Best Practice Recommendations for Anesthetic Perioperative Care and Pain Management in Weight Loss Surgery

Objective: To develop evidence‐based recommendations that optimize the safety and efficacy of perioperative anesthetic care and pain management in weight loss surgery (WLS) patients. Research Methods and Procedures: This Task Group examined the scientific literature on anesthetic perioperative care and pain management published in MEDLINE from January 1994 to March 2004. We also reviewed additional data from other sources (e.g., book chapters). The search yielded 195 abstracts, of which 35 references were reviewed in detail. Task Group consensus was used to provide recommendations when evidence in the literature was insufficient. Results: We developed anesthesia practice and patient safety advisory recommendations for preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, and postoperative care and pain management of WLS patients. We also provided suggestions related to medical error reduction and systems improvements, credentialing, and future research. Discussion: Obesity‐related comorbidities including obstructive sleep apnea place WLS patients at increased risk for complications perioperatively. Regarding perioperative safety and outcomes, conclusive evidence beyond the accepted standard of care in the reviewed literature is limited. Few reports specifically address the perioperative needs of severely obese patients. In this advisory, we synthesize current knowledge and make best practice recommendations for perioperative care and pain management in WLS patients. These recommendations require periodic review as further medical knowledge and evidence evolve.     

Documento de consenso para la detección y manejo de la enfermedad renal crónica

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important global health problem, involving to 10% of the Spanish population, promoting high morbidity and mortality for the patient and an elevate consumption of the total health resources for the National Health System. This is a summary of an executive consensus document of ten scientific societies involved in the care of the renal patient, that actualizes the consensus document published in 2007. The central extended document can be consulted in the web page of each society. The aspects included in the document are: Concept, epidemiology and risk factors for CKD. Diagnostic criteria, evaluation and stages of CKD, albuminuria and glomerular filtration rate estimation. Progression factors for renal damage. Patient remission criteria. Follow-up and objectives of each speciality control. Nephrotoxicity prevention. Cardio-vascular damage detection. Diet, life-style and treatment attitudes: hypertension, dyslipidaemia, hyperglycemia, smoking, obesity, hyperuricemia, anemia, mineral and bone disorders. Multidisciplinary management for Primary Care, other specialities and Nephrology. Integrated management of CKD patient in haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and renal transplant patients. Management of the uremic patient in palliative care. We hope that this document may be of help for the multidisciplinary management of CKD patients by summarizing the most updated recommendations.     

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age.This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.     

Echocardiography practice, training and accreditation in the intensive care: document for the World Interactive Network Focused on Critical Ultrasound (WINFOCUS)

Echocardiography is increasingly used in the management of the critically ill patient as a non-invasive diagnostic and monitoring tool. Whilst in few countries specialized national training schemes for intensive care unit (ICU) echocardiography have been developed, specific guidelines for ICU physicians wishing to incorporate echocardiography into their clinical practice are lacking. Further, existing echocardiography accreditation does not reflect the requirements of the ICU practitioner. The WINFOCUS (World Interactive Network Focused On Critical UltraSound) ECHO-ICU Group drew up a document aimed at providing guidance to individual physicians, trainers and the relevant societies of the requirements for the development of skills in echocardiography in the ICU setting. The document is based on recommendations published by the Royal College of Radiologists, British Society of Echocardiography, European Association of Echocardiography and American Society of Echocardiography, together with international input from established practitioners of ICU echocardiography. The recommendations contained in this document are concerned with theoretical basis of ultrasonography, the practical aspects of building an ICU-based echocardiography service as well as the key components of standard adult TTE and TEE studies to be performed on the ICU. Specific issues regarding echocardiography in different ICU clinical scenarios are then described. Obtaining competence in ICU echocardiography may be achieved in different ways – either through completion of an appropriate fellowship/training scheme, or, where not available, via a staged approach designed to train the practitioner to a level at which they can achieve accreditation. Here, peri-resuscitation focused echocardiography represents the entry level – obtainable through established courses followed by mentored practice. Next, a competence-based modular training programme is proposed: theoretical elements delivered through blended-learning and practical elements acquired in parallel through proctored practice. These all linked with existing national/international echocardiography courses. When completed, it is anticipated that the practitioner will have performed the prerequisite number of studies, and achieved the competency to undertake accreditation (leading to Level 2 competence) via a recognized National or European examination and provide the appropriate required evidence of competency (logbook). Thus, even where appropriate fellowships are not available, with support from the relevant echocardiography bodies, training and subsequently accreditation in ICU echocardiography becomes achievable within the existing framework of current critical care and cardiological practice, and is adaptable to each countrie's needs.     

