Do Cardiologists Do It Better?

Pressure to lower the cost of health care delivery has fostered widespread efforts to limit patients’ access to specialists such as cardiologists. However, there is concern that diminished specialist involvement may lead to poorer patient outcomes for specific clinical conditions. As part of a state-sponsored effort to improve the quality of health care in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council gathered clinical and administrative data on all 40,684 hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in that state in 1993. They prepared a detailed public report that included risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay by physician group, by hospital and by region. These data demonstrate that patients cared for by cardiologists, as a group, had a lower risk-adjusted mortality than patients cared for by either internists (risk ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.35) or family practitioners (risk ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.40). The patients of cardiologists also had a shorter length of stay than the other two groups. These data suggest that there is enhanced value in the care provided by cardiologists for patients with AMI and call into question the growing trend toward reliance on generalists instead of specialists.(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:475–8)     

Do Doctors Vote?

BACKGROUND Organizational leaders and scholars have issued calls for the medical profession to refocus its efforts on fulfilling the core tenets of professionalism. A key element of professionalism is participation in community affairs. OBJECTIVE To measure physician voting rates as an indicator of civic participation. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey of a subgroup of physicians from a nationally representative household survey of civilian, noninstitutionalized adult citizens. PARTICIPANTS A total of 350,870 participants in the Current Population Survey (CPS) November Voter Supplement from 1996–2002, including 1,274 physicians and 1,886 lawyers; 414,989 participants in the CPS survey from 1976–1982, including 2,033 health professionals. MEASUREMENTS Multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare adjusted physician voting rates in the 1996–2002 congressional and presidential elections with those of lawyers and the general population and to compare voting rates of health professionals in 1996–2002 with those in 1976–1992. RESULTS After multivariate adjustment for characteristics known to be associated with voting rates, physicians were less likely to vote than the general population in 1998 (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.99), 2000 (odds ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.44–0.93), and 2002 (odds ratio 0.62; 95% CI 0.48–0.80) but not 1996 (odds ratio 0.83; 95% CI 0.59–1.17). Lawyers voted at higher rates than the general population and doctors in all four elections (P < .001). The pooled adjusted odds ratio for physician voting across the four elections was 0.70 (CI 0.61–0.81). No substantial changes in voting rates for health professionals were observed between 1976–1982 and 1996–2002. CONCLUSIONS Physicians have lower adjusted voting rates than lawyers and the general population, suggesting reduced civic participation.     

Surrogate Alcohol: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

BACKGROUND: Consumption of surrogate alcohols (i.e., nonbeverage alcohols and illegally produced alcohols) was shown to impact on different causes of death, not only poisoning or liver disease, and appears to be a major public health problem in Russia and elsewhere. METHODS: A computer-assisted literature review on chemical composition and health consequences of "surrogate alcohol" was conducted and more than 70 references were identified. A wider definition of the term "surrogate alcohol" was derived, including both nonbeverage alcohols and illegally produced alcohols that contain nonbeverage alcohols. RESULTS: Surrogate alcohol may contain substances that cause severe health consequences including death. Known toxic constituents include lead, which may lead to chronic toxicity, and methanol, which leads to acute poisoning. On the other hand, the role of higher alcohols (e.g., propanol, isobutanol, and isoamyl alcohol) in the etiology of surrogate-associated diseases is currently unclear. Whether other constituents of surrogates have contributed to the high all-cause mortality over and above the effect of ethanol in recent studies also remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high public health importance associated with the consumption of surrogate alcohols, further knowledge on its chemical composition is required as well as research on its links to various disease endpoints should be undertaken with priority. Some interventions to reduce the harm resulting from surrogate alcohol could be undertaken already at this point. For example, the use of methanol or methanol-containing wood alcohol should be abolished in denatured alcohol. Other possible surrogates (e.g., automobile products) should be treated with bittering agents to avoid consumption.     

What Do Patients Want?

PURPOSE: Clinicians often make decisions for their patients, despite evidence that suggests that correspondence between patient and clinician decision making is poor. The management of colorectal cancer presents difficult decisions because the impact of treatment on quality of life might overshadow its survival efficacy. This study investigated whether patients are able to trade survival for quality of life as a means to express their preference for treatment options and to compare their preferences with those expressed by clinicians. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer were interviewed postoperatively to elicit their preferences in four hypothetical treatment scenarios. A questionnaire was mailed to all Australian colorectal surgeons and medical oncologists that asked them to respond as if they themselves were patients. RESULTS: One hundred patients (91 percent), 43 colorectal surgeons (77 percent), and 103 medical oncologists (50 percent) participated. In all four scenarios, patients were able to trade survival for quality of life. Patients' responses varied between scenarios, both in willingness to trade and the average amount traded. There were significant differences between patients and clinicians. Clinicians were more willing than patients to trade survival to avoid a permanent colostomy in favor of chemoradiotherapy. Patients' strongest preference was to avoid chemotherapy, more than to avoid a permanent colostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are able to trade survival as a measure of preference for quality of life and can do so differentially between treatment scenarios. Patients' preferences do not always accord with those of clinicians. Unless patients' preferences are explicitly sought and incorporated into clinical decision making, patients may not receive the treatment that is best for them.