Search

Discusses the importance of print publication. Efforts of journal publishers to improve print design; Impact of the Internet on print publication; Limitations of information in electronic form; Enduring quality of written or printed words.

Relates the poem `On Being a Doctor 2' to the medical challenges encountered by physicians. Interpretation of the poem in relation to healthcare; Implications of such poem for the healthcare sector; Overview on essays of the `patient discovery' variety that contain the experience physicians have in medicine.

Editorial. Comments on the need of medical practitioners to optimize time to meet demands of medical services in the 21st-century. Impact of the new millennium on the lives of people; Distinction between private and public time; Evolution of medical care; Prevalence of literatures on time and medicine; Impact of the acceleration of daily activities on medical care.

Editorial. Discusses the difficulties and challenges that accompany the publication of a biomedical journal. Controversy surrounding the `Journal of the American Medical Association'; Publishing cast of characters; Dependence on reinforcing feedback loops; Comparison to the performing arts.

Editorials. Comments on the paper written by D.G. Kerns and others, which focused on `flock worker's lung' disease. Evaluation of the health hazards from factories; Indication that nylon fabric may elicit a vigorous pathologic inflammatory response; Estimated number of persons employed in the nylon flocking industry in the United States.

Editorial. Comments on gun violence in the United States. Reference to scenes of gun violence in motion pictures; Views of social critic Ivan Illich; Reference to surgeons and interists' views that gun violence is a public health issue; Specualtion on whether surgeons' views on gun violence is important.

Editorial. Discusses the decline in selection of categorical internal medicine residencies by U.S. medical students. Response to the downward trend; Views on residency programs; Opinion on the charges against internal medicine.

Context: Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial revision processes.Objective: To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes made to address these problems.Design and Setting: Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997).Main Outcome Measure: Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and revision.Results: Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions).Conclusion: The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Comments on the impact of electronic and Web technology on authors, editors and readers in the United States. Speed by which readers can comment on articles in journals; Provision of expanded information for authors on preparing manuscripts for submission; Direct submission of manuscript papers onto the site.

Purpose: The fate of research manuscripts that have been rejected by medical journals is of interest to authors, editors, and peer reviewers, but previous studies were conducted before the widespread availability of computerized literature searches. We update the previous investigations of the fate of rejected research manuscripts by using an electronic literature search and a larger sample, a longer follow-up, and more descriptive journal indexes.Methods: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we examined 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a general medical journal, during 1993 and 1994. We assessed the number of manuscripts that were published after initial rejection, time to eventual publication, journal type (general versus specialty), and journal impact factor (higher scores indicated greater impact) and immediacy index.Results: Of 350 rejected manuscripts, 240 (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64% to 73%) were eventually published after a mean of 552 days (95% CI: 479 to 544 days, range 121 to 1, 792 days). Of 226 rejected research articles and reviews, 159 (70%, 95% CI: 64% to 76%) were subsequently published in specialty journals. During 1993 and 1994, the mean impact factor for articles published in the Annals was 9.60 (95% CI: 9.56 to 9.64), compared with a mean of 3.09 (95% CI: 2.80 to 3.37) for the journals in which the rejected articles were subsequently published (mean difference 6. 52, 95% CI: 6.24 to 6.81, P < 0.0001). The immediacy index was also lower for these journals. Time to publication had a weak negative correlation with the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published (correlation coefficient -0.15, P = 0.007).Conclusions: The majority of the manuscripts that were rejected from a large general medical journal were eventually published after an average of 18 months. Most were published in specialty journals with lower impact factor and immediacy index ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses potential conflicts of interest in clinical trials supported by pharmaceutical companies. Power of clinical trials to change medical practice; Need for trials to be objective; How industries sponsoring clinical trials can dictate the terms often resulting in skewed results; Revision of the publication ethics of 'The Lancet' to prevent conflicts of interest.

Objective: To rethink the nature and roles of context in ways that help improvers implement effective, sustained improvement interventions in healthcare quality and safety., Design: Critical analysis of existing concepts of context; synthesis of those concepts into a framework for the construction of explanatory theories of human environments, including healthcare systems., Data Sources: Published literature in improvement science, as well as in social, organization, and management sciences. Relevant content was sought by iteratively building searches from reference lists in relevant documents., Results: Scientific thought is represented in both causal and explanatory theories. Explanatory theories are multi-variable constructs used to make sense of complex events and situations; they include basic operating principles of explanation, most importantly: transferring new meaning to complex and confusing phenomena; separating out individual components of an event or situation; unifying the components into a coherent construct (model); and adapting that construct to fit its intended uses. Contexts of human activities can be usefully represented as explanatory theories of peoples' environments; they are valuable to the extent they can be translated into practical changes in behaviors. Healthcare systems are among the most complex human environments known. Although no single explanatory theory adequately represents those environments, multiple mature theories of human action, taken together, can usually make sense of them. Current mature theories of context include static models, universal-plus-variable models, activity theory and related models, and the FITT framework (Fit between Individuals, Tasks, and Technologies). Explanatory theories represent contexts most effectively when they include basic explanatory principles., Conclusions: Healthcare systems can usefully be represented in explanatory theories. Improvement interventions in healthcare quality and safety are most likely to bring about intended and sustained changes when improvers use explanatory theories to align interventions with the host systems into which they are being introduced.

