Evaluation of a Wellness-Based Mindfulness Stress Reduction intervention: a controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine if participation in a Wellness-Based Mindfulness Stress Reduction intervention decreases the effect of daily hassles, psychological distress, and medical symptoms. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of a stress reduction intervention with a 3-month follow-up. SETTING: A university setting in West Virginia. SUBJECTS: A total of 103 adults, with 59 in the intervention group and 44 in the control group. Eight-five percent of subjects completed the intervention. Fifty-nine percent and 61% of the intervention and control subjects completed the study, respectively. INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of an 8-week group stress reduction program in which subjects learned, practiced, and applied "mindfulness meditation" to daily life situations. The control group received educational materials and were encouraged to use community resources for stress management. MEASURES: The Daily Stress Inventory assessed the effect of daily hassles, the Revised Hopkins Symptom Checklist measured psychological distress, the Medical Symptom Checklist measured number of medical symptoms, and a Follow-up Questionnaire measured program adherence. RESULTS: Intervention subjects reported significant decreases from baseline in effect of daily hassles (24%), psychological distress, (44%), and medical symptoms (46%) that were maintained at the 3-month follow-up compared to control subjects (repeated measures analysis of variance [ANOVA]; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-selected community residents can improve their mental and physical health by participating in a stress reduction intervention offered by a university wellness program.

Confidence of academic general internists and family physicians to teach ambulatory procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the readiness of academic general internal medicine physicians and academic family medicine physicians to perform and teach 13 common ambulatory procedures. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Internal medicine and family medicine residency training programs associated with 35 medical schools in 9 eastern states. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of full-time teaching faculty. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 331 general internists and 271 family physicians returned completed questionnaires, with response rates of 57% and 65%, respectively. Academic generalists ranked most of the ambulatory procedures as important for primary care physicians to perform; however, they infrequently performed or taught many of the procedures. Overall, compared with family physicians, general internists performed and taught fewer procedures, received less training, and were less confident in their ability to teach these procedures. Physicians' confidence to teach a procedure was strongly associated with training to perform the procedure and performing or precepting a procedure at least 10 times per year. CONCLUSIONS: Many academic general internists do not perform or precept common adult ambulatory procedures. To ensure that residents have the opportunity to learn routine ambulatory procedures, training programs may need to recruit qualified faculty, train current faculty, or arrange for academic specialists or community physicians to teach these skills.

Confidence of graduating internal medicine residents to perform ambulatory procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the training of graduating internal medicine residents to perform 13 common ambulatory procedures, 3 inpatient procedures, and 3 screening examinations. DESIGN: Self-administered descriptive survey. SETTING: Internal medicine training programs associated with 9 medical schools in the eastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Graduating residents (N = 128); response rate, 60%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The total number of procedures performed during residency, importance for primary care physicians to perform these procedures, confidence to perform these procedures, and helpfulness of rotations for learning procedures were assessed. The majority of residents performed only 2 of 13 outpatient procedures 10 or more times during residency: simple spirometry and minor wound suturing. For all other procedures, the median number performed was 5 or fewer. The percentage of residents attributing high importance to a procedure was significantly greater than the percentage reporting high confidence for 8 of 13 ambulatory procedures; for all inpatient procedures, residents reported significantly higher confidence than importance. Continuity clinic and block ambulatory rotations were not considered helpful for learning ambulatory procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Though residents in this sample considered most ambulatory procedures important for primary care physicians, they performed them infrequently, if at all, during residency and did not consider their continuity clinic experience helpful for learning these skills. Training programs need to address this deficiency by modifying the curriculum to ensure that these skills are taught to residents who anticipate a career in primary care medicine.

Patient preferences for care by general internists and specialists in the ambulatory setting.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients' preferences for care by general internists and specialists for common medical conditions. DESIGN: Telephone interview. SETTING: A convenience sample of general internal medicine practices at 10 eastern academic medical centers. PATIENT/PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample of 314 participants who had at least one visit with their primary care physician during the preceding 2 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Items addressed patients' attitudes concerning continuity of care, preferences for care by general internists or specialists for common medical problems, and perceptions about the competency of general internists and specialists to manage these problems. Continuity was important to participants, with 63% reporting they preferred having one doctor. Respondents were willing to wait 3 or 4 days to see their regular doctor (85%) and wanted their doctor to see them in the emergency department (77%) and monitor their care while in the hospital (94%). A majority (>60%) preferred care from their regular doctor for a variety of new conditions. Though respondents valued continuity, 84% felt it was important to be able to seek medical care from any type of physician without a referral, and 74% responded that if they needed to see a specialist, they were willing to pay out-of-pocket to do so. Although most participants (98%) thought their regular doctor was able to take care of usual medical problems, the majority thought that specialists were better able to care for allergies (79%) and better able to prescribe medications for depression (65%) and low-back pain (72%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred to see their general internist despite their perceptions that specialists were more competent in caring for the conditions we examined. However, they wanted unrestricted access to specialists to supplement care provided by general internists.

Appalachian perspective on modifiable risk factors in coronary artery disease: how well are we doing?

BACKGROUND: Despite recognition of modifiable risk factors and available and effective life-style and pharmacologic therapies, many individuals have unrecognized or untreated risk factors for coronary artery disease. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, we searched for relevant review articles and clinical trials related to hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, physical activity, obesity, and psychologic risk factors for coronary artery disease. We carefully reviewed the literature and statistics on modifiable risk factors and identified appropriate physician interventions. RESULTS: A large amount of information is available on coronary artery disease and modifiable risk factors. Much of the data focuses on diagnosis and treatment to goal. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary artery disease remains the number one cause of death in the United States and West Virginia, even though specific guidelines have been established for detection and treatment. The medical community needs to be more aggressive in managing modifiable risk factors.