Effect of “Speak Up” educational tools to engage patients in advance care planning in outpatient healthcare settings: A prospective before-after study

BackgroundTools for advance care planning (ACP) are advocated to help ensure patient values guide healthcare decisions. Evaluation of the effect of tools introduced to patients in clinical settings is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of the Canadian Speak Up Campaign tools on engagement in advance care planning (ACP), with patients attending outpatient clinics.Patient involvement: Patients were not involved in the problem definition or solution selection in this study but members of the public were involved in development of tools. The measurement of impacts involved patients.MethodsThis was a prospective pre-post study in 15 primary care and two outpatient cancer clinics. The outcome was scores on an Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey measuring Behavior Change Process on 5-point scales and Actions (0?21-point scale) administered before and six weeks after using a tool, with reminders at two or four weeks.Results177 of 220 patients (81%) completed the study (mean 68 years of age, 16% had cancer). Mean Behavior Change Process scores were 2.9 at baseline and 3.5 at follow-up (mean change 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.7; large effect size of 0.8). Mean Action Measure score was 3.7 at baseline and 4.8 at follow-up (mean change 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.6–1.5; small effect size of 0.2).Practical valuePublicly available ACP tools may have utility in clinical settings to initiate ACP among patients. More time and motivation may be required to stimulate changes in patient behaviors related to ACP.     

High resolution copy number analysis of IRF4 translocation‐positive diffuse large B‐cell and follicular lymphomas

Translocations affecting chromosome subband 6p25.3 containing the IRF4 gene have been recently described as characteristic alterations in a molecularly distinct subset of germinal center B‐cell‐derived lymphomas. Secondary changes have yet only been described in few of these lymphomas. Here, we performed array‐comparative genomic hybridization and molecular inversion probe microarray analyses on DNA from 12 formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded and two fresh‐frozen IRF4 translocation‐positive lymphomas, which together with the previously published data on nine cases allowed the extension of copy number analyses to a total of 23 of these lymphomas. All except one case carried chromosomal imbalances, most frequently gains in Xq28, 11q22.3‐qter, and 7q32.1‐qter and losses in 6q13‐16.1, 15q14‐22.31, and 17p. No recurrent copy‐neutral losses of heterozygosity were observed. TP53 point mutations were detected in three of six cases with loss of 17p. Overall this study unravels a recurrent pattern of secondary genetic alterations in IRF4 translocation‐positive lymphomas. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

The 2014 NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group report identified distressing trends among the small proportion of physicians who consider research to be their primary occupation. If unchecked, these trends will lead to a steep decline in the size of the workforce. They include high rates of attrition among young investigators, failure to maintain a robust and diverse pipeline, and a marked increase in the average age of physician-scientists, as older investigators have chosen to continue working and too few younger investigators have entered the workforce to replace them when they eventually retire. While the policy debates continue, here we propose four actions that can be implemented now. These include applying lessons from the MD-PhD training experience to postgraduate training, shortening the time to independence by at least 5 years, achieving greater diversity and numbers in training programs, and establishing Physician-Scientist Career Development offices at medical centers and universities. Rather than waiting for the federal government to solve our problems, we urge the academic community to address these goals by partnering with the NIH and national clinical specialty and medical organizations.In June 2014, the NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group completed a year of data collection and deliberation, and released a report about the status of the PSW (1). The report is a combination of good news and bad news. The good news is that, despite the decline in the NIH budget, the size of the PSW has remained relatively stable. The bad news is that the current demographics, diversity, and career progression of this workforce raise concerns about the future. For a start, although apparently stable in size, the PSW is even smaller than many of us realized, and the apparent stability has hidden important demographic trends. In American Medical Association surveys of the nearly 1 million (and rising) MD physicians in the United States, only 14,000 (1.5%) consider research to be their primary focus (1). Even fewer have NIH grant support; only 8,200 physicians are principal investigators on NIH grants, split evenly between MDs and MD-PhDs (1). The number of extramural NIH-funded physician-scientists with research program (R series) awards has been essentially constant for the past 20 years, while the number of nonphysician (PhD) NIH-funded investigators has increased by half over the same period, reaching 19,400 in 2012 (1). As a result, the percentage of NIH awardees who are physicians has fallen to 30%. Although public policies have encouraged an increase in the number of medical schools and medical students in the US, and medical school admission policies have placed value on undergraduate research, the percentage of physicians focused on research has fallen.At the same time that the PSW has remained stable in size, data in the report show that the average age of the workforce is rising, as older investigators remain employed and younger investigators have not emerged in sufficient numbers. The average age at which a physician-scientist received his or her first NIH R01 grant in 2011 was 44 years for MD-PhDs and 45 years for MDs: approximately 10 years older than in 1980 (2). R01-funded investigators (physicians and nonphysicians) younger than 37 years have all but disappeared, and the time from graduating medical school to obtaining a first faculty position has increased to over 10 years for MD-PhDs and even longer for MDs without a PhD. Women and minorities are underrepresented, having opted not to enter or remain in the workforce. Thus, gathering places for physician-scientists look mostly like clubs for older white men. Without corrective action, the PSW appears headed for a population crash as older investigators retire. We recognize that younger physician-scientists have not entirely disappeared; they just take longer to obtain faculty appointments and independent NIH grants. This situation creates an extended waiting period that we call the holding zone, which contributes to the disturbing demographics (Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1The physician-scientist pipeline: long and leaky.The figure highlights a number of issues, including career attrition at every stage and the existence of a protracted period when well-trained physicians in their 30s are serving in subordinate positions awaiting the next step in their career progression. To draw attention to their plight, we call this period the holding zone. The illustration is based on the experience of MD-PhD program graduates, but many of the issues reflect the obstacles for any would-be physician-scientist. Attrition rates from MD-PhD programs are low, with most of those who withdraw completing medical school or graduate school. Very few MD-PhD program graduates (5% or fewer) choose to forego postgraduate clinical training as residents and fellows. In our experience, career attrition takes many forms and becomes cumulative at each stage, reflecting the proportion of individuals who either never return to research, opt for full-time clinical practice outside of academia, join academia as an assistant professor but spend their time caring for patients, or are appointed to the tenure track but end up devoting minimal time to research (1). A declaration of success depends in part on the definition of success. Outcome data show that approximately 80% of MD-PhD program graduates are working in academia, industry, or research institutes — including the NIH — but not all are doing research (3). Data on NIH award rates, conversions from K grants to R grants, and the proportion of individuals appointed to MSTP T32 grants can be found in the PSW report (1). The NIH continues to track principal investigators on grants but is just starting to track physician-scientists who play essential roles as other key personnel.     

Fremdsprachige Diabetesschulungs- und Informationsmaterialien

Die Diabetologie - Die Beratung fremdsprachiger Menschen mit Diabetes mellitus stellt im Praxisalltag oft eine große Herausforderung dar. Die Beschaffung sowie der Einsatz von...