Query: How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer

Relevant passages:
Managing medical mistakes: ideology, insularity and accountability among internists-in-training. <=SEP=> By the end of graduate medical training, novice internists (collectively known as the housestaff) were initiated into the experience of either having done something to a patient which had a deleterious consequence or else having witnessed colleagues do the same. When these events occurred, the housestaff engaged in social-psychological processes, utilizing a variety of coping mechanisms and in-group practices to manage these mishaps. Three major mechanisms were utilized by the housestaff for defining and defending the various mishaps which frequently occurred: denial, discounting and distancing. Denial consisted of three components: the negation of the concept of error by defining the practice of medicine as an art with 'gray areas', the repression of actual mistakes by forgetting them and the redefinition of mistakes to non-mistakes. Discounting included those defenses which externalized the blame; namely mistakes which were due to circumstances beyond their control. These included: blaming the bureaucratic system outside of medicine; blaming superiors or subordinates within internal medicine; blaming the disease and blaming the patient. When they could not longer deny or discount a mistake because of its magnitude, they utilized distancing techniques. Not withstanding this shared elaborate repertoire of denial, discounting and distancing, it was found that profound doubts and even guilt remained for many housestaff. These troublesome feelings neither easily nor automatically resolved themselves. Interspersed among their defenses were fundamental questions of culpability and responsibility as they vacillated between self and other blame. For many 'the case was never closed', even as they terminated formal training, a point neglected in the medical and sociological literature. Little in their 3 year graduate program allowed them to work through the attendant vulnerability and ambiguity accompanying the managing of mistakes. Hence, there were maladaptive aspects of the collectively acquired defense mechanisms. The whole system of accountability during graduate medical specialty training was found to be a variable, and at times, contradictory process. The housestaff ultimately sees itself as the sole arbiter of mistakes and their adjudication. Housestaffers come to feel that nobody can judge them or their decisions, least of all their patients. As they progress through training even internal accountability cohorts--the Department of Medicine, teaching faculty and peers--are discounted to varying degrees. They have developed a strong ideology justifying their jealously guarded autonomy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Risk factors for myocardial infarction in women and men: insights from the INTERHEART study. <=SEP=> AIMS: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of death among men and women globally. Women develop CHD about 10 years later than men, yet the reasons for this are unclear. The purpose of this report is to determine if differences in risk factor distributions exist between women and men across various age categories to help explain why women develop acute MI later than men. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the INTERHEART global case-control study including 27 098 participants from 52 countries, 6787 of whom were women. The median age of first acute MI was higher in women than men (65 vs. 56 years; P < 0.0001). Nine modifiable risk factors were associated with MI in women and men. Hypertension [2.95(2.66 -3.28) vs. 2.32(2.16-2.48)], diabetes [4.26(3.68-4.94) vs. 2.67(2.43-2.94), physical activity [0.48(0.41-0.57) vs. 0.77(0.71-0.83)], and moderate alcohol use [0.41(0.34-0.50) vs. 0.88(0.82-0.94)] were more strongly associated with MI among women than men. The association of abnormal lipids, current smoking, abdominal obesity, high risk diet, and psychosocial stress factors with MI was similar in women and men. Risk factors associations were generally stronger among younger individuals compared to older women and men. The population attributable risk (PAR) of all nine risk factors exceeded 94%, and was similar among women and men (96 vs. 93%). Men were significantly more likely to suffer a MI prior to 60 years of age than were women, however, after adjusting for levels of risk factors, the sex difference in the probability of MI cases occurring before the age of 60 years was reduced by more than 80%. CONCLUSION: Women experience their first acute MI on average 9 years later than men. Nine modifiable risk factors are significantly associated with acute MI in both men and women and explain greater than 90% of the PAR. The difference in age of first MI is largely explained by the higher risk factor levels at younger ages in men compared to women.

Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned? <=SEP=> Five years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for a national effort to make health care safe. Although progress since then has been slow, the IOM report truly "changed the conversation" to a focus on changing systems, stimulated a broad array of stakeholders to engage in patient safety, and motivated hospitals to adopt new safe practices. The pace of change is likely to accelerate, particularly in implementation of electronic health records, diffusion of safe practices, team training, and full disclosure to patients following injury. If directed toward hospitals that actually achieve high levels of safety, pay for performance could provide additional incentives. But improvement of the magnitude envisioned by the IOM requires a national commitment to strict, ambitious, quantitative, and well-tracked national goals. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality should bring together all stakeholders, including payers, to agree on a set of explicit and ambitious goals for patient safety to be reached by 2010.

Resident duty-hour restrictions-who are we protecting?: AOA critical issues. <=SEP=> As advocated by Nasca, our teaching programs must nurture professionalism and the effacement of self interest that is the core of the practice of medicine and the profession. The evidence to date suggests that work-hour restrictions based solely on clock-defined time limits discourage, rather than promote, the professional behavior that we desire in tomorrow's physicians. Notwithstanding any issues related to duty hours or fitness for duty, a competency-based system of medical education is both desirable and necessary in the current environment of medical education. In the absence of evidence to suggest that duty-hour limits reduce medical errors and enhance patient safety, and until we have evolved to a competency-based system of resident education, a misguided and overzealous focus on limiting work hours should not be allowed to exert the unintended consequence of eroding the ethos of professionalism that we, and our patients, have come to expect of a physician.

Effects of health care provider work hours and sleep deprivation on safety and performance. <=SEP=> BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in the impact of resident-physician and nurse work hours on patient safety. The evidence demonstrates that work schedules have a profound effect on providers' sleep and performance, as well as on their safety and that of their patients. Nurses working shifts greater than 12.5 hours are at significantly increased risk of experiencing decreased vigilance on the job, suffering an occupational injury, or making a medical error. Physicians-in-training working traditional > 24-hour on-call shifts are at greatly increased risk of experiencing an occupational sharps injury or a motor vehicle crash on the drive home from work and of making a serious or even fatal medical error. As compared to when working 16-hours shifts, on-call residents have twice as many attentional failures when working overnight and commit 36% more serious medical errors. They also report making 300% more fatigue-related medical errors that lead to a patient's death. CONCLUSION: The weight of evidence strongly suggests that extended-duration work shifts significantly increase fatigue and impair performance and safety. From the standpoint of both providers and patients, the hours routinely worked by health care providers in the United States are unsafe. To reduce the unacceptably high rate of preventable fatigue-related medical error and injuries among health care workers, the United States must establish and enforce safe work-hour limits.

Patients' Expectations of Screening and Preventive Treatments <=SEP=> PURPOSE An informed decision to accept a health care intervention requires an understanding of its likely benefit. This study assessed participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease. METHODS Three general practitioners sent questionnaires to all registered patients aged 50 to 70 years. Patients agreeing to participate in the study were asked to estimate the number of events (fractures or deaths) prevented in a group of 5,000 patients undergoing each intervention over a period of 10 years, and to indicate the minimum number of events avoided by the intervention that they considered justified its use. The proportions of participants that overestimated each intervention's benefit were calculated, and univariate and multivariable analyses of predictors of response were performed. RESULTS The participation rate was 36%: 977 patients were invited to participate in the study, and 354 returned a completed questionnaire. Participants overestimated the degree of benefit conferred by all interventions: 90% of participants overestimated the effect of breast cancer screening, 94% overestimated the effect of bowel cancer screening, 82% overestimated the effect of hip fracture preventive medication, and 69% overestimated the effect of preventive medication for cardiovascular disease. Estimates of minimum acceptable benefit were more conservative, but other than for cardiovascular disease mortality prevention, most respondents indicated a minimum benefit greater than these interventions achieve. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions. CONCLUSION Patients overestimated the risk reduction achieved with 4 examples of screening and preventive medications. A lower level of education was associated with higher minimum benefit to justify intervention use. This tendency to overestimate benefits may affect patients' decisions to use such interventions, and practitioners should be aware of this tendency when discussing these interventions with patients.