Update on Best Practice Recommendations for Anesthetic Perioperative Care and Pain Management in Weight Loss Surgery, 2004–2007

To reevaluate and update evidence‐based best practice recommendations published in 2004 for anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in weight loss surgery (WLS), we performed a systematic search of English‐language literature on anesthetic perioperative care and pain management in WLS published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. We identified relevant abstracts by using key words, retrieved full text articles, and stratified the resulting evidence according to systems used in established evidence‐based models. We updated prior evidence‐based best practice recommendations based upon interim literature. In instances of controversial or inadequate scientific evidence, the task force reached consensus recommendations following evaluation of the best available information and expert opinion. The search yielded 1,788 abstracts, with 162 potentially relevant titles; 45 were reviewed in detail. Despite more information on perioperative management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), evidence to support preoperative testing and treatment or to guide perioperative monitoring is scarce. New evidence on appropriate intraoperative dosing of muscle relaxants allows for greater precision in their use during WLS. A novel application of α?2 agonists for perioperative anesthetic care is emerging. Key elements that may enhance patient safety include integration of the latest evidence on WLS, obesity, and collaborative multidisciplinary care into clinical care. However, large gaps remain in the evidence base.     

Survival among clinical stage I–III rectal cancer patients treated with different preoperative treatments: A population-based comparison

BackgroundRadical resection is regarded as the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment. Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy are often administered. This population-based study compares the survival in clinical stage I–III rectal cancer patients who received either preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or no preoperative therapy. As secondary research questions, the association of type of radical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy on survival is also investigated.MethodsPatients diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2011 with stage I–III rectal adenocarcinoma were retrieved from the Belgian Cancer Registry database. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to evaluate the association of preoperative treatment, type of radical resection and use of adjuvant chemotherapy with survival, adjusting for the baseline characteristics age, gender, WHO performance status and clinical stage.ResultsA total of 5173 rectal cancer patients were identified. Preoperative treatment was as follows: none in 1354 (26.2%), radiotherapy in 797 (15.4%) and chemoradiotherapy in 3022 (58.4%) patients. The patient group who did not receive preoperative therapy or radiotherapy followed by radical resection had a lower observed survival compared to the patient group receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The patient groups who underwent abdominoperineal excision and those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had a worse observed survival compared to the patient group treated with sphincter-sparing surgery and no adjuvant therapy respectively. These effects were age-dependent. Multivariable analysis demonstrated similar findings for the observed survival conditional on surviving the first year since surgery.ConclusionIn this population-based study among clinical stage I–III rectal cancer patients treated with radical resection, a superior observed survival was noticed in the patient group receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy compared to the patients groups receiving no or preoperative radiotherapy only, adjusting for case mix, type of radical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, higher adjusted observed survival was also detected for the patient groups with sphincter-sparing surgery or no adjuvant chemotherapy.     

