Eliminating Visual Acuity and Dilated Fundus Examinations Improves Cost Efficiency of Performing Optical Coherence Tomogrpahy-Guided Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: The clinic efficiency and cost savings achieved by eliminating formal visual acuity (VA) and dilated fundus examinations (DFEs) were assessed for established patients receiving optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Comparative cost analysis. METHODS: Two different treatment models were evaluated. The first model included patients undergoing routine VA assessment, DFEs, OCT imaging, and intravitreal injections. The second model eliminated the routine VA assessment and DFE while using OCT imaging through an undilated pupil followed by the intravitreal injection. The 2 models incorporated both bevacizumab and aflibercept. The number of patients per clinic day, the cost per visit, and the daily revenues were compared between the 2 models. RESULTS: Optimized schedules with and without VA assessments and DFEs allowed for 48 and 96 patients to be injected per day, respectively. Excluding drug costs, the cost per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $39.33 and $22.63, respectively. Including the drug costs, the costs per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $85.55 and $68.85 for bevacizumab and $1787.58 and $17770.88 for aflibercept, respectively. Once the reimbursements for each visit type were included, the clinics that eliminated the VA and DFEs were more cost efficient. CONCLUSION: Eliminating both VA assessments and DFEs for patients undergoing OCT-guided retreatment with intravitreal injections resulted in decreased exposure times between patients and clinic staff, decreased cost per encounter, and increased patient volumes per clinic day, resulting in improved clinic efficiency and safety while seeing more patients in a clinic day.

Ending Cervical Cancer Screening in Low-Risk Women After Age 65: Understanding Barriers to Adherence With Evidence-Based Guidelines Among Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence-based cervical cancer testing guidelines recommend that screening of low-risk women ceases after age 65. Despite this, research suggests that continued testing by primary care providers remains common and represents unnecessary patient discomfort, cost, and consumption of valuable primary care resources. OBJECTIVE: To understand why primary care providers might knowingly ignore consensus evidence-based screening guidelines for cervical cancer in low-risk women of this age-group and to identify barriers to adherence with best practice recommendations. METHODS: A survey tool to identify barriers to adherence with current guidelines for cervical cancer screening in low-risk women older than age 65 was mailed to 4929 randomly selected primary care providers throughout California. Providers were asked to indicate the predominant reason(s) they might knowingly continue cervical cancer screening in women older than 65 years, despite evidence-based recommendations to the contrary. RESULTS: Qualified surveys were received from 1259 (25.5%) of those surveyed, representing primary care providers of all types, practicing in areas of vastly different demographics. Despite published reassurance to the contrary, many providers retain fear that discontinuation of testing in low-risk women after age 65 may result in missed invasive cervical cancer. Even among health-care providers who agree that cessation of screening is safe, other circumstances prompt their recommendation to continue cervical screening. CONCLUSION: Although the data from this study suggest areas of policy intervention to lessen unnecessary cervical cancer screening, the broader implication is that advancement of evidence-based medicine will be of little value in improving the quality and cost of health care if barriers to guideline adherence are poorly understood and addressed.

Discontent and Confusion: Primary Care Providers' Opinions and Understanding of Current Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, new cervical cancer screening guidelines were published by three widely recognized entities which advocate delayed onset of testing, fewer screenings, selective use of human papilloma virus co-testing, and no further screening in women over age 65 years. Early observations report that these recommendations are not being followed and overscreening is common. This study seeks to understand why primary care providers might not adhere to these new 'best practice' health policy protocols. METHODS: A total of 4,909 randomly selected primary care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) practicing in California were mailed a study questionnaire. Participants were asked if they consider current published screening guidelines to be authoritative, reliable, and/or clinically appropriate. Clinical vignettes captured individual provider beliefs on timing and method of cervical cancer screening in women within the four key age groups embedded in current screening guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 4,909 surveys mailed, 1,268 (25.8%) qualified responses were received. Fundamentally, 35.0% of all primary care providers do not believe current guidelines are clinically appropriate, with 58.6% of obstetrician/gynecologist physicians having this same skepticism. Even among those who affirmatively believe current guidelines are authoritative, reliable, and clinically appropriate, only 15.3% recommend screening intervals and methodology of testing in women of four differing ages consistent with that of current policy guidelines. CONCLUSION: Among the primary care providers surveyed, distrust and confusion likely limit adherence to current evidence-based cervical cancer screening health policy recommendations, and contribute to the current high rates of overscreening that have been observed.

Ruptured intracranial mycotic aneurysm in infective endocarditis: a natural history.

Mycotic aneurysms are a rare cause of intracranial aneurysms that develop in the presence of infections such as infective endocarditis. They account for a small percentage of all intracranial aneurysms and carry a high-mortality rate when ruptured. The authors report a case of a 54-year-old man who presented with infective endocarditis of the mitral valve and acute stroke. He subsequently developed subarachnoid hemorrhage during antibiotic treatment, and a large intracranial aneurysm was discovered on CT Angiography. His lesion quickly progressed into an intraparenchymal hemorrhage, requiring emergent craniotomy and aneurysm clipping. Current recommendations on the management of intracranial Mycotic Aneurysms are based on few retrospective case studies. The natural history of the patient's ruptured aneurysm is presented, as well as a literature review on the management and available treatment modalities.