An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening.

RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.

Evaluation of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) classification scheme for diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms: Results from the International Melanoma Pathology Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Pathologists use diverse terminology when interpreting melanocytic neoplasms, potentially compromising quality of care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) scheme, a 5-category classification system for melanocytic lesions. METHODS: Participants (n = 16) of the 2013 International Melanoma Pathology Study Group Workshop provided independent case-level diagnoses and treatment suggestions for 48 melanocytic lesions. Individual diagnoses (including, when necessary, least and most severe diagnoses) were mapped to corresponding MPATH-Dx classes. Interrater agreement and correlation between MPATH-Dx categorization and treatment suggestions were evaluated. RESULTS: Most participants were board-certified dermatopathologists (n = 15), age 50 years or older (n = 12), male (n = 9), based in the United States (n = 11), and primary academic faculty (n = 14). Overall, participants generated 634 case-level diagnoses with treatment suggestions. Mean weighted kappa coefficients for diagnostic agreement after MPATH-Dx mapping (assuming least and most severe diagnoses, when necessary) were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.71) and 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.73), respectively, whereas correlation between MPATH-Dx categorization and treatment suggestions was 0.91. LIMITATIONS: This was a small sample size of experienced pathologists in a testing situation. CONCLUSION: Varying diagnostic nomenclature can be classified into a concise hierarchy using the MPATH-Dx scheme. Further research is needed to determine whether this classification system can facilitate diagnostic concordance in general pathology practice and improve patient care.

How concerns and experiences with medical malpractice affect dermatopathologists' perceptions of their diagnostic practices when interpreting cutaneous melanocytic lesions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify characteristics associated with past malpractice lawsuits and how malpractice concerns may affect interpretive practices. METHODS: We surveyed 207 of 301 (68.8%) eligible dermatopathologists who interpret melanocytic skin lesions in 10 states. The survey assessed dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical practice characteristics, perceptions of how medical malpractice concerns could influence their interpretive practices, and past malpractice lawsuits. RESULTS: Of dermatopathologists, 33% reported past malpractice experiences. Factors associated with being sued included older age (57 vs 48 years, P < .001), lack of board certification or fellowship training in dermatopathology (76.5% vs 53.2%, P = .001), and greater number of years interpreting melanocytic lesions (>20 years: 52.9% vs 20.1%, P < .001). Of participants, 64% reported being moderately or extremely confident in their melanocytic interpretations. Although most dermatopathologists believed that malpractice concerns increased their likelihood of ordering specialized pathology tests, obtaining recuts, and seeking a second opinion, none of these practices were associated with past malpractice. Most dermatopathologists reported concerns about potential harms to patients that may result from their assessments of melanocytic lesions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include lack of validation of and details about the malpractice suits experienced by participating dermatopathologists. In addition, the study assessed perceptions of practice rather than actual practices that might be associated with malpractice incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists reported apprehension about how malpractice affects their clinical practice and are concerned about patient safety irrespective of whether they had actually experienced a medical malpractice suit.

Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception.

AIMS: To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. RESULTS: Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

Sex and racial differences in the management of acute myocardial infarction, 1994 through 2002.

BACKGROUND: Although increased attention has been paid to sex and racial differences in the management of myocardial infarction, it is unknown whether these differences have narrowed over time. METHODS: With the use of data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction, we examined sex and racial differences in the treatment of patients who were deemed to be "ideal candidates" for particular treatments and in deaths among 598,911 patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction between 1994 and 2002. RESULTS: In the unadjusted analysis, sex and racial differences were observed for rates of reperfusion therapy (for white men, white women, black men, and black women: 86.5, 83.3, 80.4, and 77.8 percent, respectively; P<0.001), use of aspirin (84.4, 78.7, 83.7, and 78.4 percent, respectively; P<0.001), use of beta-blockers (66.6, 62.9, 67.8, and 64.5 percent; P<0.001), and coronary angiography (69.1, 55.9, 64.0, and 55.0 percent; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, racial and sex differences persisted for rates of reperfusion therapy (risk ratio for white women, black men, and black women: 0.97, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively, as compared with white men) and coronary angiography (relative risk, 0.91, 0.82, and 0.76) but were attenuated for the use of aspirin (risk ratio, 0.97, 0.98, and 0.94) and beta-blockers (risk ratio, 0.98, 1.00, and 0.96); all risks were unchanged over time. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar among white women (risk ratio, 1.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.07) and black men (risk ratio, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.00), as compared with white men, but was higher among black women (risk ratio, 1.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.16) and was unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of reperfusion therapy, coronary angiography, and in-hospital death after myocardial infarction, but not the use of aspirin and beta-blockers, vary according to race and sex, with no evidence that the differences have narrowed in recent years.

Hospital transfer of patients with acute myocardial infarction: the effects of age, race, and insurance type.

BACKGROUND: Many factors precipitate the transfer of patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, including clinical status and the need for diagnostic testing and therapeutic interventions not available at the admitting hospital. The objectives of this study were to assess the frequency of transfer to another hospital and to determine whether nonmedical factors, such as age, sex, race, and insurance status, are associated with transfer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of patients with acute myocardial infarction who were enrolled in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 from June 1994 through March 1998. The Registry involves 1674 hospitals in the United States. All patients survived to the time of hospital discharge or until transfer. Multivariable logistic regression models, with transfer as the outcome variable, were developed for the entire sample, as well as for subgroups determined by the interventional capabilities of the admitting hospital. RESULTS: Of 537,283 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 152,310 (28%) were transferred to another hospital after admission. After adjustment for differences in clinical and hospital characteristics, factors that were most associated with a reduced odds of transfer included older age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.44 for those aged >75 vs. <65 years), African-American race (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.71 for African Americans vs. whites), and Medicaid/self-pay insurance status (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.70 for Medicaid/self-pay vs. commercial insurance). These effects were most apparent for patients admitted to hospitals without full invasive diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, but persisted to some extent among those admitted to hospitals with full invasive services. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that nonmedical factors, including age, race, and insurance type, affect decisions regarding the transfer of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. As only a minority of the nation's hospitals offers a full range of cardiovascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, these findings reinforce ongoing concerns about disparities in access to health care services for some patients.

The association of sex and payer status on management and subsequent survival in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports have generally shown lower utilization of hospital resources and lower survival in women than men with acute myocardial infarction. However, to our knowledge, no reports have described the influence of payer status on the treatment and outcome of women and men with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Baseline and clinical presenting characteristics, utilization of hospital resources, and subsequent clinical outcome were ascertained among 327 040 women and men enrolled in a national registry of myocardial infarction from June 1, 1994, to January 31, 1997. Separate Cox regression analyses were performed for Medicare, Medicaid, health maintenance organizations, and commercial payer groups to ascertain variables that were predictive of mortality in the study population. RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in age and other baseline and presenting characteristics, women were significantly more likely than men to die in the hospital (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.16), and this difference was greatest among women with health maintenance organization and commercial insurance (hazard ratios, 1.30 and 1.29, respectively), and least among women with Medicare (hazard ratio, 1.07). However, after adjustment for the additional effect on short-term survival of sex differences in the utilization of both pharmacologic treatments administered within the first 24 hours and invasive cardiac procedures, the mortality difference observed for women and men further diminished (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.10). CONCLUSION: In this large registry, we did not observe significant variations among payer classes in management and mortality among women and men after acute myocardial infarction.