Search

The continued growth in the economic evaluation of healthcare over the past 25 years has led to a shortage of trained health economists globally, leading to a number of universities and/or national governments developing specialised health economics programmes to train more health economists. One of the common problems with many of these training programmes is that they only educate new health economists to the Masters level, and as such they are unable to cover the many skills needed by a successful health economist. Furthermore, government and industry interests have ensured that economic evaluation is a heavily regulated environment that gives little incentive to seek further education. These two related factors (under-education and over-regulation) have lead to a situation where economic evaluation methods may adversely limit innovation of therapeutics and devices in clinical areas that perform badly when evaluated on the cost per QALY scale. The good news, however, is that the tide is turning and theoretically sound adjustments (such as risk adjustments and stated preferences) to the current paradigm are now being considered. This, of cause, is just the tip of the iceberg with other important issues such as time preference and the endogeneity of preference remaining very much under-researched areas in health. This paper concludes that many of these real-world issues, such as patient preferences, can be avoided by using artificial objective functions such as cost per QALY, but this comes at the cost of irrelevance and the misallocation of resources. If we are to meet all of the future challenges in economic evaluation in healthcare then we must focus more on advanced education and far less on the regulation of health economists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Religiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician experiences in religious institutions.Objective: Assess primary care physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding conflict with religious hospital policies for patient care.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Participants: General internists, family physicians, and general practitioners from the AMA Masterfile.Main Measures: In a questionnaire mailed in 2007, we asked physicians whether they had worked in a religiously affiliated hospital or practice, whether they had experienced conflict with the institution over religiously based patient care policies and how they believed physicians should respond to such conflicts. We used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between physicians' demographic and religious characteristics and their responses.Key Results: Of 879 eligible physicians, 446 (51%) responded. In analyses adjusting for survey design, 43% had worked in a religiously affiliated institution. Among these, 19% had experienced conflict over religiously based policies. Most physicians (86%) believed when clinical judgment conflicts with religious hospital policy, physicians should refer patients to another institution. Compared with physicians ages 26-29 years, older physicians were less likely to have experienced conflict with religiously based policies [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) compared with 30-34 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.11); 35-46 years: 0.07 (0.01-0.72); 47-60 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.10)]. Compared with those who never attend religious services, those who do attend were less likely to have experienced conflict [attend once a month or less: odds ratio 0.06 (0.01-0.29); attend twice a month or more: 0.22 (0.05-0.98)]. Respondents with no religious affiliation were more likely than others to believe doctors should disregard religiously based policies that conflict with clinical judgment (13% vs. 3%; p = 0.005).Conclusions: Hospitals and policy-makers may need to balance the competing claims of physician autonomy and religiously based institutional policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Morning report is a traditional core teaching session in most departments of internal medicine where learners present cases to a facilitator who uses the material to teach clinical reasoning. It instills fear in both learners and teachers because they may embarrassingly miss diagnostic possibilities including even the actual diagnosis.Aim: The two teaching tips described here enable the learner and the teacher to fall back on a routine approach to arriving at a differential diagnosis list.Description: The first tip describes how to elicit the ten "focal findings" in the case that best summarize the data used to derive a diagnosis list. The second tip describes a matrix of etiologies and systems that can be used to generate the diagnostic probabilities.Discussion: This approach is easy to teach and, where all else fails when coming up with a diagnosis, can be used to prompt the discussion of what is wrong with the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent reports from the Institute of Medicine emphasize patient-centered care and cross-cultural training as a means of improving the quality of medical care and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.Objective: To determine whether, controlling for training received in medical school or during residency, resident physician socio-cultural characteristics influence self-perceived preparedness and skill in delivering cross-cultural care.Design: National survey of resident physicians.Participants: A probability sample of residents in seven specialties in their final year of training at US academic health centers.Measurement: Nine resident characteristics were analyzed. Differences in preparedness and skill were assessed using the chi(2) statistic and multivariate logistic regression.Results: Fifty-eight percent (2047/3500) of residents responded. The most important factor associated with improved perceived skill level in performing selected tasks or services believed to be useful in treating culturally diverse patients was having received cross-cultural skills training during residency (OR range 1.71-4.22). Compared with white residents, African American physicians felt more prepared to deal with patients with distrust in the US healthcare system (OR 1.63) and with racial or ethnic minorities (OR 1.61), Latinos reported feeling more prepared to deal with new immigrants (OR 1.88) and Asians reported feeling more prepared to deal with patients with health beliefs at odds with Western medicine (1.43).Conclusions: Cross-cultural care skills training is associated with increased self-perceived preparedness to care for diverse patient populations providing support for the importance of such training in graduate medical education. In addition, selected resident characteristics are associated with being more or less prepared for different aspects of cross-cultural care. This underscores the need to both include medical residents from diverse backgrounds in all training programs and tailor such programs to individual resident needs in order to maximize the chances that such training is likely to have an impact on the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]