Mammography in New Hampshire: characteristics of the women and the exams they receive.

New Hampshire (NH) is one of two states that has developed a population-based mammography registry. The purpose of this paper is to describe what we have learned about mammography use in New Hampshire. After collecting data for 20 months, the database contains almost 110,000 mammographic encounters representing 101,679 NH women, who range in age from 18 to 97 with a mean of 56.7 years (SD=10.91). Education levels are high with 92% having a high school education and 59% with some college. Forty-six percent report their primary insurance is private, 29% report HMO/PPO coverage, and 25% receive federal health care assistance. Risk factors represented in the database include (categories not mutually exclusive) advancing age (60% over age 50), hormone replacement therapy use by menopausal women (40.6%), and a family history of breast cancer (29%). Penetration of mammography relative to the NH population is higher for younger age groups (40-48% for those aged 44-64) than older age groups (34-39% for those aged 65-84). The majority of mammographic encounters are routine screening exams (86%), often interpreted as negative or normal with benign findings (88%). Use of comparison films to interpret either diagnostic or screening mammography occurred in 86% of encounters. We have matched 3,877 breast pathology records to these mammographic encounters. The distribution of pathology outcomes for diagnostic exams was very similar to that for screening exams (approximately 65% benign, 17% invasive breast cancer, and 6% noninvasive breast cancer). Overall, we have designed a system that is well accepted by the NH community. Challenges include careful monitoring of data for coding errors, and a limitation of linking variables in mammography and pathology data. Data represented in this registry are a critical resource for research in mammographic screening and breast cancer early detection.

Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes.

Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.

An encounter-based analysis of the nature of teaching and learning in a 3rd-year medical school clerkship.

BACKGROUND: Much of medical education has shifted from the hospital to ambulatory settings where each student works with a preceptor. PURPOSE: Our objectives were to describe the nature of community-based learning and to explore how learning experiences vary by type of health care visit. METHODS: This prospective study used both paper- and computer-based documentation systems to collect information on student-patient-preceptor encounters. A consecutive sample of 3rd-year medical students contributed data on 1 full clinical day each week as they rotated through a required 8-week family medicine clerkship. The main measures of interest included patient age, gender, health care visit type (acute, acute exacerbation of chronic, chronic, and health maintenance), method of learning in history taking and physical examinations (observing preceptor, being observed by preceptor, performing unobserved, or working jointly with preceptor), content of physical examinations, amount of preceptor feedback, and preceptor teaching content. RESULTS: Sixty-three students contributed data on 4,083 patient encounters. The majority of visits concerned acute complaints (37.7%) or health maintenance (26.4%). Many encounters involved students conducting the cardiovascular and pulmonary exams (33.2% each); fewer encounters involved neurologic (6.9%), gynecological (4.5%), and genitourinary (2.2%) exams. Students reported being observed performing histories and physical exams in 4% and 6% of encounters respectively. The most common student experiences were performing histories and performing physical exams unobserved during acute visits, which accounted for 65.8% and 52.4% of encounters overall. CONCLUSIONS: This system is useful for determining educational content and processes that occur in ambulatory settings. Important differences were found in teaching and learning by type of health care visit. This factor can and should be used when considering how students meet educational objectives in community-based ambulatory settings.

The impact of early clinical training in medical education: a multi-institutional assessment.

With funding from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Generalist Physician Initiative, Dartmouth Medical School (DMS), New York Medical College (NYMC), and Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (VCU-SOM) adopted early community-based training models for longitudinal clinical experiences. These schools developed different evaluation strategies to assess these models. This paper describes each program, the method used to evaluate an aspect of the program, lessons learned about early clinical teaching and learning, and challenges encountered. Each program used cross-sectional evaluation, and the analysis methods included descriptive statistics, chi-square, t-tests, analysis of variance, and generalized linear models. Dartmouth determined that the type of preceptor does not greatly influence the development of clinical skills, although case-specific differences were discovered. NYMC learned that students taught clinical skills in community-based settings performed as well as or better than their peers who received early patient experience on hospital wards. Virginia Commonwealth discovered that community experiences contributed positively to students' education, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Students value early clinical experiences and make important achievements in clinical skills and knowledge development, although logistic challenges exist in conducting these courses. Evaluations are critical to ensure competency, and faculty development must be linked to the evaluation process.

How physician communication influences recognition of depression in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between physician communication patterns and the successful recognition of depression is poorly understood. METHODS: We used unannounced visits by actors playing standardized patients to evaluate verbal communication between primary care physicians and a patient presenting with a minor depression scenario. Participants (n = 77) were assigned to receive 2 visits from a man or woman portraying a 26-year-old patient with chronic headaches who meets the criteria for minor depression. The standardized patients carried hidden audiotape recorders and high-fidelity microphones to document the encounters. The audiotapes were coded at 2-second intervals. These data were linked to information gathered from standardized patient checklists, medical records, and debriefing telephone calls with participants. RESULTS: We obtained complete data on 59 (77%) of the physician-patient encounters; of those, 43 (73%) of the physicians recognized depression. Physicians who recognized depression asked twice as many questions about feelings and affect compared with those who did not (for feelings: 1.9% of total physician activity vs. 0.9%, P = .017; for affect: composite score of 2.7% of total physician activity vs 1.3%, P = .003). We found no differences in the proportion or timing of broad to narrow questioning between those who did and did not recognize depression. Physicians who successfully recognized depression later in the interview showed an increase in questions about feelings in the quartile just before recognition occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who recognized depression differed significantly in the percentage of questions about feeling and affect, and an increase in questions about feelings may precede a diagnosis of depression, though more research is needed to establish this as an important finding.

