Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Nat Rev Nephrol ; 18(2): 113-128, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34621058

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain is highly prevalent among adults treated with maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and has profound negative effects. Over four decades, research has demonstrated that 50-80% of adult patients treated with HD report having pain. Half of patients with HD-dependent kidney failure (HDKF) have chronic moderate-to-severe pain, which is similar to the burden of pain in patients with cancer. However, pain management in patients with HDKF is often ineffective as most patients report that their pain is inadequately treated. Opioid analgesics are prescribed more frequently for patients receiving HD than for individuals in the general population with chronic pain, and are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and health-care resource use. Furthermore, current opioid prescribing patterns are frequently inconsistent with guideline-recommended care. Evidence for the effectiveness of opioids in pain management in general, and in patients with HDKF specifically, is lacking. Nonetheless, long-term opioid therapy has a role in the treatment of some patients when used selectively, carefully and combined with an ongoing assessment of risks and benefits. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the use of opioid therapy in patients with HDKF and chronic pain, including a discussion of buprenorphine, which has potential as an analgesic option for patients receiving HD owing to its unique pharmacological properties.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Renal Insufficiency , Adult , Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/chemically induced , Chronic Pain/etiology , Humans , Pain Management , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Renal Dialysis/adverse effects
2.
Educ Health (Abingdon) ; 35(2): 58-66, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36647933

ABSTRACT

Background: Ambulatory training is an integral component of internal medicine residency programs, yet details regarding operational processes in resident continuity clinics remain limited. Methods: We surveyed a convenience sample of medical directors of residency practices between 2015 and 2019 (n = 222) to describe and share operational and scheduling processes in internal medicine resident continuity clinics in the US. Results: Among residency practices, support for the medical director role ranged substantially, but was most commonly reported at 11%-20% full-time-equivalent support. By the end of the survey period, the majority of programs (65.1%) reported obtaining patient-centered medical home (PCMH) certification (level 1-3). For new patient appointments, 34.9% of programs reported a 1-7 day wait and 25.8% reported an 8-14 day wait. Wait times for new appointments were generally shorter for PCMH certified practices (P = 0.029). No-show rates were most commonly 26%-50% for new patients and 11%-25% for established patients. Most programs reported that interns see 3-4 patients per ½-day and senior residents see 5-6 patients per ½-day. Most interns and residents maintain a panel size of 51-120 patients. Discussion: Creating high-performing residency clinics requires a focus on core building blocks and operational processes. Based on the survey results and consensus opinion, we provide five summary recommendations related to (1) support for the medical director leadership role, (2) patient-centered and coordinated models of care, (3) support for patient scheduling, (4) recommended visit lengths, and (5) ancillary support, such as social work.


Subject(s)
Internship and Residency , Physician Executives , Humans , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Surveys and Questionnaires , Internal Medicine/education
5.
J Gen Intern Med ; 34(8): 1637-1640, 2019 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31062224

ABSTRACT

The USA is unique among industrialized nations in its dramatic rate of firearm violence. Unfortunately, firearm-related issues in America are politically divisive and fraught with controversy, thus impeding the study and implementation of safety strategies. Despite the lack of consensus, there is agreement that firearms should be kept away from individuals with criminal intent and those who are dangerous due to medical impairment. While predicting criminal intent remains challenging, assessment of medical impairment remains a viable target. One approach in which physicians could contribute their expertise includes training a subset of doctors to perform specialized medical evaluations as a prerequisite for gun ownership. Such a process is not unprecedented, as physicians currently have a role in protecting the public's safety through assessments for commercial drivers, pilots, and train operators. Certified physician examiners could conduct these evaluations with a focus on evaluating objective, skill-based metrics to limit potential evaluator bias. The results of the medical evaluation would then be considered by an existing regulatory body to determine if disqualifying criteria are present. This proposal provides a mechanism for trained physicians to meaningfully participate in addressing an alarming public health issue, while still working within existing legal frameworks.


Subject(s)
Gun Violence/prevention & control , Physician's Role , Firearms/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Ownership/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
6.
J Law Med Ethics ; 46(2): 220-237, 2018 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30146986

ABSTRACT

Specialists and primary care physicians play an integral role in treating the twin epidemics of pain and addiction. But inadequate access to specialists causes much of the treatment burden to fall on primary physicians. This article chronicles the differences between treatment contexts for both pain and addiction - in the specialty and primary care contexts - and derives a series of reforms that would empower primary care physicians and better leverage specialists.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Opioid-Related Disorders/therapy , Pain Management , Prescription Drug Misuse , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Addiction Medicine , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Specialization
8.
Med Clin North Am ; 102(4): 653-666, 2018 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29933821

ABSTRACT

Alcohol use disorder is a common, destructive, and undertreated disease. As understanding of alcohol use disorder has evolved, so has our ability to manage patients with pharmacotherapeutic agents in addition to nondrug therapy, including various counseling strategies. Providers now have a myriad of medications, both approved and not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, to choose from and can personalize care based on treatment goals, comorbidities, drug interactions, and drug availability. This review explores these treatment options and offers the prescriber practical advice regarding when each option may or may not be appropriate for a specific patient.