Transcultural Diabetes Care in The United States – A Position Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a transculturalized diabetes chronic disease care model that is adapted for patients across a spectrum of ethnicities and cultures. AACE has conducted several transcultural activities on global issues in clinical endocrinology and completed a 3-city series of conferences in December 2017 that focused on diabetes care for ethnic minorities in the U.S. Proceedings from the “Diabetes Care Across America” series of transcultural summits are presented here. Information from community leaders, practicing health care professionals, and other stakeholders in diabetes care is analyzed according to biological and environmental factors. Four specific U.S. ethnicities are detailed: African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. A core set of recommendations to culturally adapt diabetes care is presented that emphasizes culturally appropriate terminology, transculturalization of white papers, culturally adapting clinic infrastructure, flexible office hours, behavioral medicine—especially motivational interviewing and building trust—culturally competent nutritional messaging and health literacy, community partnerships for care delivery, technology innovation, clinical trial recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities, and more funding for scientific studies on epigenetic mechanisms of cultural impact on disease expression. It is hoped that through education, research, and clinical practice enhancements, diabetes care can be optimized in terms of precision and clinical outcomes for the individual and U.S. population as a whole.Lay AbstractThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a diabetes care model for patients of different backgrounds. AACE led meetings in New York, Houston, and Miami with health care professionals and community leaders to improve diabetes care. Information from these meetings looked at biological and environmental diabetes risks. Four American patient groups were studied: African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Diabetes care should use culturally appropriate language and search for better ways to apply science and clinic design. Talking to patients more clearly can improve their diabetes control. There are many other needed changes in the American health care system discussed in this paper. It is hoped that through better education, research, and practice, diabetes care can be improved for the entire U.S. population. This means that important differences among patients' ethnic and cultural backgrounds are addressed.Executive Summary

• Cultural adaptation of evidence-based recommendations is a necessary component of optimal diabetes care.
• Biological factors that contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes vary according to race and ethnicity and can be affected by social determinants that vary with culture.
• The “Transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm” was developed in 2010 to optimize diabetes nutrition care globally and represents a validated methodology where evidence-based recommendations from a source culture can be adapted and implemented in a different culture using a toolkit.
• The 2015 AACE Pan-American Workshop examined diabetes care in 9 Latin American nations and concluded that there should only be one level of diabetes care for a population and that level should be “excellent;” also, that A1C measurements should be utilized and that more educational and nutritional options are needed to optimize diabetes care.
• The “Diabetes Care Across America – A Series of Transcultural Summits” was an AACE program conducted in 2017 in New York, Houston, and Miami to examine cultural factors that influence diabetes care domestically; the findings of this program are presented here.
• The African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and Native American populations are each comprised of different ancestries, anthropometrics/body compositions and physical appearances, and cultures and degrees of acculturation, with a significant evidence base that associates specific gene variants with specific phenotypic traits affecting diabetes care.
• For each ethno-cultural population, health messaging and diabetes care will need to consider issues of potential distrust of health care professionals, history of discrimination, religious practices, food preferences, attitudes toward physical activity, and despite the full range of socio-economics, the impact of poverty on engagement, self-monitoring, adherence with lifestyle and medical recommendations, and recruitment for clinical trials.
• Diabetes care should be as precise as possible, incorporating clinical trial evidence that best reflects the ethno-cultural attributes of a specific patient, with particular emphasis on cardiovascular disease risk mitigation, technology to assess the effects of eating patterns on glycemic status, adjusting traditional eating patterns to more healthy options that are still acceptable to the patient, flexibility in lifestyle and medication recommendations that take into account cultural factors, and the utilization of community-based resources to improve implementation.
• Pragmatic first steps to prepare a diabetes practice for an ethno-culturally diverse patient population include: learning more about biological-cultural interactions; gaining experience with lifestyle and behavioral medicine, especially motivational interviewing; creating a safe and immersive clinical environment; incorporating translation services, social prescribing, wearable technologies, web-based resources, and community engagement; and establishing referral networks with clinical trialists in diabetes research to improve recruitment of different populations.

ABSTRACTAbbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; BMI = body mass index; CPA = clinical practice algorithm; CPG = clinical practice guideline; DBCD = dysglycemia-based chronic disease; DPP = Diabetes Prevention Program; GWAS = genome-wide association study; HCP = health care professional(s); IHS = Indian Health Service; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; MetS = metabolic syndrome; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus; tDNA = transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm; TG = triglyceride; WC = waist circumference     

