Physicians caring for physicians: the perspective of the primary care physician.

OBJECTIVES: How physicians provide longitudinal primary care to physician-patients (ie, physicians as patients) has not been well studied. The potential challenges of providing care to physician-patients include maintaining professional boundaries and adhering to practice guidelines. The objective was to explore the differences in identifying how physicians perceive caring for physicians-patients in the longitudinal setting versus caring for other patients in the general population. METHODS: The study consisted of focus groups, followed by quantitative survey. Participants were primary care physicians (internal medicine and family medicine) at an academic multispecialty group practice. Thematic analysis of focus groups informed the development of the survey. RESULTS: In focus groups, participants identified several benefits, challenges, and differences in caring for physician-patients versus the general population. When these findings were explored further by quantitative survey, participants noted differences in care regarding chart documentation protocols, communication of results, and accommodation of schedules. They agreed that there were benefits to providing care to physician-patients, such as believing their work was valued and discussing complex issues with greater ease. There also were challenges, including anxiety or self-doubt. Participants also agreed on the following strategies when caring for this population: make recommendations based on evidence-based medicine, follow routine assessment and examination protocols, follow routine scheduling and communication protocols, recommend the same follow-up visit schedule, and define boundaries of the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive caring for physician-patients as different and rewarding, although some find that it provokes anxiety. Many are willing to make concessions regarding scheduling and testing. With increasing experience, the anxiety decreased as did the need to follow protocols and maintain boundaries. Further investigation is needed to determine the impact of physician experience and training on the quality of care for physician-patients.

Ethical considerations in the first American face transplant.

BACKGROUND: Before performing the first face transplant in the United States, the authors addressed several ethical considerations: subject selection, adequacy of informed consent, and risk-to-benefit analysis. METHODS: Destruction of the patient's midface, including its bony architecture, had impaired the ability of the authors' patient to speak, eat, smell, and socialize. These functional impairments and the inability of conventional reconstruction to reconstruct this deformity justified considering this patient for face transplantation. The patient's resilience in adapting to her injury, her conscientious self-care following her initial injury, and her ability to understand the risks and uncertainties of the proposed procedure were important factors in selecting her as a candidate for this innovation. To enhance our patient's understanding of this largely untried procedure, the informed consent process occurred over multiple encounters involving both information disclosure and assessment of comprehension of what the procedure involved, including its potential benefits and risks. The patient demonstrated not only understanding of the procedure, including its innovative nature and concomitant uncertainties, but also that its goals were consistent with her values. RESULTS: Research risk-to-benefit analysis involved balancing societal and subject benefits against subject risks. The potential benefit to society and increased knowledge of the role of face transplantation in facial reconstruction were substantial. The subject's benefits had been maximized and harms minimized through subject selection, team expertise, and preparation. This produced a risk-to-benefit profile in which we considered that the benefits sufficiently outweighed the risks to proceed with transplantation in this patient. CONCLUSION: Ethical considerations were important determinants in the decision to proceed with facial transplantation in this woman.

A pilot study to examine research subjects' perception of participating in research in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The emergency department (ED) provides an arena for patient enrollment into a variety of research studies even for non-critically ill patients. Given the types of illness, time constraints and sense of urgency that exists in the ED environment, concern exists about whether research subjects in the ED can provide full consent for participation. We sought to identify enrolled research subjects' perspectives on the informed consent process for research conducted in the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of ED subjects, 18 years or older, who had been approached to participate in research in the ED and who were judged to have decision-making capacity. Exclusions were critical illness and refusal to participate. Subjective were followed up within 1 week after enrolling using structured phone interviews by trained interviewers. RESULTS: During the study period, 229 eligible patients were approached to participate in both a target study and this study. Of these, 66% (150/229) agreed to participate in this study, at least to the extent of allowing us access to their demographic data. The study participant group was similar in terms of gender to this particular ED's patient population but had significantly more African-Americans and persons older than 45. CONCLUSION: Despite rigorous time constraints and rapid throughput times, the majority of subjects who consented to research participation in the ED felt that they were sufficiently informed and had adequate time to decide to participate.

The world's experience with facial transplantation: what have we learned thus far?

The objective of this review article is to summarize the published details and media citations for all seven face transplants performed to date to point out deficiencies in those reports so as to provide the basis for examining where the field of face transplantation stands, and to act as a stimulus to enhance the quality of future reports and functional outcomes. Overall long-term function of facial alloflaps has been reported satisfactorily in all seven cases. Sensory recovery ranges between 3 and 6 months, and acceptable motor recovery ranges between 9 and 12 months. The risks and benefits of facial composite tissue allotransplantation, which involves mandatory lifelong immunosuppression analogous to kidney transplants, should be deliberated by each institution's multidisciplinary face transplant team. Face transplantation has been shown thus far to be a viable option in some patients suffering severe facial deficits which are not amenable to modern-day reconstructive technique.

Near-total human face transplantation for a severely disfigured patient in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Multiple reconstructive procedures are common for the reconstruction of complex facial deformities of skin, soft tissues, bony structures, and functional subunits, such as the nose, lips, and eyelids. However, the results have been unsatisfactory. An innovative approach entailing a single surgical procedure of face allograft transplantation is a viable alternative and gives improved results. METHODS: On Dec 9, 2008, a 45-year-old woman with a history of severe midface trauma underwent near-total face transplantation in which 80% of her face was replaced with a tailored composite tissue allograft. We addressed issues of immunosuppressive therapy, psychological and ethical outcomes, and re-integration of the patient into society. FINDINGS: After the operation, the patient did well physically and psychologically, and tolerated immunosuppression without any major complication. Routine biopsy on day 47 after transplantation showed rejection of graft mucosa; however, a single bolus of corticosteroids reversed rejection. During the first 3 weeks after transplantation, the patient accepted her new face; 6 months after surgery, the functional outcome has been excellent. In contrast to her status before transplantation, the patient can now breathe through her nose, smell, taste, speak intelligibly, eat solid foods, and drink from a cup. INTERPRETATION: We show the feasibility of reconstruction of severely disfigured patients in a single surgical procedure using composite face allotransplantation. Therefore, this should be taken in consideration as an early option for severely disfigured patients. FUNDING: None.

Bias in surgical research.

OBJECTIVE: The aim is to discuss the various forms of bias in surgical research, including how it impacts validity and how to recognize and avoid it. METHODS: The various factors affecting bias in surgical research's design, execution, and reporting were explored. The impact of these factors on internal and external validity in both observational and randomized controlled trials was examined, and recommendations were made for ameliorating the various biases. RESULTS: Identifying bias when interpreting a trial enables surgeons to assess surgical research's internal and external validity. Avoiding bias and/or using methods that minimize bias helps surgeons design and conduct trials with enhanced validity, which can be reliably translated into practice. To accomplish this, surgeons need to be cognizant of susceptibility bias, the applicability of surrogate endpoints, and the use of inappropriate comparators in trial design. They must also be aware of detection, ascertainment, performance and transfer bias in trial execution, and of citation bias in trial reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with clinical trials' potential biases helps surgeons assess the believability and applicability of research results. Though these biases may sometimes be ameliorated by randomization, blinding, and intervention standardization, these remedies can present distinctive problems to surgical research. This poses a unique need and opportunity for innovation in surgical research design and evaluation. It necessitates that further research be done on methods to improve not only the internal and external validity of surgical trials but also their assessment.