Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of two different clinical practice guideline formats to influence physician ordering of electrodiagnostic tests in low back pain. DATA SOURCES/STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of the effect of practice guidelines on self-reported physician test ordering behavior in response to a series of 12 clinical vignettes. Data came from a national random sample of 900 U.S. neurologists, physical medicine physicians, and general internists. INTERVENTION: Two different versions of a practice guideline for the use of electrodiagnostic tests (EDT) were developed by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Low Back Problems Panel. The two guidelines were similar in content but varied in the specificity of their recommendations. DATA COLLECTION: The proportion of clinical vignettes for which EDTs were ordered for appropriate and inappropriate clinical indications in each of three physician groups were randomly assigned to receive vignettes alone, vignettes plus the nonspecific version of the guideline, or vignettes plus the specific version of the guideline. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The response rate to the survey was 71 percent. The proportion of appropriate vignettes for which EDTs were ordered averaged 77 percent for the no guideline group, 71 percent for the nonspecific guideline group, and 79 percent for the specific guideline group (p = .002). The corresponding values for the number of EDTs ordered for inappropriate vignettes were 32 percent, 32 percent, and 26 percent, respectively (p = .08). Pairwise comparisons showed that physicians receiving the nonspecific guidelines ordered fewer EDTs for appropriate clinical vignettes than did physicians receiving no guidelines (p = .02). Furthermore, compared to physicians receiving nonspecific guidelines, physicians receiving specific guidelines ordered significantly more EDTs for appropriate vignettes (p = .0007) and significantly fewer EDTs for inappropriate vignettes (p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The clarity and clinical applicability of a guideline may be important attributes that contribute to the effects of practice guidelines.

Is the quality of diabetes care better in a diabetes clinic or in a general medicine clinic?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of ambulatory diabetes care delivered by physicians in the diabetes clinic versus the general medicine clinic of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study that involved the review of medical records against predetermined process-of-care criteria. A total of 112 patients with diabetes were randomly selected, of whom 56 were cared for in the general medicine clinic and 56 in the diabetes clinic. The following main outcome measures were examined: 1) the compliance with individual criteria; and 2) the proportion of patient visits in each clinic receiving minimally acceptable quality, defined as a blood pressure measurement, a record of type of hypoglycemic medication, a glycated hemoglobin measurement within the past year, a urinalysis within the past year, an ophthalmologist or optometrist eye examination within the past year or scheduled in the next six months, a record of change in therapeutic management, and a scheduled return visit. RESULTS: The diabetes clinic performed significantly better than the general medicine clinic on the following criteria: a record of a patient's self-monitoring of blood glucose levels; a foot examination; a comprehensive eye examination; a glycated hemoglobin measurement; and a referral for diabetic education. The proportion of patient visits meeting the minimally acceptable levels of quality was better in the diabetes clinic than the general medicine clinic (73 vs. 52%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients cared for by physicians in the diabetes clinic receive better quality of diabetes care than do patients cared for by physicians in the general medical clinic. If patient care is to be shifted from specialists to generalists, additional attention needs to be paid to ensure that generalists have the knowledge and system resources necessary to deliver an acceptable quality of diabetes care.

A major superfamily of transmembrane facilitators that catalyse uniport, symport and antiport.

Many transport proteins of bacteria and eukaryotes are thought to possess a common structural motif of 12 transmembrane-spanning alpha-helical segments. In this report we use statistical methods to establish that five families or clusters of these facilitators comprise a single superfamily. The five clusters include: (1) drug-resistance proteins, (2) sugar facilitators, (3) facilitators for Krebs cycle intermediates, (4) phosphate ester-phosphate antiporters and (5) a distinct group of oligosaccharide-H+ symporters. Over 50 transporters of bacteria, lower eukaryotes, plants and animals, and one putative bacterial transcriptional regulatory protein are members of this superfamily, which we term the 'major facilitator superfamily' (MFS).