Project description:BackgroundNonphysicians are expanding practice into specialty medicine. There are limited studies on patient and physician perspectives as well as safety outcomes regarding the nonphysician practice of cosmetic procedures.ObjectiveTo identify the patient (consumer) and physician perspective on preferences, adverse events, and outcomes following cosmetic dermatology procedures performed by physicians and nonphysicians.Materials and methodsInternet-based surveys were administered to consumers of cosmetic procedures and physician members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. Descriptive statistics and graphical methods were used to assess responses. Comparisons between groups were based on contingency chi-square analyses and Fisher exact tests.ResultsTwo thousand one hundred sixteen commenced the patient survey with 401 having had a cosmetic procedure performed. Fifty adverse events were reported. A higher number of burns and discoloration occurred in the nonphysician-treated group and took place more often in a spa setting. Individuals seeing nonphysicians cited motivating factors such as level of licensure (type) of nonphysician, a referral from a friend, price, and the location of the practitioner. Improper technique by the nonphysician was cited most as a reason for the adverse event. Both groups agree that more regulation should be placed on who can perform cosmetic procedures. Recall bias associated with survey data.ConclusionPatients treated by nonphysicians experienced more burns and discoloration compared with physicians, and they are encountering these nonphysicians outside a traditional medical office, which are important from a patient safety and regulatory standpoint. Motivating factors for patients seeking cosmetic procedures may also factor into the choice of provider.Key pointsBoth patients and physicians think more regulation should be in place on who can perform cosmetic procedures. More adverse events such as burns and discolorations occurred with patients seeing nonphysicians compared with those seeing physicians. In addition, for those seeing nonphysicians, a majority of these encounters took place in spa settings. Patient safety is of utmost concern when it comes to elective cosmetic medical procedures. More adverse events and encounters occurring outside traditional medical settings when nonphysicians performed these procedures call into question the required training and oversight needed for such procedures.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess physician-patient communication in vascular consults with the aim of identifying areas for improvement.IntroductionShared decision-making in clinical consults can enhance patient outcomes. Its potential benefits are significant in vascular surgery, where decisions are dependent on the patient's definition of quality of life and outcomes are influenced by significant lifestyle changes.MethodsIn this qualitative cross-sectional study, encounters between five vascular surgeons and their patients with two asymptomatic vascular diseases were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for validated sociolinguistic statistics. The nine-item shared decision-making questionnaire was used to gauge subjective patient perspective.ResultsPhysicians spent an average of 19 min and 28 s (±8:55) per consult and an average of 12 min and 7 s talking to the patient (±6:33). Physicians used formalized language about 10.3 times an encounter (±8.39), checked for understanding 6.4 times (±4.84), and asked more close-ended than open-ended questions (10.5 ± 6.15 versus 4.6 ± 2.37). Physicians accounted for 46.34% of utterances (±6%) and averaged 5.8 interruptions per encounter (±4). Patients and company accounted for 53.66% of total utterances (±6%) and averaged 10.1 clarification questions (±9.78). The average nine-item shared decision-making questionnaire Likert-type score per patient was 2.82 on a range of -3 to +3 (±0.33), with positive numbers indicating agreement. On average, patients strongly (+2) or completely (+3) agreed that physicians covered the nine criteria.ConclusionThe 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire data showed that patients mostly felt their physician was adequate in exhibiting shared decision-making behaviors. However, physicians asked closed-ended questions that elicited "yes/no" or brief responses, continuously interrupted patient narratives, and rarely checked for understanding from their patients. These subliminal behaviors restrict patient participation in shared decision-making and may be corrected via longitudinal intervention.

Project description:Does experiencing difficulty bolster or undermine future self-images, strategies to get there and actual performance? We build on four insights from prior research to predict that accessible interpretation-of-experienced-difficulty mindset shapes identity and performance. First, people have two different interpretation-of-experienced-difficulty mindsets available in memory; their difficulty-as-impossibility mindset focuses attention on difficulty as implying low odds and their difficulty-as-importance mindset focuses attention on difficulty as implying high value. Second, people are sensitive to contextual cues as to which mindset to apply to understand their experienced difficulty. Third, people apply the mindset that comes to mind unless they have reason to question why it is "on-the-mind." Fourth, social class can be thought of as a chronic context influencing how much people endorse each interpretation-of-experienced-difficulty mindset. We used subtle primes to guide participants' attention toward either a difficulty-as-importance or a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset (N = 591). Participants guided toward a difficulty-as-importance mindset performed better on difficult academic tasks (Studies 1, 2) than participants guided toward a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset; whether they had more school-focused possible identities and linked strategies depended on sample (Studies 3, 4). For college students, the effect of guided interpretation-of-experienced-difficulty mindset was not moderated by how much participants agreed with that mindset (Studies 1, 3, 4). College students mostly disagreed with a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, but making that mindset accessible undermined their performance and sometimes their possible identities anyway. In contrast, middle school students (a younger and lower social class sample) were more likely to agree with a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset. In this sample (Study 2), we found an effect of mindset endorsement: agreeing that difficulty implies importance and disagreeing that difficulty implies impossibility improved performance. This study had a control group. Control group participants not guided to use a particular interpretation-of-experienced-difficulty mindset performed no differently than participants guided toward a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset. Results suggest that people may chronically act as if they are using a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset and may benefit from being guided to consider that experienced difficulty might imply task importance. Effect of accessible mindset on salience of academic possible selves was not stable, accessible mindset mattered in one university sample but not the other.

Project description:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.

Dataset Information

Patient Ability to Interpret Dermatopathology Reports in an Academic Dermatology Practice.

Publications

Patient Ability to Interpret Dermatopathology Reports in an Academic Dermatology Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets