Search

Lagging quality of care in the U.S. health care system has been a persistent problem and challenge. In the past, medical professionalism and professional certification have served as cornerstones for improving quality in health care. Among newer efforts to improve quality, pay for performance has been proposed to propel better results, but many observers are concerned that pay for performance is at odds with medical professionalism. The authors examine the potential conflicts between pay for performance and medical professionalism and conclude that properly designed pay-for-performance models can support professional objectives.

Background: Concerns exist regarding increased risk for mortality associated with some chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) medications. Objective: To examine the association between various respiratory medications and risk for death in veterans with newly diagnosed COPD. Design: Nested case--control study in a cohort identified between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2003 and followed through 30 September 2004 by using National Veterans Affairs inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, and mortality databases; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services databases; and National Death Index Plus data. Cause of death was ascertained for a random sample of 40% of those who died during follow-up. Case patients were categorized on the basis of all-cause, respiratory, or cardiovascular death. Mortality risk associated with medications was assessed by using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions, health care use, and markers of COPD severity. Setting: U.S. Veterans Health Administration health care system. Participants: 32 130 case patients and 320 501 control participants in the all-cause mortality analysis. Of 11 897 patients with cause-of-death data, 2405 case patients had respiratory deaths and 3159 case patients had cardiovascular deaths. Measurements: All-cause mortality; respiratory and cardiovascular deaths; and exposure to COPD medications, inhaled corticosteroids, ipratropium, long-acting [beta]-agonists, and theophylline in the 6 months preceding death. Results: Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for all-cause mortality were 0.80 (95% Cl, 0.78 to 0.83) for inhaled corticosteroids, 1.11 (Cl, 1.08 to 1.15) for ipratropium, 0.92 (Cl, 0.88 to 0.96) for long-acting [beta]-agonists, and 1.05 (Cl, 0.99 to 1.10) for theophylline. Ipratropium was associated with increased cardiovascular deaths (OR, 1.34 [Cl, 1.22 to 1.47]), whereas inhaled corticosteroids were associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular death (OR, 0.80 [Cl, 0.72 to 0.88]). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Limitations: Current smoking status and lung function were not measured. Misclassification of cause-specific mortality is unknown. Conclusion: The possible association between ipratropium and elevated risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death needs further study.

This guidance statement is derived from other organizations' guidelines and is based on an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the available guidelines. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) appraisal instrument to evaluate the guidelines from various organizations. On the basis of the review of the available guidelines, we recommend: Statement 1: To prevent microvascular complications of diabetes, the goal for glycemic control should be as low as is feasible without undue risk for adverse events or an unacceptable burden on patients. Treatment goals should be based on a discussion of the benefits and harms of specific levels of glycemic control with the patient. A hemoglobin Ale level less than 7% based on individualized assessment is a reasonable goal for many but not all patients. Statement 2: The goal for hemoglobin Ale level should be based on individualized assessment of risk for complications from diabetes, comorbidity, life expectancy, and patient preferences. Statement 3: We recommend further research to assess the optimal level of glycemic control, particularly in the presence of comorbid conditions.

Breast cancer is one of the most common causes of death for women in their 40s in the United States. Individualized risk assessment plays an important role when making decisions about screening mammography, especially for women 49 years of age or younger. The purpose of this guideline is to present the available evidence for screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age and to increase clinicians' understanding of the benefits and risks of screening mammography.

This guideline summarizes the current approaches for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. The importance of early diagnosis to prevent mortality and morbidity associated with venous thromboembolism cannot be overstressed. This field is highly dynamic, however, and new evidence is emerging periodically that may change the recommendations. The purpose of this guideline is to present recommendations based on current evidence to clinicians to aid in the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Venous thromboembolism is a common condition affecting 7.1 persons per 10 000 person-years among community residents. Incidence rates for venous thromboembolism are higher in men and African Americans and increase substantially with age. It is critical to treat deep venous thrombosis at an early stage to avoid development of further complications, such as pulmonary embolism or recurrent deep venous thrombosis. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians caring for patients who have been given a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The target patient population is patients receiving a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is a genetic disorder of iron metabolism. Diagnosis of hereditary hemochromatosis is usually based on a combination of various genetic or phenotypic criteria. Decisions regarding screening are difficult because of the variable penetrance of mutations of the HFE gene and the absence of any definitive trials addressing the benefits and risks of therapeutic phlebotomy in asymptomatic patients or those with only laboratory abnormalities. The purpose of this guideline is to increase physician awareness of hereditary hemochromatosis, particularly the variable penetrance of genetic mutations; aid in case finding; and explain the role of genetic testing. This guideline provides recommendations based on a review of evidence in the accompanying background paper by Schmitt and colleagues. The target audience for this guideline is internists and other primary care physicians. The target patient population is all persons who have a probability or susceptibility of developing hereditary hemochromatosis, including the relatives of individuals who already have the disease.

