Digital recording and documentation of endoscopic procedures: physicians' practice and perspectives.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In recent years, it has become increasingly prevalent internationally to record and archive digital recordings of endoscopic procedures. This emerging documentation tool raises weighty educational, ethical and legal issues - which are viewed as both deterrents and incentives to its adoption. We conducted a survey study aimed at evaluating the use of DRD in endoscopic procedures, to examine physicians' support of this practice and to map the considerations weighed by physicians when deciding whether or not to support a more extensive use of DRD. METHODS:Israeli physicians from specialties that employ endoscopic technics were surveyed anonymously for demographic background, existence and use of recording equipment, existence of institutional guidelines regarding DRD, and self-ranking (on a scale from 1 to 7) of personal attitudes regarding DRD. RESULTS:322 physicians were surveyed. 84% reported performing routine endoscopic procedures, 78% had the required equipment for digital recording, and 64% of them stated that they never or only rarely actually recorded the procedure. General surgeons had the second highest rate of DRD equipment (96.5%) but the lowest rates of DRD practice (17.5%). The average ranking of support of DRD by all participants was 5.07 ± 1.9, indicating a moderately high level of support. Significant positive correlation exists between actual DRD rates and average support of DRD (p < 0.001). Based on mediation models, for all specialties and with no exceptions, having routine recording guidelines and positive support of DRD were found to increase the probability of actual recording. Being a surgeon or an urologist negatively correlated with support of DRD, and decreased actual recording rates. The argument "Recording might cause more lawsuits" was ranked significantly higher than all other arguments against DRD (p < 0.001), and "Recording could aid teaching of interns" was ranked higher than all other arguments in favor of DRD (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:While DRD facilities and equipment are fairly widespread in Israel, the actual recording rate is generally low and varies among specialties. Having institutional guidelines requiring routine recording and a positive personal support of DRD correlated with actual DRD rates, with general surgeons being markedly less supportive of DRD and having the lowest actual recording rates. Physicians in all specialties were very much concerned about DRD's potential to enhance lawsuits, and this greatly influenced their use of DRD. These findings should be addressed by educational efforts, centering on professionals from reluctant specialties, as well as by the issuing of both professional and institutional guidelines endorsing DRD as well as requiring it where applicable.
Project description:Introduction In order to provide baseline data on genetic testing as a key element of personalised medicine (PM), Canadian physicians were surveyed to determine roles, perceptions and experiences in this area. The survey measured attitudes, practice, observed benefits and impacts, and barriers to adoption. Methods A self-administered survey was provided to Canadian oncologists, cardiologists and family physicians and responses were obtained online, by mail or by fax. The survey was designed to be exploratory. Data were compared across specialties and geography. Results The overall response rate was 8.3%. Of the respondents, 43%, 30% and 27% were family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists, respectively. A strong majority of respondents agreed that genetic testing and PM can have a positive impact on their practice; however, only 51% agreed that there is sufficient evidence to order such tests. A low percentage of respondents felt that they were sufficiently informed and confident practicing in this area, although many reported that genetic tests they have ordered have benefited their patients. Half of the respondents agreed that genetic tests that would be useful in their practice are not readily available. A lack of practice guidelines, limited provider knowledge and lack of evidence-based clinical information were cited as the main barriers to practice. Differences across provinces were observed for measures relating to access to testing and the state of practice. Differences across specialties were observed for the state of practice, reported benefits and access to testing. Conclusions Canadian physicians recognise the benefits of genetic testing and PM; however, they lack the education, information and support needed to practice effectively in this area. Variability in practice and access to testing across specialties and across Canada was observed. These results support a need for national strategies and resources to facilitate physician knowledge, training and practice in PM.
