use precious resources you don’t need to in order to deliver quality medical care.”

HM leaders are in a position to advocate for the potential cost savings and care efficiencies associated with gainsharing, according to a hospitalist who coauthored a study on the topic in this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine. Gainsharing is a pay-for-performance model that tabulates the cost savings achieved via the adoption of best practices, then pays physicians bonuses with a portion of the savings.

The study found that in a three-year period ending June 2009, Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City reported a $25.1 million reduction in hospital costs, $16 million of which was attributed to physicians participating in the gainsharing program and $9.1 million from nonparticipating doctors (P<0.01) (DOI: 10.1002/jhm.788). In the same time frame, delinquent medical records dropped an average of 43% (P<0.0001).

Latha Sivaprasad, MD, FACP, FHM, medical director of quality management and patient safety and an internal-medicine attending at Beth Israel, says the data shows the viability of pay-for-performance programs.

“Gainsharing essentially aligns the incentives of physicians and hospitals to provide cost-efficient care without compromising patient safety,” says Dr. Sivaprasad. “Who better in the hospital to understand those principles than the hospitalist?”

Dr. Sivaprasad, who has been a hospitalist for eight years and is also an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says the majority of eligible physicians are now participating in Beth Israel’s gainsharing program, which started in 2006. She says that the validation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—evidenced by the Medicare demonstration project, which started in 2008—counters arguments about ethical concerns over pay for performance, as does the level of buy-in by physicians.

As it relates to HM groups, she adds, most already have some level of pay-for-performance budgeting in place.

“Pieces of it are there, even though they don’t call it gainsharing,” Dr. Sivaprasad says. “If hospitalists are incentivized for appropriate testing or streamlining throughput, pieces of this program are in place because efficient utilization of healthcare dollars is the heart of gainsharing. … Don’t excessively use precious resources you don’t need to in order to deliver quality medical care.”

Last month, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report (PDF) that estimates 15,000 Medicare patient deaths each month are attributable at least in part to the care they received in hospitals.

The federal watchdog agency tallied adverse events from the National Quality Forum’s list of serious reportable events and other hospital-acquired conditions in the charts of 780 Medicare patients from 2008, then extrapolated the proportions harmed through hospital care (13.5%) or who die as a result of that care (1.5%).

“Because many adverse events we identified were preventable, our study confirms the need and opportunity for hospitals to significantly reduce the incidence of events,” the report concludes. It recommends that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) broadens patient-safety efforts and that the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) provides further incentives for hospitals to reduce their incidences through its payment and oversight functions.

Confirmation of hospital safety concerns comes from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2010;2363:2124-2134) that found harm to patients in North Carolina hospitals was common and did not decrease from 2002 to 2007.

Christopher Landrigan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and coauthors concluded that 18% of hospitalized patients were harmed through their medical care and, for 2.4%, it caused or contributed to their deaths.

The results of the OIG study are not surprising and might even underestimate the extent of the problem, says Gregory Seymann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of California at San Diego and a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Performance and Standards Committee. The report doesn’t address what proportion of the harmed patients was on a service managed by hospitalists, “but we are in the best position to impact quality and safety—to go to our hospital administrators and get resources earmarked for quality,” he says.

Such results also mirror findings from the Institute of Medicine’s landmark 1999 report To Err is Human, adds Andrew Dunn, MD, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. “They suggest that medical errors are rampant in hospitals,” he says. “Because the incidence of harm is so broad across the elderly population, quality-improvement efforts in hospitals need to be across the board.”

Every hospitalist should be involved with these efforts, Dr. Dunn says. “There’s no putting your feet up. There’s always room to improve quality,” he adds. He predicts that safety outcomes will increasingly be tied to hospital reimbursement, “which is a good thing. It’s very motivational.”

Last month, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report (PDF) that estimates 15,000 Medicare patient deaths each month are attributable at least in part to the care they received in hospitals.

The federal watchdog agency tallied adverse events from the National Quality Forum’s list of serious reportable events and other hospital-acquired conditions in the charts of 780 Medicare patients from 2008, then extrapolated the proportions harmed through hospital care (13.5%) or who die as a result of that care (1.5%).

“Because many adverse events we identified were preventable, our study confirms the need and opportunity for hospitals to significantly reduce the incidence of events,” the report concludes. It recommends that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) broadens patient-safety efforts and that the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) provides further incentives for hospitals to reduce their incidences through its payment and oversight functions.

Confirmation of hospital safety concerns comes from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2010;2363:2124-2134) that found harm to patients in North Carolina hospitals was common and did not decrease from 2002 to 2007.

Christopher Landrigan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and coauthors concluded that 18% of hospitalized patients were harmed through their medical care and, for 2.4%, it caused or contributed to their deaths.

The results of the OIG study are not surprising and might even underestimate the extent of the problem, says Gregory Seymann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of California at San Diego and a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Performance and Standards Committee. The report doesn’t address what proportion of the harmed patients was on a service managed by hospitalists, “but we are in the best position to impact quality and safety—to go to our hospital administrators and get resources earmarked for quality,” he says.

Such results also mirror findings from the Institute of Medicine’s landmark 1999 report To Err is Human, adds Andrew Dunn, MD, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. “They suggest that medical errors are rampant in hospitals,” he says. “Because the incidence of harm is so broad across the elderly population, quality-improvement efforts in hospitals need to be across the board.”

Every hospitalist should be involved with these efforts, Dr. Dunn says. “There’s no putting your feet up. There’s always room to improve quality,” he adds. He predicts that safety outcomes will increasingly be tied to hospital reimbursement, “which is a good thing. It’s very motivational.”

Last month, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report (PDF) that estimates 15,000 Medicare patient deaths each month are attributable at least in part to the care they received in hospitals.

The federal watchdog agency tallied adverse events from the National Quality Forum’s list of serious reportable events and other hospital-acquired conditions in the charts of 780 Medicare patients from 2008, then extrapolated the proportions harmed through hospital care (13.5%) or who die as a result of that care (1.5%).

“Because many adverse events we identified were preventable, our study confirms the need and opportunity for hospitals to significantly reduce the incidence of events,” the report concludes. It recommends that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) broadens patient-safety efforts and that the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) provides further incentives for hospitals to reduce their incidences through its payment and oversight functions.

Confirmation of hospital safety concerns comes from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2010;2363:2124-2134) that found harm to patients in North Carolina hospitals was common and did not decrease from 2002 to 2007.

Christopher Landrigan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and coauthors concluded that 18% of hospitalized patients were harmed through their medical care and, for 2.4%, it caused or contributed to their deaths.

The results of the OIG study are not surprising and might even underestimate the extent of the problem, says Gregory Seymann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of California at San Diego and a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Performance and Standards Committee. The report doesn’t address what proportion of the harmed patients was on a service managed by hospitalists, “but we are in the best position to impact quality and safety—to go to our hospital administrators and get resources earmarked for quality,” he says.

Such results also mirror findings from the Institute of Medicine’s landmark 1999 report To Err is Human, adds Andrew Dunn, MD, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. “They suggest that medical errors are rampant in hospitals,” he says. “Because the incidence of harm is so broad across the elderly population, quality-improvement efforts in hospitals need to be across the board.”

Every hospitalist should be involved with these efforts, Dr. Dunn says. “There’s no putting your feet up. There’s always room to improve quality,” he adds. He predicts that safety outcomes will increasingly be tied to hospital reimbursement, “which is a good thing. It’s very motivational.”