Best Practice Updates for Multidisciplinary Care in Weight Loss Surgery

The objective of this study is to update evidence‐based best practice guidelines for multidisciplinary care of weight loss surgery (WLS) patients. We performed systematic search of English‐language literature on WLS, patient selection, and medical, multidisciplinary, and nutritional care published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Key words were used to narrow the search for a selective review of abstracts, retrieval of full articles, and grading of evidence according to systems used in established evidence‐based models. A total of 150 papers were retrieved from the literature search and 112 were reviewed in detail. We made evidence‐based best practice recommendations from the most recent literature on multidisciplinary care of WLS patients. New recommendations were developed in the areas of patient selection, medical evaluation, and treatment. Regular updates of evidence‐based recommendations for best practices in multidisciplinary care are required to address changes in patient demographics and levels of obesity. Key factors in patient safety include comprehensive preoperative medical evaluation, patient education, appropriate perioperative care, and long‐term follow‐up.     

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm – 2023 Update

ObjectiveThis consensus statement provides (1) visual guidance in concise graphic algorithms to assist with clinical decision-making of health care professionals in the management of persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve patient care and (2) a summary of details to support the visual guidance found in each algorithm.MethodsThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) selected a task force of medical experts who updated the 2020 AACE Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm based on the 2022 AACE Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan and consensus of task force authors.ResultsThis algorithm for management of persons with type 2 diabetes includes 11 distinct sections: (1) Principles for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes; (2) Complications-Centric Model for the Care of Persons with Overweight/Obesity; (3) Prediabetes Algorithm; (4) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Dyslipidemia; (5) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Hypertension; (6) Complications-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (7) Glucose-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (8) Algorithm for Adding/Intensifying Insulin; (9) Profiles of Antihyperglycemic Medications; (10) Profiles of Weight-Loss Medications (new); and (11) Vaccine Recommendations for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus (new), which summarizes recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.ConclusionsAligning with the 2022 AACE diabetes guideline update, this 2023 diabetes algorithm update emphasizes lifestyle modification and treatment of overweight/obesity as key pillars in the management of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus and highlights the importance of appropriate management of atherosclerotic risk factors of dyslipidemia and hypertension. One notable new theme is an emphasis on a complication-centric approach, beyond glucose levels, to frame decisions regarding first-line pharmacologic choices for the treatment of persons with diabetes. The algorithm also includes access/cost of medications as factors related to health equity to consider in clinical decision-making.     

Hyperthyroidism and Other Causes of Thyrotoxicosis: Management Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

ObjectiveThyrotoxicosis has multiple etiologies, manifestations, and potential therapies. Appropriate treatment requires an accurate diagnosis and is influenced by coexisting medical conditions and patient preference. This article describes evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of thyrotoxicosis that would be useful to generalist and subspeciality physicians and others providing care for patients with this condition.MethodsThe development of these guidelines was commissioned by the American Thyroid Association in association with the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. The American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists assembled a task force of expert clinicians who authored this report. The task force examined relevant literature using a systematic PubMed search supplemented with additional published materials. An evidence-based medicine approach that incorporated the knowledge and experience of the panel was used to develop the text and a series of specific recommendations. The strength of the recommendations and the quality of evidence supporting each was rated according to the approach recommended by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Group.ResultsClinical topics addressed include the initial evaluation and management of thyrotoxicosis; management of Graves’ hyperthyroidism using radioactive iodine, antithyroid drugs, or surgery; management of toxic multinodular goiter or toxic adenoma using radioactive iodine or surgery; Graves’ disease in children, adolescents, or pregnant patients; subclinical hyperthyroidism; hyperthyroidism in patients with Graves’ ophthalmopathy; and management of other miscellaneous causes of thyrotoxicosis.ConclusionsOne hundred evidence-based recommendations were developed to aid in the care of patients with thyrotoxicosis and to share what the task force believes is current, rational, and optimal medical practice.     

Documento de posicionamiento: evaluación y manejo de la hipoglucemia en el paciente concon diabetes mellitus. Grupo de Trabajo de Diabetes Mellitus de la Sociedad Española de Endocrinología y Nutrición

ObjectiveTo provide practical recommendations for evaluation and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus.ParticipantsMembers of the Diabetes Mellitus Working Group of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition.MethodsRecommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. A systematic search was made in MEDLINE (PubMed). Papers in English and Spanish with publication date before 15 February 2013 were included. For recommendations about drugs only those approved by the European Medicines Agency were included. After formulation of recommendations, they were discussed by the Working Group.ConclusionsThe document provides evidence-based practical recommendations for evaluation and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus.     