Project description:Introduction:The paucity and maldistribution of physicians among various specialties are key issues facing the Japanese health care system. Studies have shown that young physicians place more emphasis on work-life balance while selecting their specialty and that they prefer controllable lifestyle (CL) specialties over noncontrollable lifestyle (NCL) specialties. As this may be a cause of maldistribution, we investigated the relationship between views on work-life balance and specialty selection among young physicians in Japan. Methods:An online questionnaire was sent to 1451 residents (postgraduate years 1-5) at 60 Japanese Red Cross hospitals across Japan. Results:In all, 226 physicians responded (response rate: 15%), with 21% in CL and 74% in NCL specialties. When compared with NCL specialties, CL specialties had less overtime (43% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), considered life to be more important than work (26% vs. 15%, p = 0.018), and were more likely to give precedence to work-life balance over medical interest while choosing their specialty (49% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, physicians were more likely to change their choice of specialty, contrary to their professional interest, because of social reasons (49% vs. 26%, p = 0.007). Conclusions:Our study suggests that young physicians in CL specialties have better working hours and place more emphasis on work-life balance while choosing their specialty compared with those in NCL specialties. The increase in the number of physicians in CL specialties is likely attributable to the growing preference for an optimal work-life balance among young physicians; this seems to have increased the maldistribution of physicians among various specialties. Institutional mechanisms to support the lifestyle of physicians (especially in NCL specialties) are required to provide a balanced medical service in Japan.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore attitudes and practices of physicians relating to accessible medical diagnostic equipment in serving patients with mobility disability. DESIGN:Open-ended individual telephone interviews, which reached data saturation. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for qualitative conventional content analysis. SETTING:Massachusetts, the United States, October 2017-January 2018. PARTICIPANTS:Practicing physicians from 5 clinical specialties (N=20). INTERVENTIONS:Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Common themes concerning physical accessibility. RESULTS:Mean ± SD time in practice was 27.5±12.5 years; 14 practices had height-adjustable examination tables; and 7 had wheelchair-accessible weight scales. The analysis identified 6 broad themes: height-adjustable examination tables have advantages; height-adjustable examination tables have drawbacks; transferring patients onto examination tables is challenging; rationale for examining patients in their wheelchairs; perceptions of wheelchair-accessible weight scales; and barriers and facilitators to improving physical accessibility. Major barriers identified by participants included costs of equipment, limited space, and inadequate payment for extra time required to care for persons with disability. Even physicians with accessible examination tables sometimes examined patients seated in their wheelchairs. CONCLUSIONS:Even if physicians have accessible equipment, they do not always use it in examining patients with disability. Future efforts will need to consider ways to eliminate these access barriers in clinical practice. Given small sample size, results are not generalizable to physicians nationwide and globally.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea. METHODS:We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines. RESULTS:Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure. CONCLUSION:Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.
Project description:BACKGROUNDFrom March 2, 2020, to April 12, 2020, New York City (NYC) experienced exponential growth of the COVID-19 pandemic due to novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Little is known regarding how physicians have been affected. We aimed to characterize the COVID-19 impact on NYC resident physicians.METHODSIRB-exempt and expedited cross-sectional analysis through survey to NYC residency program directors April 3-12, 2020, encompassing events from March 2, 2020, to April 12, 2020.RESULTSFrom an estimated 340 residency programs around NYC, recruitment yielded 91 responses, representing 24 specialties and 2306 residents. In 45.1% of programs, at least 1 resident with confirmed COVID-19 was reported. One hundred one resident physicians were confirmed COVID-19-positive, with an additional 163 residents presumed positive for COVID-19 based on symptoms but awaiting or unable to obtain testing. Two COVID-19-positive residents were hospitalized, with 1 in intensive care. Among specialties with more than 100 residents represented, negative binomial regression indicated that infection risk differed by specialty (P = 0.039). In 80% of programs, quarantining a resident was reported. Ninety of 91 programs reported reuse or extended mask use, and 43 programs reported that personal protective equipment (PPE) was suboptimal. Sixty-five programs (74.7%) redeployed residents elsewhere to support COVID-19 efforts.CONCLUSIONMany resident physicians around NYC have been affected by COVID-19 through direct infection, quarantine, or redeployment. Lack of access to testing and concern regarding suboptimal PPE are common among residency programs. Infection risk may differ by specialty.FUNDINGNational Eye Institute Core Grant P30EY019007; Research to Prevent Blindness Unrestricted Grant; Parker Family Chair; University of Pennsylvania.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>We performed a systematic review to assess and aggregate the available evidence on the frequency, expected effects, obstacles, and facilitators of disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI).<h4>Methods</h4>We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this systematic review and searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for English articles published between 1990 and 2014. Two authors independently conducted the title screening and abstract review. Ninety-nine articles were selected for full-text reviews. One author extracted the data and another verified them.<h4>Results</h4>There was considerable variation in the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. The main expected effects of DPSI were decreased intention of the general public to file medical lawsuits and punish medical professionals, increased credibility of medical professionals, increased intention of patients to revisit and recommend physicians or hospitals, higher ratings of quality of care, and alleviation of feelings of guilt among medical professionals. The obstacles to DPSI were fear of medical lawsuits and punishment, fear of a damaged professional reputation among colleagues and patients, diminished patient trust, the complexity of the situation, and the absence of a patient safety culture. However, the factors facilitating DPSI included the creation of a safe environment for reporting patient safety incidents, as well as guidelines and education for DPSI.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The reported frequency of the experience of the general public with DPSI was somewhat lower than the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. Although we identified various expected effects of DPSI, more empirical evidence from real cases is required.
