Search

Perioperative medical management is challenging because of the rising complexity of patients presenting for surgical procedures. A key part of preoperative optimization is appropriate management of long-term medications, yet guidelines and consensus statements for perioperative medication management are lacking. Available resources use recommendations derived from individual studies and do not include a multidisciplinary focus on formal consensus. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified a lack of authoritative clinical guidance as an opportunity to use its multidisciplinary membership to improve evidence-based perioperative care. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement seeks to provide guidance on perioperative medication management that synthesizes available literature with expert consensus. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide practical guidance on the preoperative management of immunosuppressive, biologic, antiretroviral, and anti-inflammatory medications. A panel of experts including hospitalists, anesthesiologists, internal medicine physicians, infectious disease specialists, and rheumatologists was appointed to identify the common medications in each of these categories. The authors then used a modified Delphi process to critically review the literature and to generate consensus recommendations.

Objective To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. Results A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19–directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. Conclusion Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Pretravel consultation involves a face-to-face visit with a Travel Medicine expert and includes time consuming educating/counseling. Efficacy of electronic consultations for pretravel is unknown. We compared pretravel education via face-to-face consult to an electronic consultations combined with education via Video Supported PowerPoint for select travelers. Methods We conducted a prospective trial comparing pre-travel education via electronic consultations versus face-to-face consult. Study was conducted from May 2014 through May 2015. Results Pretravel surveys were completed by 100 in electronic consult arm and 94 in face-to-face consult arm; 67/100 (67%) in the electronic consult and 51/94 (54.2%) in the face-to-face group completed post-travel surveys. Both groups had similar baseline demographics. 36.2% of the face-to-face group felt the trip preparation could have effectively been accomplished through electronic consult, while 33% felt that a face-to-face consult was needed; in contrast, a majority (63.3%) of electronic consult group preferred the electronic consult. Pre-travel education effectiveness was similar in both groups. No statistically significant differences in responses were noted in both groups to 5 of the 6 knowledge assessment questions. A higher proportion (76/100; 76%) in the electronic consult group compared to 55.4% (51/94) (p = 0.0018) in face-to-face group chose the correct response regarding management of febrile bloody diarrhea. 53% reported behavior change to prevent travel related illnesses, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. Conclusions electronic consultation with Video Supported PowerPoint pre-travel education is as effective as education via face-to-face consultations and provides a viable alternative to face-to-face consultations in select travelers.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has evolved from an illness that consistently led to death to a chronic disease that can be medically managed. Primary care clinicians can provide beneficial care to the individual patient and potentially decrease the transmission of HIV to others through appropriate HIV screening and recognition of clinical clues to both chronic and acute HIV. Most patients who take combination antiretroviral therapy experience immune reconstitution and resume normal lives. These patients benefit from the care of an experienced primary care clinician in addition to a clinician with HIV expertise. Primary care clinicians have expertise providing preventive care, including counseling regarding healthier lifestyle choices and managing cardiovascular risk factors, osteoporosis, hypertension, and diabetes, all of which have become increasingly important for individuals with HIV as they age. This article reviews the many important roles of primary care clinicians with regard to the HIV epidemic and care of patients with HIV.

To describe the history, objectives, statistics, and initiatives used to address challenges associated with the Mayo Clinic Visiting Medical Student (VMS) Clerkship Program.Mayo Clinic administrative records were reviewed for calendar years 1995 through 2008 to determine the effect of interventions to increase the numbers of appropriately qualified international VMSs and underrepresented minority VMSs. For numerical data, descriptive statistics were used; for comparisons, chi(2) tests were performed.During the specified period, 4908 VMSs participated in the Mayo VMS Program (yearly mean [SD], 351 [24]). Most students were from US medical schools (3247 [66%]) and were male (3084 [63%]). Overall, 3101 VMSs (63%) applied for and 935 (30%) were appointed to Mayo Clinic residency program positions. Interventions to address the challenge of large numbers of international students who participated in our VMS program but did not apply for Mayo residency positions resulted in significantly fewer international students participating in our VMS program (P.001), applying for Mayo residency program positions (P.001), and being appointed to residency positions (P=.001). Interventions to address the challenge of low numbers of underrepresented minority students resulted in significantly more of these students participating in our VMS program (P=.005), applying for Mayo residency positions (P=.008), and being appointed to residency positions (P=.04).Our findings suggest that specific interventions can affect the characteristics of students who participate in VMS programs and who apply for and are appointed to residency program positions.

© 2008 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research A 39-year-old woman presented to our institution with a 4-month history of weight loss, nausea, malaise, and daily fever (temperature, 38.3°C-39.5°C). Her medical history was remarkable for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism. Her medications included levothyroxine and insulin. Born in Mexico, she lived in Texas with her husband and 2 children and was employed as a clerical worker. She did not smoke, drink alcohol, or use recreational drugs. She had not traveled to foreign countries and had no exposure to tuberculosis (TB) or contact with animals or ill people. Family history was noncontributory. Our patient’s fever occurred nightly and was first noted after an elective laparoscopic sterilization, performed at another institution. There were no complications during the procedure, and she was able to walk well the next day. At her 2-week postoperative visit at her local institution, she reported daily fever and described symptoms of nausea, fatigue, and pain on the left side of her abdomen. She denied any change in bowel habit or in respiratory, urinary, or other focal symptoms. Examination revealed lower abdominal tenderness, without guarding, but was otherwise normal.

