Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 9460577

The simple excision.

Abstract

Elliptical excisional surgery offers several advantages over other cutaneous surgical techniques (i.e., shave excision, saucerization) which require healing by second intention. In general, an elliptical excision exhibits faster healing, better cosmesis, and yields a specimen for histologic exam and review of margins, and with proper attention to the details of cutaneous anatomy, familiarity with instrumentation, local anesthetics, suture materials, and observance of meticulous surgical technique, is performed with relative ease in the dermatology outpatient office setting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Dunlavey, B Leshin. 1998. The simple excision.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0733-8635(05)70486-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Determining the quality of breast cancer care: do tumor registries measure up?

BACKGROUND: Hospital tumor registries, which provide data that inform health services research and cancer control policies, may be a source of information about quality of cancer care. However, the accuracy of data from such registries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of tumor registry data by comparing it with data collected from numerous sources for a breast cancer quality improvement project. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three teaching hospitals with tumor registries in the New York metropolitan area that had participated in the quality improvement project. PATIENTS: All women with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer (stage I or stage II) who were surgically treated at the study hospitals between 1 November 1994 and 31 August 1996. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and data from the quality improvement project were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: The tumor registries and the quality improvement project had similar information on tumor stage and surgery type. Sensitivity ranged from 0.91 to 0.96, and specificity ranged from 0.93 to 0.97. When both sources were used to calculate quality measures, the overall rate of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery was 80% in the quality improvement project and 48% in the tumor registries (sensitivity, 0.58; specificity, 0.94). For receipt of adjuvant systemic treatment, the rate was 78% in the quality improvement project and 22% in the tumor registries (sensitivity, 0.27; specificity, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Data from tumor registries provide accurate measures for hospital-based surgical treatments but not for outpatient treatments. Unverified tumor registry data should not be used to measure quality of care.

Ambulatory Care

Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.

CONTEXT: Better health care quality is a universal goal, yet measuring quality has proven to be difficult and problematic. A central problem has been isolating physician practices from other effects of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To validate clinical vignettes as a method for measuring the competence of physicians and the quality of their actual practice. DESIGN: Prospective trial conducted in 1997 comparing 3 methods for measuring the quality of care for 4 common outpatient conditions: (1) structured reports by standardized patients (SPs), trained actors who presented unannounced to physicians' clinics (the gold standard); (2) abstraction of medical records for those same visits; and (3) physicians' responses to clinical vignettes that exactly corresponded to the SPs' presentations. Setting Outpatient primary care clinics at 2 Veterans Affairs medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-eight (97%) of 101 general internal medicine staff physicians, faculty, and second- and third-year residents consented to be randomized for the study. From this group, 10 physicians at each site were randomly selected for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 160 quality scores (8 cases x 20 physicians) were generated for each method using identical explicit criteria based on national guidelines and local expert panels. Scores were defined as the percentage of process criteria correctly met and were compared among the 3 methods. RESULTS: The quality of care, as measured by all 3 methods, ranged from 76.2% (SPs) to 71.0% (vignettes) to 65.6% (chart abstraction). Measuring quality using vignettes consistently produced scores closer to the gold standard of SP scores than using chart abstraction. This pattern was robust when the scores were disaggregated by the 4 conditions (P<.001 to <.05), by case complexity (P<.001), by site (P<.001), and by level of physician training (P values from <.001 to <.05). The pattern persisted, although less dominantly, when we assessed the component domains of the clinical encounter--history, physical examination, diagnosis, and treatment. Vignettes were responsive to expected directions of variation in quality between sites and levels of training. The vignette responses did not appear to be sensitive to physicians' having seen an SP presenting with the same case. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that quality of health care can be measured in an outpatient setting by using clinical vignettes. Vignettes appear to be a valid and comprehensive method that directly focuses on the process of care provided in actual clinical practice. Vignettes show promise as an inexpensive case-mix adjusted method for measuring the quality of care provided by a group of physicians.

Ambulatory Care