Search

Objective: To determine whether the rates of nontraumatic dental condition (NTDC)-related emergency department (ED) visits are higher during the typical working hours of dental offices and lower during night hours, as well as the associated factors. Methods: We analyzed data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 1997 through 2007 using multivariate binary and polytomous logistic regression adjusted for survey design to determine the effect of predictors on specified outcome variables. Results: Overall, 4,726 observations representing 16.4 million NTDC-related ED visits were identified. Significant differences in rates of NTDC-related ED visits were observed with 40%-50% higher rates during nonworking hours and 20% higher rates on weekends than the overall average rate of 170 visits per hour. Compared with 19-33 year olds, subjects ,18 years old had significantly higher relative rates of NTDC-related ED visits during nonworking hours [relative rate ratio (RRR) = 1.6 to 1.8], whereas those aged 73 and older had lower relative rates during nonworking hours (RRR = 0.4; overall P = 0.0005). Compared with those having private insurance, Medicaid and self-pay patients had significantly lower relative rates of NTDC visits during nonworking and night hours (RRR = 0.6 to 0.7, overall P , 0.0003). Patients with a dental reason for visit were overrepresented during the night hours (RRR = 1.3; overall P = 0.04). Conclusion: NTDC-related visits to ED occurred at a higher rate during nonworking hours and on weekends and were significantly associated with age, patient-stated reason for visit and payer type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs).Objective: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings.Results: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings.Conclusions: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To assess primary care preceptors' perceptions of the issues involved in teaching when medical errors occur. In particular, we examined preceptors' responses to trainees involved in medical errors, factors influencing their response, and their perceptions of barriers to teaching from medical errors. Methods A total of 38 primary care preceptors participated in 7 focus groups on teaching and medical errors. Participants were drawn from medical schools throughout the northeastern USA. Content analysis of transcripts identified major themes. Results We developed a framework describing how preceptors and learners respond to medical errors, the factors that influence these responses, and the relationships between these. We also identified barriers to teaching from medical errors. Preceptors are especially sensitive to learners' distress as a result of errors. Emotional distress and self-doubt are seen as inimical to learning, possibly causing more attention to be directed to emotional support than to correction and instruction. At the same time, accepting responsibility for errors was seen as prerequisite to learning. For many preceptors, vivid recollections of their own errors during training were influential in determining how they in turn responded as preceptors; none reported having received training in this area. Conclusion This study describes preceptors' experiences of responding to trainees' medical errors, and identifies barriers to teaching from errors. The intersection of patient safety and medical education is a critical area for future research. We propose a framework that may help guide future research efforts, which should focus on identifying factors that promote faculty development to optimise learning and reduce the likelihood of future errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Morbidity and mortality conferences in residency programs are intended to discuss adverse events and errors with a goal to improve patient care. Little is known about whether residency training programs are accomplishing this goal. Objective: To determine the frequency at which morbidity and mortality conference case presentations include adverse events and errors and whether the errors are discussed and attributed to a particular cause. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective survey conducted by trained physician observers from July 2000 through April 2001 on 332 morbidity and mortality conference case presentations and discussions in internal medicine (n = 100) and surgery (n = 232) at 4 US academic hospitals. Main Outcome Measures: Frequencies of presentation of adverse events and errors, discussion of errors, and attribution of errors. Results: In internal medicine morbidity and mortality conferences, case presentations and discussions were 3 times longer than in surgery conferences (34.1 minutes vs 11.7 minutes; P = .001), more time was spent listening to invited speakers (43.1% vs 0%; P<.001), and less time was spent in audience discussion (15.2% vs 36.6%; P<.001). Fewer internal medicine case presentations included adverse events (37 [37%] vs 166 surgery case presentations [72%]; P<.001) or errors causing an adverse event (18 [18%] vs 98 [42%], respectively; P = .001). When an error caused an adverse event, the error was discussed as an error less often in internal medicine (10 errors [48%] vs 85 errors in surgery [77%]; P = .02). Errors were attributed to a particular cause less often in medicine than in surgery conferences (8 [38%] of 21 medicine errors vs 88 [79%] of 112 surgery errors; P<.001). In discussions of cases with errors, conference leaders in both internal medicine and surgery infrequently used explicit language to signal that an error was being discussed and infrequently acknowledged having made an error. Conclusions: Our findings call into question whether adverse events and errors are routinely discussed in internal medicine training programs. Although adverse events and errors were discussed frequently in surgery cases, teachers in both surgery and internal medicine missed opportunities to model recognition of error and to use explicit language in error discussion by acknowledging their personal experiences with error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Penile strangulation is an infrequent clinical condition that has widely been reported. It usually results following placement of a constriction device to enhance sexual stimulation. Early treatment is essential to avoid potential complications, including ischemic necrosis and autoamputation. We describe the use of a Large Orthopedic Pin Cutter to remove a metal penile constriction device in the Emergency Department (ED). This case report describes the relatively safe technique of using an instrument available in many hospitals that can be added to the physician's arsenal in the removal of metal constriction devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]