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.     

Cancer genetics evaluation: barriers to and improvements for referral

Despite the availability of cancer susceptibility testing, little information exists regarding physicians' selection and referral of eligible patients. This study provides insight into whom, why, and when physicians refer for cancer genetics evaluation, as well as their comfort level within this role. Eighty-two physicians (51 primary care, 15 gynecology, 11 surgery and 5 oncology) completed a survey (response rate: 34%) regarding cancer genetics referral practices. Of these, 59% reported an awareness of the hospital's cancer genetics program. Program awareness was greater among oncologists, surgeons, and gynecologists than among primary care physicians (p < 0.0001). Patients were referred for enhanced risk assessment (88%), improved medical management (85%), and concern for family members (83%). Patient eligibility was based on family cancer history (96%), patient cancer history (83%), and patient request (73%). Patients were not referred mainly due to patient disinterest (54%) or physician concern about either insurance coverage (44%) or insurance discrimination (31%). Primary care physicians were less comfortable with identifying patients for referral (p < 0.001) and with discussing genetics (p < 0.002) than specialists. The largest barriers to referral were lack of program awareness and limited knowledge regarding patient eligibility, improved insurance coverage, and antidiscrimination legislation. Physician-targeted marketing and education may improve the referral process.     

Best Practice Updates for Nursing Care in Weight Loss Surger

The objective of this study is to update evidence‐based best practice guidelines for nursing in weight loss surgery (WLS). We performed a systematic search of English‐language literature on WLS and perioperative nursing, postoperative, anesthesia, and discharge published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library. Key words were used to narrow the search for a selective review of abstracts, retrieval of full articles, and grading of evidence according to systems used in established evidence‐based models. From these, we developed evidence‐based best practice recommendations from the most recent literature on nursing in WLS. We identified >54 papers; the most relevant were reviewed in detail. Regular updates of evidence‐based recommendations for best practices in WLS nursing are required to address advances in surgery and anesthesiology, as well as changes in the demographics and levels of obesity in WLS patients. Key factors in patient safety include staff education, comprehensive admission assessment, patient education, careful preoperative surveillance and postoperative care, and long‐term discharge follow‐up.     

A trial platform to develop a tailored theory-based intervention to improve professional practice in the disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: Study protocol [ISRCTN15871014]

Background

Despite the availability of clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP), there continues to be wide variation in general practitioners' (GPs') referral rates for lumbar spine x-ray (LSX). This study aims to explain variation in GPs' referral rates for LSX from their accounts of the management of patients with low back pain.

Methods

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 29 GPs with high and low referral rates for LSX in North East England. Thematic analysis used constant comparative techniques.

Results

Common and divergent themes were identified among high- and low-users of LSX. Themes that were similar in both groups included an awareness of current guidelines for the use of LSX for patients with LBP and the pressure from patients and institutional factors to order a LSX. Differentiating themes for the high-user group included: a belief that LSX provides reassurance to patients that can outweigh risks, pessimism about the management options for LBP, and a belief that denying LSX would adversely affect doctor-patient relationships. Two specific differentiating themes are considered in more depth: GPs' awareness of their use of lumbar spine radiology relative to others, and the perceived risks associated with LSX radiation.

Conclusion

Several key factors differentiate the accounts of GPs who have high and low rates of referral for LSX, even though they are aware of clinical guideline recommendations. Intervention studies that aim to increase adherence to guideline recommendations on the use of LSX by changing the ordering behaviour of practitioners in primary care should focus on these factors.     

