Are there geographical disparities in access to liver transplantation in Atlantic Canada?

OBJECTIVE:

To characterize the patient population served by Atlantic Canada’s Multi-Organ Transplant Program liver transplant service over the first five years of activity in its current iteration.

METHODS:

Data from a prospective institutional database, supplemented by retrospective medical record review, were used to identify and characterize the cohort of patients assessed for consideration of first liver transplant between December 1, 2004 and December 1, 2009.

RESULTS:

In the five-year period after reactivation, the program assessed 337 patients for first liver transplant. The median age at referral for this group of 199 men (59.0%) and 138 women (41.0%) was 56.1 years (range 16.3 to 72.3 years). The leading three liver diseases indicating liver replacement were alcohol-related end-stage liver disease (20.5%), hepatocellular cancer (16.6%) and hepatitis C-related end-stage liver disease (14.0%). When evaluated according to provincial population-standardized incidence, significant differences in the incidence of liver transplant assessment among the four Atlantic Canadian provinces were found (per 100,000 inhabitants: Nova Scotia 19.8, New Brunswick 13.0, Newfoundland and Labrador 9.1 and Prince Edward Island 11.0; Fisher’s exact P<0.001). Of the 337 individuals who began the assessment process, 153 (45.4%) were assigned to the wait list. The probability of an individual being assigned to the wait list was not found to differ according to province of residence (Nova Scotia 45.3%, New Brunswick 40.0%, Newfoundland and Labrador 58.7% and Prince Edward Island 40.0%; Fisher’s exact P=0.206).

CONCLUSIONS:

The analysis suggests that there are geographical disparities in access to liver transplantation in Atlantic Canada. These disparities appear to be related to factors that precede the transplant assessment process.     

Transplantation okay--psyche okay? Reflections on psychosomatics in the field of organ transplantation

Transplantation puts a large burden on patients' psyche, before and after the operation. Psychosomatic care implicates helping patients to take a firm decision in favour of a new organ, of a new life. Incorporation of the graft, efficient doctor-patient-relations, pregnancy and sexuality, everything is possible but crucial to many patients. Psychosomatic knowledge and specified consulting help them and their families and even the doctors and nurses to cope with overwhelming emotions, fear and a lifelong danger of losing the organ. Transplantation means crossing borders, going into unknown psychic regions. And the recent rapid development of living liver transplantation does not facilitate things.     

Should physicians have facial piercings?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess attitudes of patrons and medical school faculty about physicians with nontraditional facial piercings. We also examined whether a piercing affected the perceived competency and trustworthiness of physicians. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Teaching hospital in the southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department patrons and medical school faculty physicians. INTERVENTIONS: First, patrons were shown photographs of models with a nontraditional piercing and asked about the appropriateness for a physician or medical student. In the second phase, patrons blinded to the purpose of the study were shown identical photographs of physician models with or without piercings and asked about competency and trustworthiness. The third phase was an assessment of attitudes of faculty regarding piercings. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nose and lip piercings were felt to be appropriate for a physician by 24% and 22% of patrons, respectively. Perceived competency and trustworthiness of models with these types of piercings were also negatively affected. An earring in a male was felt to be appropriate by 35% of patrons, but an earring on male models did not negatively affect perceived competency or trustworthiness. Nose and eyebrow piercings were felt to be appropriate by only 7% and 5% of faculty physicians and working with a physician or student with a nose or eyebrow piercing would bother 58% and 59% of faculty, respectively. An ear piercing in a male was felt to be appropriate by 20% of faculty, and 25% stated it would bother them to work with a male physician or student with an ear piercing. CONCLUSIONS: Many patrons and physicians feel that some types of nontraditional piercings are inappropriate attire for physicians, and some piercings negatively affect perceived competency and trustworthiness. Health care providers should understand that attire may affect a patient's opinion about their abilities and possibly erode confidence in them as a clinician.