Avoiding low value care received increasing attention in many countries, as with the Choosing Wisely campaign and other initiatives to abandon care that wastes resources or delivers no benefit to patients. While an extensive literature characterises approaches to implementing evidence-based care, we have limited understanding of the process of de-implementation, such as abandoning existing low value practices. To learn more about the differences between implementation and de-implementation, we explored the literature and analysed data from two published studies (one implementation and one de-implementation) by the same orthopaedic surgeons. We defined 'leaders' as those orthopaedic surgeons who implemented, or de-implemented, the target processes of care and laggards as those who did not. Our findings suggest that leaders in implementation share some characteristics with leaders in de-implementation when comparing them with laggards, such as more open to new evidence, younger and less time in clinical practice. However, leaders in de-implementation and implementation differed in some other characteristics and were not the same persons. Thus, leading in implementation or de-implementation may depend to some degree on the type of intervention rather than entirely reflecting personal characteristics. De-implementation seemed to be hampered by motivational factors such as department priorities, and economic and political factors such as cost-benefit considerations in care delivery, whereas organisational factors were associated only with implementation. The only barrier or facilitator common to both implementation and de-implementation consisted of outcome expectancy (ie, the perceived net benefit to patients). Future studies need to test the hypotheses generated from this study and improve our understanding of differences between the processes of implementation and de-implementation in the people who are most likely to lead (or resist) these efforts., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org)., Competing Interests: None., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Over the past 25 years, the number of women graduating from medical schools in the United States and Canada has increased dramatically to the point where roughly equal numbers of men and women are graduating each year. Despite this growth, women continue to face challenges in moving into academic leadership positions. In this Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from their own careers relevant to women's careers in academic medicine, including aspects of leadership, recruitment, editorship, promotion, and work-life balance. They provide brief synopses of current literature on the personal and social forces that affect women's participation in academic leadership roles. They are persuaded that a deeper understanding of these realities can help create an environment in academic medicine that is generally more supportive of women's participation, and that specifically encourages women in medicine to take on academic leadership positions.

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org)., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guidelines were published in 2008 to increase the completeness, precision and accuracy of published reports of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare. Since that time, the field has expanded. We asked people from the field to evaluate the Guidelines, a novel approach to a first step in revision., Methods: Evaluative design using focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 29 end users and an advisory group of 18 thinkers in the field. Sampling of end users was purposive to achieve variation in work setting, geographic location, area of expertise, manuscript writing experience, healthcare improvement and research experience., Results: Study participants reported that SQUIRE was useful in planning a healthcare improvement project, but not as helpful during writing because of redundancies, uncertainty about what was important to include and lack of clarity in items. The concept "planning the study of the intervention" (item 10) was hard for many participants to understand. Participants varied in their interpretation of the meaning of item 10b "the concept of the mechanism by which changes were expected to occur". Participants disagreed about whether iterations of an intervention should be reported. Level of experience in writing, knowledge of the science of improvement and the evolving meaning of some terms in the field are hypothesised as the reasons for these findings., Conclusions: The original SQUIRE Guidelines help with planning healthcare improvement work, but are perceived as complicated and unclear during writing. Key goals of the revision will be to clarify items where conflict was identified and outline the key components necessary for complete reporting of improvement work., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semi-structured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognizing that they can be complex and multi-dimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

The role and value of theory in improvement work in healthcare has been seriously underrecognised. We join others in proposing that more informed use of theory can strengthen improvement programmes and facilitate the evaluation of their effectiveness. Many professionals, including improvement practitioners, are unfortunately mystified-and alienated-by theory, which discourages them from using it in their work. In an effort to demystify theory we make the point in this paper that, far from being discretionary or superfluous, theory ('reason-giving'), both informal and formal, is intimately woven into virtually all human endeavour. We explore the special characteristics of grand, mid-range and programme theory; consider the consequences of misusing theory or failing to use it; review the process of developing and applying programme theory; examine some emerging criteria of 'good' theory; and emphasise the value, as well as the challenge, of combining informal experience-based theory with formal, publicly developed theory. We conclude that although informal theory is always at work in improvement, practitioners are often not aware of it or do not make it explicit. The germane issue for improvement practitioners, therefore, is not whether they use theory but whether they make explicit the particular theory or theories, informal and formal, they actually use., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Published in 2008, the SQUIRE guidelines are a set of 19 descriptive items that identify the information readers want and need to know about making and studying improvements in healthcare delivery. They were created over a period of several years, largely in response to earlier concerns about the limited quantity and inadequate quality of published reports of work in this new discipline. They have proven useful in writing about improvement interventions, as well as in designing and implementing them. As improvement concepts and methods continue to develop, SQUIRE is also evolving as part of its continuing effort to contribute to the advancement of the "science of improvement."