Preventive medicine provides important benefits to all persons, including older adults; however, these benefits may be seen more clearly in younger adults than in older persons. Smoking cessation, proper nutrition, exercise, and immunizations are important regardless of age. The prevalence of illness increases as we age; at the same time, life expectancy decreases. All physicians and patients should consider the potential benefits of screening and treatment vs conservative management. We discuss lifestyle recommendations such as smoking cessation, exercise, and good nutrition, as well as the role of screening for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and sensory and other disorders. These recommendations are derived from evidence-based guidelines when available; issues not associated with established guidelines are discussed on the basis of best current thinking.

Clindamycin, metronidazole, and chloramphenicol are three antimicrobial agents useful in the treatment of anaerobic infections. Clindamycin is effective in the treatment of most infections involving anaerobes and gram-positive cocci, but emerging resistance has become a problem in some clinical settings. Metronidazole is effective in the treatment of infections involving gram-negative anaerobes, but it is unreliable in the treatment of gram-positive anaerobic infections and is ineffective in treating aerobic infections. Additionally, metronidazole is often the drug of choice in treating infections in which Bacteroides fragilis is a serious concern. Chloramphenicol is effective in the treatment of a wide variety of bacterial infections, including serious anaerobic infections, but is rarely used in Western countries because of concerns about toxicity, including aplastic anemia and gray baby syndrome.

We appreciate Dr Bubb's feedback. It is true that we expected an increase in the percentage of our international visiting medical students (VMSs) who apply for residency positions at our institution as a result of our VMS program's new requirements that international medical students successfully complete the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) before being considered for our VMS program. Also, as we stated in the article, a corollary reason for the new requirements was our desire to reduce “the number of elective and clerkship slots taken by VMSs who did not intend to apply for [Mayo] residency program positions” in order to make these slots available to VMSs who did.1 Like other VMS programs,2 residency recruitment is a major objective of ours. Indeed, before the new requirements, we observed that only a minority of our international VMSs applied for a Mayo residency position (82/464 [18%]). Dr Bubb states that, after the new requirements were implemented, the percentage of international VMSs who applied for Mayo Clinic residency positions “nominally decreased” (34/205 [17%]). However, this change was not statistically significant (P=.80). Dr Bubb further states that we “neglect the fact that before implementation, international students were more likely to be appointed than US students (39% vs 31%).” However, this change also was not statistically significant (P=.16). Because of the new requirements, we expected that the absolute numbers of international VMSs applying for and participating in our VMS program as well as applying for, and being appointed to, our residency programs would correspondingly decrease. We agree that our new requirements discourage international medical students who have not taken the USMLE Step 1 and TOEFL from applying to our VMS program. As a result, it is possible that some international medical students who would be competitive for our residency programs will not visit our campus or participate in our VMS program. Notably, during 2009, 75 international VMSs participated in our VMS program, of which 32 (43%) applied for Mayo residency program positions and 11 (34%) were appointed to Mayo residency program positions. We are encouraged by these statistics that argue against Dr Bubb's concern that the new requirements adversely affect the culture of our VMS program and that international VMSs “concluded that the environment was not optimal for their educational needs.” Nevertheless, the effects of the USMLE Step 1 and TOEFL requirements deserve ongoing monitoring. Overall, we remain steadfast in our desire to attract the best and brightest international VMSs to participate in the Mayo VMS Program and recruit these students to our residency programs.

Preface.- Foreword.- Part I: Overview Chapters-Behavioral Interventions.- History of Behavioral Interventions in STD Control.- Behavioral Interventions for Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Theoretical.- Models and Intervention Methods.- Biomedical Interventions.- Part II: Intervention Approaches.- Dyadic, Small Group and Community-Level Behavioral Interventions for STD/HIV Prevention.- Structural Interventions.- STD Prevention Communication: Using Social Marketing Techniques with an Eye on Behavioral Change.- Partner Notification and Management Interventions.- Interventions in Sexual Health Care Seeking and Provision at Multiple Levels of the U.S. Health Care System.- Use of the Internet in STD/HIV Prevention.- Male Condoms.- STI Vaccines: Status of Development, Potential Impact, and Important Factors for Implementation.- Part III: Interventions by Population.- Behavioral Interventions for Prevention and Control of STDs Among Adolescents.- Biological and Behavioral Risk Factors Associated with STDs/HIV in Women-Implications for Behavioral Interventions.- STD Prevention for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States.- STD Repeaters: Implications for the Individual and STD Transmission in a Population.- Looking Inside and Affecting the Outside: Corrections-based Interventions for STD Prevention.- Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Illicit Drug Users in the United States: The Need for Interventions.- Part IV: Understanding Methods.- Quantitative Measurement.- Qualitative Measurement.- From Data to Action: Integrating Program Evaluation and Program Improvement.- Cost Effectiveness Analysis.- From Best Practices to Better Practice: Adopting Model Behavioral Interventions in the Real World of STD/HIV Prevention.- Part V: Ethical and Policy Issues.- The Ethics of Public Health Practice for the Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.- Policy and Behavioral Interventions for STDs.