PubMed · 16194010
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Kenneth E Blick. 2005. No more STAT testing.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16194010/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Breast conservation surgery (BCS) and mastectomy have equivalent survival outcomes for women with breast carcinoma, but treatment decisions are affected by many factors. The current study evaluated the impact of patient and physician factors on surgical decision-making. METHODS: Statistical analyses were performed on a prospective multicenter study of patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Patient, physician, and geographic factors were considered. RESULTS: Of 4086 patients, BCS was performed in 2762 (67.6%) and mastectomy was performed in 1324 (32.4%). The median tumor size was 1.5 cm (range, < 0.1-9.0 cm) in patients undergoing BCS and 1.9 cm (range, 0.1-11.0 cm) in patients undergoing mastectomy (P < 0.00001). The median age of patients undergoing BCS was 59 years (range, 27-100 yrs), whereas patients who underwent mastectomy were older (median age of 63 yrs, range, 27-96 yrs [P < 0.00001]). Physicians in academic practices performed more lumpectomies than those who were not in an academic practice (70.9% vs. 65.7%; P = 0.001). More breast conservation procedures were performed by surgeons with a higher percentage of breast practice (P = 0.012). Geographic location was found to be significant, with the Northeast having the highest rate of breast conservation (70.8%) and the Southeast having the lowest (63.2%; P = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, patient age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.455; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.247-1.699 [P < 0.001]), tumor size (P < 0.001), tumor palpability (OR: 0.613; 95% CI, 0.524-0.716 [P < 0.001]), histologic subtype (P = 0.018), tumor location in the breast (P < 0.001), physician academic affiliation (OR: 1.193; 95% CI: 1.021-1.393 [P = 0.026]), and geographic location (P = 0.045) were found to be significant. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment decisions were found to be related to patient clinicopathologic features, surgeon academic affiliation, and geographic location. Future studies will elucidate the communication and psychosocial factors that may influence patient decision-making.
BACKGROUND: The profound changes in medical care and the recent stress on a patient-centered approach mandate evaluation of current patient priorities. METHODS: Hospitalized and ambulatory patients at an academic medical center in central Israel were investigated. Consecutive patients (n = 274) indicated their first and second priority for a change or improvement in their medical care out of a mixed shortlist of 6 issues, 3 related to patient-physician relationship (being better informed and taking part in decisions; being seen by the same doctor each time; a longer consultation time) and 3 issues related to the organizational aspect of care (easier access to specialists/hospital; shorter queue for tests; less charges for drugs). RESULTS: Getting more information from the physician and taking part in decisions was the most desirable patient choice, selected by 27.4% as their first priority. The next choices - access and queue - also relate to more patient autonomy and control over that of managed care regulations. Patients studied were least interested in continuity of care, consultation time or cost of drugs. Demographic or clinical variables were not significantly related to patients' choices. CONCLUSION: Beyond its many benefits, being informed by their doctor and shared decision making is a top patient priority.
OBJECTIVE: Although computerized physician order entry (CPOE) may decrease errors and improve quality, hospital adoption has been slow. The high costs and limited data on financial benefits of CPOE systems are a major barrier to adoption. The authors assessed the costs and financial benefits of the CPOE system at Brigham and Women's Hospital over ten years. DESIGN: Cost and benefit estimates of a hospital CPOE system at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), a 720-adult bed, tertiary care, academic hospital in Boston. MEASUREMENTS: Institutional experts provided data about the costs of the CPOE system. Benefits were determined from published studies of the BWH CPOE system, interviews with hospital experts, and relevant internal documents. Net overall savings to the institution and operating budget savings were determined. All data are presented as value figures represented in 2002 dollars. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2002, the BWH spent $11.8 million to develop, implement, and operate CPOE. Over ten years, the system saved BWH $28.5 million for cumulative net savings of $16.7 million and net operating budget savings of $9.5 million given the institutional 80% prospective reimbursement rate. The CPOE system elements that resulted in the greatest cumulative savings were renal dosing guidance, nursing time utilization, specific drug guidance, and adverse drug event prevention. The CPOE system at BWH has resulted in substantial savings, including operating budget savings, to the institution over ten years. CONCLUSION: Other hospitals may be able to save money and improve patient safety by investing in CPOE systems.