In 1999, the American College of Physicians (ACP), then the American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine, and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) developed joint guidelines on the management of patients with chronic stable angina. The ACC/AHA then published an updated guideline in 2002, which ACP recognized as a scientifically valid review of the evidence and background paper. This ACP guideline summarizes the recommendations of the 2002 ACC/AHA updated guideline and underscores the recommendations most likely to be important to physicians seeing patients in the primary care setting. This guideline is the second of 2 that provide guidance on the management of patients with chronic stable angina. This document covers treatment and follow-up of symptomatic patients who have not had an acute myocardial infarction or revascularization procedure in the previous 6 months. Sections addressing asymptomatic patients are also included. Asymptomatic refers to patients with known or suspected coronary disease based on a history or electrocardiographic evidence of previous myocardial infarction, coronary angiography, or abnormal results on noninvasive tests. A previous guideline covered diagnosis and risk stratification for symptomatic patients who have not had an acute myocardial infarction or revascularization procedure in the previous 6 months and asymptomatic patients with known or suspected coronary disease based on a history or electrocardiographic evidence of previous myocardial infarction, coronary angiography, or abnormal results on noninvasive tests.

In 1999, the American College of Physicians (ACP), then the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) developed joint guidelines on the management of patients with chronic stable angina. The ACC/AHA then published an updated guideline in 2002, which the ACP recognized as a scientifically valid review of the evidence and background paper. This ACP guideline summarizes the recommendations of the 2002 ACC/AHA updated guideline and underscores the recommendations most likely to be important to physicians seeing patients in the primary care setting. This guideline is the first of 2 that will provide guidance on the management of patients with chronic stable angina. This document will cover diagnosis and risk stratification for symptomatic patients who have not had an acute myocardial infarction or revascularization procedure in the previous 6 months. Sections addressing asymptomatic patients are also included. Asymptomatic refers to patients with known or suspected coronary disease based on history or on electrocardiographic evidence of previous myocardial infarction, coronary angiography, or abnormal results on noninvasive tests. A future guideline will cover pharmacologic therapy and follow-up.

In an effort to provide internists and other primary care physicians with effective management strategies for diabetes care, the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee (CEAS) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) decided to develop guidelines on the management of dyslipidemia, particularly hypercholesterolemia, in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The CEAS commissioned a systematic review of the currently available evidence on the management of lipids in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The evidence review is presented in a background paper in this issue. On the basis of this systematic review, the CEAS developed recommendations that the ACP Board of Regents then approved as policy. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians who care for patients with type 2 diabetes. The target patient population is all persons with type 2 diabetes, including those who already have some form of microvascular complication and, of particular importance, premenopausal women. The recommendations are as follows. Recommendation 1: Lipid-lowering therapy should be used for secondary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity for all patients (both men and women) with known coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes. Recommendation 2: Statins should be used for primary prevention against macrovascular complications in patients (both men and women) with type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors. Recommendation 3: Once lipid, lowering therapy Is initiated, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus should be taking at least moderate doses of a statin. Recommendation 4: For those patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking statins, routine monitoring of fiver function tests or muscle enzymes is not recommended except in specific circumstances.

The Joint Panel of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians, in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, systematically reviewed the available evidence on the management of newly detected atrial fibrillation and developed recommendations for adult patients with first-detected atrial fibrillation. The recommendations do not apply to patients with postoperative or post-myocardial infarction atrial fibrillation, patients with class IV heart failure, patients already taking antiarrhythmic drugs, or patients with valvular disease. The target physician audience is internists and family physicians dedicated to primary care. The recommendations are as follows: Recommendation 1: Rate control with chronic anticoagulation is the recommended strategy for the majority of patients with atrial fibrillation. Rhythm control has not been shown to be superior to rate control (with chronic anticoagulation) in reducing morbidity and mortality and may be inferior in some patient subgroups to rate control. Rhythm control is appropriate when based on other special considerations, such as patient symptoms, exercise tolerance, and patient preference. Grade: 2A Recommendation 2: Patients with atrial fibrillation should receive chronic anticoagulation with adjusted-dose warfarin, unless they are at low risk of stroke or have a specific contraindication to the use of warfarin (thrombocytopenia, recent trauma or surgery, alcoholism). Grade: 1A Recommendation 3: For patients with atrial fibrillation, the following drugs are recommended for their demonstrated efficacy in rate control during exercise and while at rest: atenolol, metoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil (drugs listed alphabetically by class). Digoxin is only effective for rate control at rest and therefore should only be used as a second-line agent for rate control in atrial fibrillation. Grade: 1B Recommendation 4: For those patients who elect to undergo acute cardioversion to achieve sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation, both direct-current cardioversion (Grade: 1C+) and pharmacological conversion (Grade: 2A) are appropriate options. Recommendation 5: Both transesophageal echocardiography with short-term prior anticoagulation followed by early acute cardioversion (in the absence of intracardiac thrombus) with postcardioversion anticoagulation versus delayed cardioversion with pre- and postanticoagulation are appropriate management strategies for those patients who elect to undergo cardioversion. Grade: 2A Recommendation 6: Most patients converted to sinus rhythm from atrial fibrillation should not be placed on rhythm maintenance therapy since the risks outweigh the benefits. In a selected group of patients whose quality of life is compromised by atrial fibrillation, the recommended pharmacologic agents for rhythm maintenance are amiodarone, disopyramide, propafenone, and sotalol (drugs listed in alphabetical order). The choice of agent predominantly depends on specific risk of side effects based on patient characteristics. Grade: 2A

All patients with type 2, or adult onset, diabetes who also have high blood pressure should take either an ACE inhibitor or a thiazide diuretic to bring their blood pressure down to 135/80. Several studies have shown that blood pressure control can reduce a diabetic's risk of cardiovascular disease. More research will be needed to determine whether it can also prevent some of the other complications of diabetes.