Electronic health records and support for primary care teamwork

Objective Consensus that enhanced teamwork is necessary for efficient and effective primary care delivery is growing. We sought to identify how electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate and pose challenges to primary care teams as well as how practices are overcoming these challenges.Methods Practices in this qualitative study were selected from those recognized as patient-centered medical homes via the National Committee for Quality Assurance 2011 tool, which included a section on practice teamwork. We interviewed 63 respondents, ranging from physicians to front-desk staff, from 27 primary care practices ranging in size, type, geography, and population size.Results EHRs were found to facilitate communication and task delegation in primary care teams through instant messaging, task management software, and the ability to create evidence-based templates for symptom-specific data collection from patients by medical assistants and nurses (which can offload work from physicians). Areas where respondents felt that electronic medical record EHR functionalities were weakest and posed challenges to teamwork included the lack of integrated care manager software and care plans in EHRs, poor practice registry functionality and interoperability, and inadequate ease of tracking patient data in the EHR over time.Discussion Practices developed solutions for some of the challenges they faced when attempting to use EHRs to support teamwork but wanted more permanent vendor and policy solutions for other challenges.Conclusions EHR vendors in the United States need to work alongside practicing primary care teams to create more clinically useful EHRs that support dynamic care plans, integrated care management software, more functional and interoperable practice registries, and greater ease of data tracking over time.     

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.     

Nuclear estrogen receptor beta in lung cancer: expression and survival differences by sex.

PURPOSE: A role for estrogens in determining lung cancer risk and prognosis is suggested by reported sex differences in susceptibility and survival. Archival lung tissue was evaluated for the presence of nuclear estrogen receptor (ER)-alpha and ER-beta and the relationship between ER status, subject characteristics, and survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Paraffin-embedded lung tumor samples were obtained from 214 women and 64 men from two population-based, case-control studies as were 10 normal lung autopsy samples from patients without cancer. Nuclear ER-alpha and ER-beta expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ER positivity and Cox proportional hazards models were used to measure survival differences by ER status. RESULTS: Neither tumor (0 of 94) nor normal (0 of 10) lung tissue stained positive for ER-alpha. Nuclear ER-beta positivity was present in 61% of tumor tissue samples (170 of 278; 70.3% in men and 58.3% in women) and 20% of normal tissue samples (2 of 10; P = 0.01). In multivariate analyses, females were 46% less likely to have ER-beta-positive tumors than males (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-1.08). This relationship was stronger and statistically significant in adenocarcinomas (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.89). Women with ER-beta-positive tumors had a nonsignificant 73% (P = 0.1) increase in mortality, whereas men with ER-beta-positive tumors had a significant 55% (P = 0.04) reduction in mortality compared with those with ER-beta-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests differential expression by sex and influence on survival in men of nuclear ER-beta in lung cancer, particularly in adenocarcinomas.     

Reengineering transfusion and cellular therapy processes hospitalwide: ensuring the safe utilization of blood products

Efforts to make blood transfusion as safe as possible have focused on making the blood in the bag as disease-free as possible. The results have been dramatic, and the costs have been correspondingly high. Although blood services will have to continue to deal with emerging pathogens, efforts to reduce the transfusion of infectious agents presently posing a risk will require high incremental costs and result in only improvements of a small magnitude.
The other aspect of safe blood transfusion, the actual transfusion process performed primarily in hospitals, has been accorded considerably less interest. We should turn our attention to enhancing overall blood safety by focusing on improving the process of blood transfusion. Errors involving patient, specimen, and blood product identification put transfused patients at risk, increasing the mortality risk for some. Solutions that could improve the transfusion process are discussed as a focus of this article.