November 5th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Health Tips, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Lung cancer screening has been an area of considerable controversy. Before today, there had been no evidence that screening patients for lung cancer, either with a CT scan or chest x-ray, saved lives.
For years, doctors have been waiting for the results of the large, randomized National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), conducted by the National Cancer Institute.
[Yesterday] it was announced that the trial was stopped early, with a bold, positive finding:
All participants had a history of at least 30 pack-years, and were either current or former smokers without signs, symptoms, or a history of lung cancer.
As of Oct. 20, 2010, the researchers saw a total of 354 deaths from lung cancer in the CT group, compared with 442 in the chest x-ray group.
That amounts to a 20.3% reduction in lung cancer mortality — a finding that the study’s independent data and safety monitoring board decided was statistically significant enough to halt the trial and declare a benefit.
Previously, only breast, colon, and cervical cancer has had the evidence back up its screening recommendations. It’s still early in the game, but it appears that lung cancer may be following in that same path. That said, there are a variety of concerns before opening up the floodgates to screening chest CTs. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
October 29th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Humor, Medical Art
No Comments »
Ever wonder what the six grades of heart murmurs really means?
SOURCE: A Cartoon Guide to Becoming a Doctor
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
October 27th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Authors of a recent study from the Archives of Internal Medicine are unlikely to endear themselves to specialists. As reported by Reuters, and provocatively titled, Do specialist doctors make too much money?, the study gives a per-hour breakdown of how much doctors make.
I think this is a good approach, since annual salary figures do not account for the number of hours doctors work — and in the case of primary care doctors, this includes uncompensated time doing paperwork and other bureaucratic chores.
Here’s what they found:
… the lowest wages — amounting to $60.48 an hour — [were] paid to primary care physicians.
In other broad categories of practice, surgeons took home the highest average hourly wage of $92. Internal medicine and pediatric docs earned about $85 an hour, the researchers report in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Looking at salaries among 41 specific subspecialties, however, they found neurologic surgery and radiation oncology to be the most lucrative at $132 and $126 per hour, respectively. These were followed by medical oncologists and plastic surgeons, both making around $114 per hour; immunologists, orthopedic surgeons and dermatologists also took in more than $100 an hour. At the low end of specialist pay, child psychiatrists and infectious disease specialists made around $67 an hour.
Of course, regular readers of [this] blog know that healthcare reform will do little to decrease the disparity. The pay raises that will be coming to primary care will be far too little to change the perception that, in the United States, specialists are more valued by far. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
October 22nd, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
No Comments »
Dr. Robert Sears’ The Vaccine Book, is, as Dr. Rahul Parikh puts it, “a nightmare for pediatricians like me.”
In a piece from Salon, Dr. Parikh brings his issues to the author. The controversy of the book is the so-called “alternative vaccine schedule,” which, as vaccine developer Paul Offit puts it:
…is “misrepresentation of vaccine science” that “misinforms parents trying to make the right decision for their children” in the Journal of Pediatrics. And yet, as a pediatrician myself, I have seen an increasing number of caring, reasonable parents hold it up like a bible in my practice (and that of my colleagues).
This post, however, isn’t about the vaccine controversy — I’ll leave you to read Dr. Parikh’s excellent piece for yourself.
What I found interesting was a passage discussing the public health fears stemming from an increasing number of unvaccinated children. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
October 12th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
One of the supposed strengths of electronic medical records is better tracking of test data. In theory, when using more sophisticated digital systems, doctors can better follow the mountains of test results that they encounter daily.
But a recent study, as written in the WSJ Health Blog, says otherwise. Apparently, a study performed in 2007 found:
VA doctors failed to acknowledge receipt of 368 electronically transmitted alerts about abnormal imaging tests, or one third of the total, during the study period. In 4% of the cases, imaging-test results hadn’t been followed up on four weeks after the test was done. Another study, published in March in the American Journal of Medicine, showed only 10.2% of abnormal lab test results were unacknowledged, but timely follow-up was lacking in 6.8% of cases.
Consider that the VA has what is considered the pinnacle of electronic systems — their unified, VistA program that permeates all their hospitals and clinics. Apparently the problem is one of alert overload:
Hardeep Singh, chief of the health policy and quality program at the Houston VA’s health and policy research center, led both studies. He tells the Health Blog that doctors now receive so many electronic alerts and reminders — as many as 50 each day — that the important ones can get lost in the shuffle.
This is not unlike the alarm fatigue issue that I recently wrote about. Too much data — whether it is written or on the screen — can overwhelm physicians and potentially place patients at harm. Curating test results by prioritizing abnormals will really be the true power of electronic test reporting.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
