Screening for unhealthy diet and exercise habits: The electronic health record and a healthier population.

The US spends more money than any other country in the world on health care but does not have the best health outcomes. Most healthcare dollars are spent on treatment of preventable chronic conditions including heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Many recent studies have shown that a poor diet and low cardiorespiratory fitness are associated with significant morbidity and an increased risk of all-cause mortality. There is evidence that those with higher cardiorespiratory fitness have lower annual healthcare costs. Despite continued research on the essential role of diet and exercise in optimal health, these vital health behaviors have been slow to change in the US population and do not receive adequate attention. We propose more objective screening, visible and monitored in the Electronic Health Record, to improve awareness, help educate patients, and monitor their progress over time. It would also help identify those individuals that would benefit from referral to interventional behavioral resources in the clinic and community. With an increased focus on preventive and population health measures, now is an ideal time to include both exercise and diet in health metrics. A few relatively simple changes could prompt providers to assess and educate patients about nutrition and fitness and promote a healthier population.

Adherence to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2002 osteoporosis screening guidelines in academic primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is very common in older women in the United States. Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality, as well as high healthcare costs. Since 2002, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for osteoporosis of all women aged ≥65. Our objective was to determine adherence to osteoporosis screening guidelines by primary care internists in a large academic medical center and to assess if adherence varies based on provider gender or practice location. METHODS: This was a retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review. All women aged ≥65 who were seen in the General Internal Medicine Center (GIMC) or the Women's Health Care Center (WHCC) at the University of Washington Medical Center by internal medicine attending physicians between January 1, 2006, and February 2, 2008, were included in the study. We determined if the patient had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) study in the EMR database. We calculated the percentage of patients screened per provider and also compared the rate of screening for male vs. female providers and for GIMC vs. WHCC providers. RESULTS: Of the 1363 women included in the study, 70% had documentation of a DEXA study. Adherence to screening recommendations for individual providers varied from 33% to 100%. Screening was more likely to occur in the WHCC than in the GIMC (79.2% vs. 66.7%, p<0.001). Although women providers were more likely to screen than their male counterparts (72.2% vs. 66.1%, p=0.023), this relationship did not hold true after excluding women providers from the WHCC. CONCLUSIONS: We found good adherence to the USPSTF 2002 guidelines for osteoporosis screening in women aged ≥65 years by primary care physicians in a large urban academic medical center. The practice site and not gender of the provider resulted in significantly different screening rates.

Medical students' self-reported experiences performing pelvic, breast, and male genital examinations and the influence of student gender and physician supervision.

PURPOSE: To survey third- and fourth-year medical students about their experiences performing gender-specific examinations. METHOD: In 2001, 402 third- and fourth-year medical students at the University of Washington School of Medicine were mailed a questionnaire that asked them to approximate the number of pelvic, breast, and male genital examinations they had performed and to estimate the percentage of these examinations that were observed and the percentage that were repeated by a supervising physician. They were also asked to rate their confidence performing these examinations. Chi-square analysis and stepwise multiple regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 194 (48%) students completed the questionnaire. Fourth-year female students performed significantly more pelvic (p < .01) and breast examinations (p < .01) than did fourth-year male students. The percentage of examinations that were repeated by a supervising physician was low. Only 86 (45%) of third- and fourth-year students had greater than 75% of their breast examinations repeated by a supervising physician. Male students were less confident in performing the pelvic exam (p < .01) and female students were less confident performing the male genital exam (p < .01). The only predictor of confidence in performing each of these examinations was the number of examinations performed (p < .001). Confidence did not correlate with the percentage of exams observed, percentage of examinations repeated by a supervising physician, or student gender. CONCLUSIONS: Student gender was a marker for suboptimal exposure for performing opposite-sex, gender-specific examinations. The only predictor of confidence in performing these examinations was the number of exams performed. Special efforts should be made to eliminate gender disparity in opportunities to perform gender-specific exams.