PubMed · 10153974
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J D Moore. 1996-01-15. Bioethics programs' future uncertain.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10153974/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In the 21st century, geriatrics will increasingly dominate U.S. health care as the median age of the population progressively increases. Academic departments of geriatrics have been created in nations that have already experienced this shift. As an alternative strategy that builds on traditional strengths of academic medicine in the United States, departments of internal medicine should lead a multidepartmental, pan-institutional response to the aging imperative. Recognition of gerontology and geriatric medicine as central to the missions of internal medicine in clinical care, education, and research must be increased. In the process, academic departments of internal medicine will develop a high level of geriatric expertise and will launch many programs that address this challenge. Successful development of geriatric programs will serve as a catalyst to strengthen the integration among and between generalists and subspecialists. This will entail developing optimal sites and systems of geriatric care--at different levels of care and over time--that can enhance the geriatric education of medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians. The study of aging and geriatric health care will also become an integral part of departmental research, in its subspecialty divisions as well as its divisions of general internal medicine and geriatrics. This strategy is urgently recommended as both a challenge and an opportunity for all departments of internal medicine.
Departmental status for geriatrics offers many advantages, all of which are related to strengthening academic and clinical programs in aging. The training programs and the content of medical school curriculum in geriatrics remain inadequate under the current structures. A department of geriatrics can provide a stronger faculty base and allow effective interaction with other departments (including but not limited to internal medicine) that need geriatric training. A department of geriatrics also focuses on a model of care that involves working closely with other disciplines, such as nursing and social work. This interdisciplinary model helps expert providers work efficiently throughout the spectrum of care, strengthening continuity. The department can include other medical specialists, such as family practitioners, psychiatrists, and physiatrists, who work with caregivers and patients throughout a course of treatment to manage chronic illness and help maintain and enhance function and independence as long as possible. Comprehensive care and proper care management also substantially benefit institutions by expanding the patient population, reducing length of stay, and avoiding unnecessary hospitalization of older patients through effective discharge planning and transitional care. This requires strong relationships with long-term care providers, a characteristic strength of geriatricians. Although not all research in aging needs to be housed in a department of geriatric medicine, the presence of a critical mass of basic and clinical researchers creates an environment that can stimulate new initiatives and attract external funding. Additional research bridging basic translational and clinical phases relevant to the elderly population is best encouraged by maintaining relationships with other basic science and clinical departments.
OBJECTIVES: To survey and review the incidence of appendectomy performed during radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. We were interested in the reasons behind the decision and if continent diversions have changed the policy. METHODS: We performed a selective survey among urologists in academic centers throughout the United States regarding their practice of incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy. We also reviewed the literature regarding the rationale for incidental appendectomy in general and during radical cystectomy in particular. RESULTS: Among the 13 departments and 26 urologists replying to the survey, 9 (69%) departments and 20 (77%) individual clinicians are not performing routine incidental appendectomy. In 2 departments, it is considered a matter of choice, and, in 4 (31%) departments, appendectomy is performed routinely. Many believe that the low risk of subsequent appendicitis does not justify the procedure and that the appendix may be useful for future reconstruction. A review of the literature suggests that incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy is not necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy is not necessary and is no longer being performed in many academic centers. The risk of subsequent appendicitis is extremely low. The decision may depend on the form of urinary diversion planned.