Subject(s)
Alcohol Deterrents/therapeutic use , Alcoholism/drug therapy , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Nicotinic Agonists/therapeutic use , Alcohol Deterrents/administration & dosage , Alcohol Deterrents/adverse effects , Anticonvulsants/administration & dosage , Anticonvulsants/adverse effects , Comorbidity , Drug Therapy, Combination , Humans , Medication Adherence , Narcotic Antagonists/administration & dosage , Narcotic Antagonists/adverse effects , Nicotinic Agonists/administration & dosage , Nicotinic Agonists/adverse effects , Off-Label Use , Patient Care Planning , United States
10.
Acad Med ; 92(3): 331-334, 2017 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27355783

ABSTRACT

Teaching residents to practice independently is a core objective of graduate medical education (GME). However, billing rules established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require that teaching physicians physically be present in the examination room for the care they bill, unless the training program qualifies for the Primary Care Exception Rule (PCER). Teaching physicians in programs that use this exception can bill for indirectly supervised ambulatory care once the resident who provides that care has completed six months of training. However, CMS does not mandate that programs assess or attest to residents' clinical competence before using this rule. By requiring this six-month probationary period, the implication is that residents are adequately prepared for indirectly supervised practice by this time. As residents' skill development varies, this may or may not be true. The PCER makes no attempt to delineate how residents' competence should be assessed, nor does the GME community have a standard for how and when to make this assessment specifically for the purpose of determining residents' readiness for indirectly supervised primary care practice.In this Perspective, the authors review the history and current requirements of the PCER, explore its limitations, and offer suggestions for how to modify the teaching physician billing requirements to mandate the evaluation of residents' competence using the existing milestones framework. They also recommend strategies to standardize this process of evaluation and to develop benchmarks across training programs.


Subject(s)
Clinical Competence/standards , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Education, Medical, Graduate/standards , Educational Measurement/standards , Internship and Residency/standards , Primary Health Care/standards , Professional Competence/standards , Humans , United States
11.
Cleve Clin J Med ; 83(11): 827-835, 2016 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27824537

ABSTRACT

"Pain contracts" for patients receiving long-term opioid therapy, though well-intentioned, often stigmatize the patient and erode trust between patient and physician. This article discusses how to improve these agreements to promote adherence, safety, trust, and shared decision-making.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Medication Therapy Management/ethics , Trust , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Chronic Pain/psychology , Decision Making , Humans , Physician-Patient Relations/ethics
14.
Cleve Clin J Med ; 83(3): 207-15, 2016 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26974992

ABSTRACT

Chronic noncancer pain is common and often managed in the outpatient setting with chronic opioid therapy, even though the efficacy of this approach is uncertain and adverse effects are common. Some patients report meaningful benefit from opioids, but prescription drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions, and many suffer harm from opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion. Primary care providers and their care teams often struggle to balance these risks and benefits with little outside support. The authors review common challenges when starting, monitoring, and discontinuing opioids, and offer strategies for risk-reduction and patient communication.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Drug Monitoring/methods , Drug Prescriptions/standards , Primary Health Care/methods , Humans , Safety
16.
Arch Dermatol ; 140(5): 530-4, 2004 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15148096

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine (1). primary care practitioner (PCP) and dermatologist full-body skin examination (FBSE) rates by using a patient questionnaire and (2). whether patient risk factors for skin cancer alter these rates. DESIGN: Questionnaires pertaining to whether participants underwent regular FBSE, their feelings about this screening test, and their risks for developing skin cancer. SETTING: The primary care and dermatology clinics at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 356 patients awaiting clinic appointments. Of those asked to participate, 251 (71%) agreed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient report of undergoing FBSE, attitudes regarding this examination, and risk factors for cutaneous malignancy. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of all respondents reported undergoing regular FBSE by their PCP, whereas 55% of those with a history of skin cancer reported undergoing FBSE. Eight percent of participants reported embarrassment with FBSE, 83% reported that their PCP would be considered thorough by performing FBSE, and 87% would like their PCP to perform FBSE regularly. Only 2% of participants would refuse the examination if the PCP were of the opposite sex, whereas 8% would be more willing to be examined. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients report a low incidence of FBSE, those with a personal history of skin cancer are more likely to be screened. A low rate of embarrassment and a high rate of perceived PCP thoroughness are associated with FBSE. Patients have a strong preference to undergo FBSE. A sex difference between the PCP and the patient should not be a barrier to this examination.


Subject(s)
Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Physical Examination/statistics & numerical data , Skin Neoplasms/prevention & control , Connecticut/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Physical Examination/psychology , Risk Factors , Skin Neoplasms/epidemiology , Skin Neoplasms/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Veterans/psychology , Veterans/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...