Medicine is a learned profession, but clinical practice is above all a matter of performance, in the best and deepest sense of the word. Because music is, at its core, a pure distillate of real-time performance, musicians are in an excellent position to teach us about better ways to become and remain expert performers in health care and ways for our teachers and mentors to help us do that. Ten features of the professionalization of musicians offer us lessons on how the clinical practice of medicine might be learned, taught, and performed more effectively.

In 2005 we published draft guidelines for reporting studies of quality improvement interventions as the initial step in a consensus process for development of a more definitive version. The current article contains the revised version, which we refer to as SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence). We describe the consensus process, which included informal feedback, formal written commentaries, input from publication guideline developers, review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and on methods for evaluating complex social programs, and a meeting of stakeholders for critical review of the guidelines' content and wording, followed by commentary on sequential versions from an expert consultant group. Finally, we examine major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft, and consider limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE; we also describe ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions under development, and plans for dissemination, testing, and further development of SQUIRE.

These guidelines address the development and testing of interventions to improve the quality and safety of health care.

For centuries medicine was predominantly a tradition-based "trade" until the introduction of science transformed it into an intellectually rigorous discipline. That transformation contributed heavily to the dominance in medical education of the learning of biomedical concepts ("knowing that") over learning how to translate that knowledge into clinical performance ("knowing how"). The recent emergence of performance-oriented educational initiatives suggests, however, that the balance between these two complementary approaches is changing, a change that has been referred to as "the Flexnerian revolution of the 21(st) century." Problem-based learning, learning the practice of evidence-based medicine, and learning to use clinical guidelines are among the important initiatives designed to develop high-level performance in the care of individual patients. Initiatives in which learners acquire skill in changing the performance of care systems are also being widely implemented. These trends have received important formal support through recent changes in residency training accreditation standards. Although it is too early to assess the impact of these initiatives or to know whether they will develop further, medical education is unlikely to reach its full potential unless it successfully comes to grips with the challenges of understanding, teaching, and measuring performance.

Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.

Background: Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals., Objectives: To estimate the effect of processes in editorial peer review., Search Strategy: The following databases were searched to June 2004: CINAHL, Ovid, Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: ACP Journal Club, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed., Selection Criteria: We included prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and reporting original research, regardless of publication status. We hoped to find studies identifying good submissions on the basis of: importance of the topic dealt with, relevance of the topic to the journal, usefulness of the topic, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of reporting., Data Collection and Analysis: Because of the diversity of study questions, viewpoints, methods, and outcomes, we carried out a descriptive review of included studies grouping them by broad study question., Main Results: We included 28 studies. We found no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (9 studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (2 studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (1 study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (3 studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (2 studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability., Authors' Conclusions: At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.

We report the results of the second phase of a multiphase qualitative investigation of the ways physicians, employers, and insurers can work together more effectively to provide better ambulatory care to employees and their dependents. This article focuses on ways physicians can develop more useful relationships among these groups. We used a grounded theory approach to conduct 71 interviews from August 12, 2004, to December 27, 2005, with 25 practicing physicians in large and small groups, urban and rural areas, private and academic settings, and primary care and specialty practices; 33 hospital administrators, medical association executives, health insurance medical officers, and health policy analysts; and 13 senior executives of large and small companies. The study identifies 2 approaches to the structuring of ambulatory care that can lead to improved health care outcomes and value. In the first approach, direct contracting between physicians and employers transfers tasks previously performed by insurers to employers or other intermediaries who may be able to provide better service or lower cost. In the second approach, insurer-mediated relationships between physicians and employers are restructured, particularly in ways that improve information flow. Such relationships may strengthen physicians' ability to provide quality services while enabling patients to make more informed decisions about physician selection, treatments, and spending. We believe that broader use of these approaches may improve the quality and efficiency of ambulatory care for the large proportion of the population that has work-related health insurance. Although the findings are promising, our intent is not to claim broad external validity but rather to encourage greater experience with these approaches and more formal studies of their effectiveness.