Does hand hygiene compliance among health care workers change when patients are in contact precaution rooms in ICUs? <=SEP=> BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene compliance rates among health care workers (HCW) rarely exceed 50%. Contact precautions are thought to increase HCWs' hand hygiene awareness. We sought to determine any differences in hand hygiene compliance rates for HCW between patients in contact precaution and those not in any isolation. METHODS: In a hospital's medical (MICU) and surgical (SICU) intensive care units, a trained observer directly observed hand hygiene by the type of room (contact precaution or noncontact precaution) and the type of HCW (nurse or doctor). RESULTS: The SICU had similar compliance rates (36/75 [50.7%] in contact precaution rooms vs 223/431 [51.7%] compliance in noncontact precaution rooms, P > .5); the MICU also had similar hand hygiene compliance rates (67/132 [45.1%] in contact precaution rooms vs 96/213 [50.8%] in noncontact precaution rooms, P > .10). Hand hygiene compliance rates stratified by HCW were similar with 1 exception. The MICU nurses had a higher rate of hand hygiene compliance in contact precaution rooms than in rooms with noncontact precautions (66.7% vs 51.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compliance with hand hygiene among HCWs did not differ between contact precaution rooms and rooms with noncontact precautions with the exception of the nurses in the MICU. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. <=SEP=> CONTEXT: Most medical interventions have modest effects, but occasionally some clinical trials may find very large effects for benefits or harms. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and features of very large effects in medicine. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, 2010, issue 7). STUDY SELECTION: We separated all binary-outcome CDSR forest plots with comparisons of interventions according to whether the first published trial, a subsequent trial (not the first), or no trial had a nominally statistically significant (P < .05) very large effect (odds ratio [OR], ≥5). We also sampled randomly 250 topics from each group for further in-depth evaluation. DATA EXTRACTION: We assessed the types of treatments and outcomes in trials with very large effects, examined how often large-effect trials were followed up by other trials on the same topic, and how these effects compared against the effects of the respective meta-analyses. RESULTS: Among 85,002 forest plots (from 3082 reviews), 8239 (9.7%) had a significant very large effect in the first published trial, 5158 (6.1%) only after the first published trial, and 71,605 (84.2%) had no trials with significant very large effects. Nominally significant very large effects typically appeared in small trials with median number of events: 18 in first trials and 15 in subsequent trials. Topics with very large effects were less likely than other topics to address mortality (3.6% in first trials, 3.2% in subsequent trials, and 11.6% in no trials with significant very large effects) and were more likely to address laboratory-defined efficacy (10% in first trials,10.8% in subsequent, and 3.2% in no trials with significant very large effects). First trials with very large effects were as likely as trials with no very large effects to have subsequent published trials. Ninety percent and 98% of the very large effects observed in first and subsequently published trials, respectively, became smaller in meta-analyses that included other trials; the median odds ratio decreased from 11.88 to 4.20 for first trials, and from 10.02 to 2.60 for subsequent trials. For 46 of the 500 selected topics (9.2%; first and subsequent trials) with a very large-effect trial, the meta-analysis maintained very large effects with P < .001 when additional trials were included, but none pertained to mortality-related outcomes. Across the whole CDSR, there was only 1 intervention with large beneficial effects on mortality, P < .001, and no major concerns about the quality of the evidence (for a trial on extracorporeal oxygenation for severe respiratory failure in newborns). CONCLUSIONS: Most large treatment effects emerge from small studies, and when additional trials are performed, the effect sizes become typically much smaller. Well-validated large effects are uncommon and pertain to nonfatal outcomes.

Estimating Health Care-Associated Infections and Deaths in U.S. Hospitals, 2002 <=SEP=> SYNOPSIS Objective The purpose of this study was to provide a national estimate of the number of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and deaths in United States hospitals. Methods No single source of nationally representative data on HAIs is currently available. The authors used a multi-step approach and three data sources. The main source of data was the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system, data from 1990–2002, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey (for 2002) and the American Hospital Association Survey (for 2000) were used to supplement NNIS data. The percentage of patients with an HAI whose death was determined to be caused or associated with the HAI from NNIS data was used to estimate the number of deaths. Results In 2002, the estimated number of HAIs in U.S. hospitals, adjusted to include federal facilities, was approximately 1.7 million: 33,269 HAIs among newborns in high-risk nurseries, 19,059 among newborns in well-baby nurseries, 417,946 among adults and children in ICUs, and 1,266,851 among adults and children outside of ICUs. The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were 98,987: of these, 35,967 were for pneumonia, 30,665 for bloodstream infections, 13,088 for urinary tract infections, 8,205 for surgical site infections, and 11,062 for infections of other sites. Conclusion HAIs in hospitals are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The method described for estimating the number of HAIs makes the best use of existing data at the national level.