Benchmarking academic plastic surgery services in the United States

Rising health care costs and increasingly demanding patients are only some of the challenges faced by academic plastic surgery services in their pursuit of excellence in education, research, and patient care. Benchmarking, when correctly applied, is a powerful tool that can help services learn from each other's experiences. This study aimed at creating the first benchmarking report summarizing performance indicators and management practices of some of the most complete academic plastic surgery units in the United States. Results provide an opportunity for plastic surgery leaders to benchmark against their own units, identify eventual gaps, and improve their performance as needed.     

News media reports of patient deaths following 'medical tourism' for cosmetic surgery and bariatric surgery

Contemporary scholarship examining clinical outcomes in medical travel for cosmetic surgery identifies cases in which patients traveled abroad for medical procedures and subsequently returned home with infections and other surgical complications. Though there are peer-reviewed articles identifying patient deaths in cases where patients traveled abroad for commercial kidney transplantation or stem cell injections, no scholarly publications document deaths of patients who traveled abroad for cosmetic surgery or bariatric surgery. Drawing upon news media reports extending from 1993 to 2011, this article identifies and describes twenty-six reported cases of deaths of individuals who traveled abroad for cosmetic surgery or bariatric surgery. Over half of the reported deaths occurred in two countries. Analysis of these news reports cannot be used to make causal claims about why the patients died. In addition, cases identified in news media accounts do not provide a basis for establishing the relative risk of traveling abroad for care instead of seeking elective cosmetic surgery at domestic health care facilities. Acknowledging these limitations, the case reports suggest the possibility that contemporary peer-reviewed scholarship is underreporting patient mortality in medical travel. The paper makes a strong case for promoting normative analyses and empirical studies of medical travel. In particular, the paper argues that empirically informed ethical analysis of 'medical tourism' will benefit from rigorous studies tracking global flows of medical travelers and the clinical outcomes they experience. The paper contains practical recommendations intended to promote debate concerning how to promote patient safety and quality of care in medical travel.     

Implications of the ADA/EASD consensus algorithm for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus for primary care practitioners: Four pivotal points

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is appearing in adults at an epidemic rate. Primary care clinicians will, out of necessity, provide diabetes care for most patients with type 2 DM. A systematic care plan will contribute to effective and cost-efficient management of the increasing number of diabetic patients presenting in the primary care setting.Objectives: The aims of this article were to review the consensus algorithm developed by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA/EASD) for the treatment of type 2 DM and to increase awareness of this document within the community that is most likely to manage patients with type 2 DM.Methods: Research was focused on the value of the consensus algorithm to primary care practitioners for the management of patients with type 2 DM.Results: Research revealed 4 aspects of the algorithm involving use of medications (including insulin) and measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that would help health care providers construct a systematic and workable plan for aggressive treatment of type 2 DM.Conclusions: The 4 issues raised within the ADA/EASD consensus algorithm have a significant impact on primary care practitioners and challenge usual practices in the care of patients with type 2 DM.     

Referral Patterns for Patients With High-Risk Thyroid Cancer

ObjectiveKnowledge of referral patterns for specialty cancer care is sparse. Information on both the need and reasons for referral of high-risk, well-differentiated thyroid cancer patients should provide a foundation for eliminating obstacles to appropriate patient referrals and improving patient care.MethodsWe surveyed 370 endocrinologists involved in thyroid cancer management. From information in a clinical vignette, respondents were asked to identify the reasons they would need to refer a high-risk patient to a more specialized facility for care. We performed multivariable analysis controlling for hospital and physician characteristics.ResultsThirty-two percent of respondents reported never referring thyroid cancer patients to another facility. Of those that would refer a high-risk patient to another facility, the opportunity for a patient to enter a clinical trial was the most common reason reported (44%), followed by high-dose radioactive iodine (RAI) with or without dosimetry (33%), lateral neck dissection (24%), and external beam radiation (15%). In multivariable analysis, endocrinologists with a higher percentage of their practice devoted to thyroid cancer care were significantly less likely to refer patients to another facility (P = .003).ConclusionsThe majority of endocrinologists treating thyroid cancer patients report referring a high-risk patient to another facility for some or all of their care. Knowledge of the patterns of physician referrals and the likelihood of need for referral are key to understanding discrepancies in referral rates and obstacles in the referral process. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:638-643)