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS: During endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), all efforts should be made to be aware of radiation hazards and to reduce radiation exposure. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of radiation protective equipment and the awareness of radiation exposure in health care providers performing ERCP in Korean hospitals. METHODS: A survey with a total of 42 questions was sent to each respondent via mail or e-mail between October 2010 and March 2011. The survey targeted nurses and radiation technicians who participated in ERCP in secondary or tertiary referral centers. RESULTS: A total of 78 providers from 38 hospitals responded to the surveys (response rate, 52%). The preparation and actual utilization rates of protective equipment were 55.3% and 61.9% for lead shields, 100% and 98.7% for lead aprons, 47.4% and 37.8% for lead glasses, 97.4% and 94.7% for thyroid shields, and 57.7% and 68.9% for radiation dosimeters, respectively. The common reason for not wearing protective equipment was that the equipment was bothersome, according to 45.7% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: More protective equipment, such as lead shields and lead glasses, should be provided to health care providers involved in ERCP. In particular, the actual utilization rate for lead glasses was very low.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Accurate recording of problems and diagnoses in health records is key to safe and effective patient care, yet it is often done poorly. Electronic health record systems vary in their functionality and ease of use, and are not optimally designed for easy recording and sharing of clinical information. There is a lack of professional consensus and guidance on how problems and diagnoses should be recorded. METHODS:The Professional Record Standards Body commissioned work led by the Royal College of Physicians Health Informatics Unit to carry out a literature review, draft guidance, carry out an online consultation and round table discussion, and produce a report including recommendations for systems. A patient workshop was held to explore patient preferences for mechanisms for sharing diagnosis information between primary and secondary care. RESULTS:Consensus was reached among medical specialties on key elements of diagnosis recording, and draft guidance was produced ready for piloting in a variety of care settings. Patients were keen for better ways for diagnosis information to be shared. DISCUSSION:Improving the recording of diagnoses and problems will require a major effort of which the new guidance is only a part. The guidance needs to be embedded in training, and clinical systems need to have improved, standardised functionality. Front-line clinicians, specialist societies, clinical informaticians and patients need to be engaged in developing information models for diagnoses to support care and research, accessible via user-friendly interfaces.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to determine prevalence, patterns and risk factors of defensive medicine by obstetricians and gynaecologists across China. DESIGN:This is a questionnaire survey by written and on-line interview for participants. PARTICIPANTS:Among 1804 registered physicians participating at the 2017 Congress of Chinese Obstetricians and Gynecologists Association in Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China, from 17 to 20 August 2017, 1486 participants (82.4%) responded the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Participants' strongly disagreed/disagreed and strongly agreed/agreed options were compared to determine specific factors contributing to their preferences towards defensive medicine. RESULTS:In the whole cohort of 1486 participants, 903/1486 (60.8%), 283/1486 (19.0%) and 170/283 (60.1%) participants had experienced at least one medical dispute, lawsuit or loss of a lawsuit, respectively; and 1284 (86.4%) participants had witnessed their colleagues exposed to medical disputes, lawsuits or loss of a lawsuit. Generally, 62.9% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed with defensive medicine. Gender, administration duty, employment hospital, education status, subspecialty, exposure to any medical disputes, lawsuits or loss of a lawsuit, and colleagues' experiences were independent risk factors relevant to participants' preferences about defensive medicine in a multivariate model. Participants were more prone to accept or endorse defensive medicine if they were female physicians; without administrative duties; working in non-tertiary hospitals; with an undergraduate degree; with any exposure to medical disputes, lawsuits or loss of a lawsuit; or having witnessed colleagues' similar experiences. CONCLUSIONS:About two-thirds of Chinese physicians practising obstetrics and gynaecology in our survey agreed with the practice of defensive medicine, but they had diverse preferences and understanding of specific practices, harms of defensive medicine and physician's roles.
Project description:Objective:To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties. Methods:We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compared usage across specialty and provider type. Results:During the study period, 4009 clinicians (2014 physicians in practice, 1117 resident physicians, and 878 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) viewed 140 CPMs a total of 81?764 times. Usage varied from 1 to 809 views per person, and from 9 to 4615 views per CPM. Residents and NP/PAs viewed CPMs more often than practicing physicians. Among 2742 users with known specialties, generalists ( N ?=?1397) used CPMs more often (mean 31.8, median 7 views) than specialists ( N ?=?1345; mean 6.8, median 2; P ?<?.0001). The topics used by specialists largely aligned with topics within their specialties. The top 20% of available CPMs (28/140) collectively accounted for 61% of uses. In all, 2106 clinicians (52%) returned to the same CPM more than once (average 7.8 views per topic; median 4, maximum 195). Generalists revisited topics more often than specialists (mean 8.8 vs 5.1 views per topic; P ?<?.0001). Conclusions:CPM usage varied widely across topics, specialties, and individual clinicians. Frequently viewed and recurrently viewed topics might warrant special attention. Specialists usually view topics within their specialty and may have unique information needs.