Are preventive drugs preventive enough? A study of patients' expectation of benefit from preventive drugs. <=SEP=> OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to find the threshold of benefit for a hypothetical cholesterol-lowering drug below which the subject would not be prepared to take the drug. We also looked at whether proximity to the target event (myocardial infarction) and the subjects' views on drug taking affected this threshold. DESIGN: We studied 307 subjects using a written questionnaire and interview. Group 1 (102 subjects) had just been discharged from the coronary care unit. Group 2 (105 subjects) were taking cardio-protective drugs but had no recent history of myocardial infarction. Group 3 (100 subjects) had no history of myocardial infarction and were taking no cardio-protective drugs. RESULTS: Median values for the threshold of benefit below which the subject would not take the preventive drug were 20%, 20%, and 30% absolute risk reduction for Groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Median values for expectation of average prolongation of life were 12, 12 and 18 months respectively. Only 27% of subjects would take a drug offering 5% or less absolute risk reduction over five years. Subjects' views on medicinal drug taking in general and proximity to the target event were predictors of the acceptance of preventive drugs. Eighty percent of subjects wished to be told the numerical benefit of a preventive drug before starting on it. CONCLUSION: For the majority, the expectation of benefit from a preventive drug is higher than the actual benefit provided by current drug strategies. There is a tension between the patient's right to know about the chance of benefiting from a preventive drug and the likely reduction in uptake if they are so informed.

The emergence of "lifestyle medicine" as a structured approach for management of chronic disease. <=SEP=> Chronic diseases with a lifestyle-based aetiology currently make up a significant proportion of primary care consultations, but management often falls between the demands of public and clinical health. A modified clinical approach, based around the concept of "lifestyle medicine", helps fill the gap by adding behavioural, motivational and environmental skills to conventional medical practice. When used in a multidisciplinary setting, lifestyle medicine offers potential cost and effectiveness benefits, which are beginning to be realised.

Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. <=SEP=> In a prospective, randomised, controlled trial to determine whether comprehensive lifestyle changes affect coronary atherosclerosis after 1 year, 28 patients were assigned to an experimental group (low-fat vegetarian diet, stopping smoking, stress management training, and moderate exercise) and 20 to a usual-care control group. 195 coronary artery lesions were analysed by quantitative coronary angiography. The average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 40.0 (SD 16.9)% to 37.8 (16.5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42.7 (15.5)% to 46.1 (18.5)% in the control group. When only lesions greater than 50% stenosed were analysed, the average percentage diameter stenosis regressed from 61.1 (8.8)% to 55.8 (11.0)% in the experimental group and progressed from 61.7 (9.5)% to 64.4 (16.3)% in the control group. Overall, 82% of experimental-group patients had an average change towards regression. Comprehensive lifestyle changes may be able to bring about regression of even severe coronary atherosclerosis after only 1 year, without use of lipid-lowering drugs.

Pediatric CT research elevates public health concerns: low-dose radiation issues are highly politicized. <=SEP=> This article presents an analysis of issues related to low-dose radiation, with a focus on pediatric computed tomography (CT). It references several early studies that are seldom quoted in radiation research papers, then quantifies the excess lifetime fatal cancer yield attributable to an estimated 6.5 million pediatric abdominal CT scans. The authors highlight an important policy document issued jointly by the National Cancer Institute and the Society for Pediatric Radiology--specifically, its conclusion that a small dose from CT represents "a public health concern." Finally, the article identifies several contentious issues and proposes policy initiatives that, if implemented, could result in significant reductions of future radiogenic cancers and chronic injuries. The authors call for discussions between professional radiology societies and public interest health organizations, thereby involving all stakeholders.

Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. <=SEP=> OBJECTIVE: In light of the rapidly increasing frequency of pediatric CT examinations, the purpose of our study was to assess the lifetime cancer mortality risks attributable to radiation from pediatric CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Organ doses as a function of age-at-diagnosis were estimated for common CT examinations, and estimated attributable lifetime cancer mortality risks (per unit dose) for different organ sites were applied. Standard models that assume a linear extrapolation of risks from intermediate to low doses were applied. On the basis of current standard practice, the same exposures (milliampere-seconds) were assumed, independent of age. RESULTS: The larger doses and increased lifetime radiation risks in children produce a sharp increase, relative to adults, in estimated risk from CT. Estimated lifetime cancer mortality risks attributable to the radiation exposure from a CT in a 1-year-old are 0.18% (abdominal) and 0.07% (head)-an order of magnitude higher than for adults-although those figures still represent a small increase in cancer mortality over the natrual background rate. In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation. CONCLUSION: The best available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT, both because of the increased dose per milliampere-second, and the increased lifetime risk per unit dose. Lower milliampere-second settings can be used for children without significant loss of information. Although the risk-benefit balance is still strongly tilted toward benefit, because the frequency of pediatric CT examinations is rapidly increasing, estimates that quantitative lifetime radiation risks for children undergoing CT are not negligible may stimulate more active reduction of CT exposure settings in pediatric patients.

Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno <=SEP=> Short abstract Radiological and nuclear medicine examinations confer a definite (albeit low) long term risk of cancer, but patients undergoing such examinations often receive no or inaccurate information about these risks. Picano argues that this disregard of patient autonomy is no longer acceptable and suggests a practicable way of communicating risk

Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation <=SEP=> Objectives The Radiation Protection of Patients Unit of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is concerned about the effectiveness of justification of diagnostic medical exposures. Recent published work and the report of an initial IAEA consultation in the area gave grounds for such concerns. There is a significant level of inappropriate usage, and, in some cases, a poor level of awareness of dose and risk among some key groups involved. This article aims to address this. Methods The IAEA convened a second group of experts in November 2008 to review practical and achievable actions that might lead to more effective justification. Results This report summarises the matters that this group considered and the outcome of their deliberations. There is a need for improved communication, both within professions and between professionals on one hand, and between professionals and the patients/public on the other. Coupled with this, the issue of consent to imaging procedures was revisited. The need for good evidence-based referral guidelines or criteria of acceptability was emphasised, as was the need for their global adaptation and dissemination. Conclusion Clinical audit was regarded as a key tool in ensuring that justification becomes an effective, transparent and accountable part of normal radiological practice. In summary, justification would be facilitated by the “3 As”: awareness, appropriateness and audit.

Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. <=SEP=> BACKGROUND: The use of computed tomographic (CT) scans in the United States (US) has increased more than 3-fold since 1993 to approximately 70 million scans annually. Despite the great medical benefits, there is concern about the potential radiation-related cancer risk. We conducted detailed estimates of the future cancer risks from current CT scan use in the US according to age, sex, and scan type. METHODS: Risk models based on the National Research Council's "Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation" report and organ-specific radiation doses derived from a national survey were used to estimate age-specific cancer risks for each scan type. These models were combined with age- and sex-specific scan frequencies for the US in 2007 obtained from survey and insurance claims data. We estimated the mean number of radiation-related incident cancers with 95% uncertainty limits (UL) using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Overall, we estimated that approximately 29 000 (95% UL, 15 000-45 000) future cancers could be related to CT scans performed in the US in 2007. The largest contributions were from scans of the abdomen and pelvis (n = 14 000) (95% UL, 6900-25 000), chest (n = 4100) (95% UL, 1900-8100), and head (n = 4000) (95% UL, 1100-8700), as well as from chest CT angiography (n = 2700) (95% UL, 1300-5000). One-third of the projected cancers were due to scans performed at the ages of 35 to 54 years compared with 15% due to scans performed at ages younger than 18 years, and 66% were in females. CONCLUSIONS: These detailed estimates highlight several areas of CT scan use that make large contributions to the total cancer risk, including several scan types and age groups with a high frequency of use or scans involving relatively high doses, in which risk-reduction efforts may be warranted.