Recognizing and managing depression in primary care: a standardized patient study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for recognition and management of depression in primary care provide a framework for detailed exploration of physician practice patterns. METHODS: Our objective was to explore physician diagnosis and management approaches to depressive disorders according to type (major vs. minor) and presenting complaint (difficulty sleeping and concentrating vs. headache). The participants were community primary care internists and family physicians in northern New England, Washington, and Alabama (N = 149) who were randomly assigned to receive a visit from an unannounced actor portraying a standardized patient in 1 of 2 depression scenarios: (A) insomnia and poor concentration meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R) criteria for major depressive disorder; or (B) tension headaches meeting the criteria for minor depression. RESULTS: All physicians who were assigned to the standardized patients presenting with scenario A recognized depression, and 49% (38 of 78) of those assigned to scenario B patients diagnosed depression. Of those recognizing depression, 72% and 42% queried patients about anhedonia and mood, respectively. For both scenarios, if fewer than 2 DSM-III-R criteria were explored, depression was not diagnosed. Management for scenario A was compatible with Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines, including the prescription of an antidepressant (94%), scheduling of a follow-up visit within 2 weeks (61%), and exploration of suicidal ideation (69.4%). For scenario B, management included over-the-counter analgesics for the headache (84%), exercise (63%), prescription for an antidepressant (53%), recommendation for ongoing counseling (100%), and follow-up within 2 weeks (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Major depression is recognized in primary care at a very high rate. Guidelines for recognizing and managing depression are often followed in primary care. Patients' presentations of depression influence its recognition and management.

Can we improve breast pathology reporting practices? A community-based breast pathology quality improvement program in New Hampshire.

We implemented a regional quality assurance program in New Hampshire (NH) to evaluate breast pathology practices and attempt to improve the completeness of information provided in breast surgical pathology reports. We also assessed the degree to which NH pathologists agree with National Guidelines. The program's objective was to promote a consistent standard of care for patients whose breast pathology is interpreted in NH. Using a sequential survey technique, we were able to obtain consensus on breast tissue report content that was similar to National Guidelines. We also found that 52% of the reporting elements improved in the post-intervention period, although only one reached statistical significance. In conclusion, pathology interpretation is the "gold standard" for determining both screening effectiveness and subsequent treatment of breast cancer, yet variability in breast tissue reporting exists. It is critical that more research be done to improve breast pathology interpretation and reporting practices.

Variations in approaching the diagnosis of depression: a guided focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are often held to the same standard of performance as mental health specialists, yet they face special challenges in recognizing and treating depression. The purpose of this study was to explore the range of approaches to diagnose depression. METHODS: A purposeful sample of 21 primary care physicians in three US cities participated. A semistructured series of questions and clinical cases stimulated discussions about recognizing and managing major and minor depression. The focus groups were videotaped, and data were analyzed by two independent reviewers using the classic method of content analysis. RESULTS: Primary care providers have three major ways of approaching the diagnosis of depression: a biomedical exclusionary approach, where investigation of all physical complaints occurs first; a mental health approach, where psychosocial aspects of a presentation are pursued first; and a synergistic approach, where physical and mental health complaints are addressed simultaneously. Physicians move freely across all approaches depending on patient cues. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' approaches to depression vary depending on patient characteristics and cues. Through a better understanding of current practices, future researchers can identify the optimal clinical approaches to match the characteristics and cues of specific patients. This study informed the development of a larger objective study of primary care physician performance.

Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the degree of diagnostic agreement among community-based general pathologists reading slides of representative breast tissue specimens and tested whether diagnostic variability is associated with type of breast specimen (e.g., core needle or excisional biopsy) or slide quality. METHODS: Twenty-six of the 44 eligible pathologists working at community-based pathology practices in New Hampshire participated. Each pathologist evaluated slides of breast tissue obtained from 30 case subjects randomly selected from a statewide breast pathology database. The diagnostic categories used were benign, benign with atypia, noninvasive malignant, and invasive malignant. The levels of agreement (i.e., kappa coefficients) for the diagnoses were assessed. RESULTS: Agreement was high among pathologists for assignment of diagnostic category (kappa coefficient = 0.71) and was nearly perfect for their selection of benign versus malignant categories (kappa coefficient = 0.95). There was less agreement for the categories of noninvasive malignant and benign with atypia (kappa coefficients of 0.59 and 0.22, respectively). There was no apparent relationship between levels of diagnostic agreement and specimen type or perceived slide quality. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic agreement for breast tissue specimens is high overall among community-based pathologists, but clinically relevant disagreements may occur in the assessment of noninvasive malignant diagnoses. The establishment of reread policies for certain diagnostic categories may reduce the possibility that diagnostic misclassification will lead to overtreatment or undertreatment. The high degree of diagnostic reproducibility for invasive cancerous lesions of the breast suggests that it is unnecessary for a central review of these lesions in national cancer trials.