Conscience-Based Barriers to Medical Aid in Dying: A Survey of Colorado Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of the United States' population lives in a state or jurisdiction where medical aid in dying (MAiD) is legal. It is unknown how physicians' own barriers are associated with their provision of the spectrum of MAiD services. OBJECTIVE: To measure physicians' religious and/or ethical barriers to providing MAiD services and how such barriers relate to physicians' intentions and behaviors. DESIGN: Three-wave cross-sectional survey fielded in Colorado in 2020-2021. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians providing care to patients likely clinically eligible for MAiD according to probabilistic sampling. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians self-reported barriers to their own participation in MAiD. We considered large ethical and/or religious barriers to be conscience-based barriers. We measured physicians' self-reported intention to participate and self-reported prior participation in MAiD since it was legalized in Colorado in 2017. We estimated differences in intention and behavior outcomes according to presence of conscience-based barriers, adjusting for physician gender, race/ethnicity, time in practice, and specialty. KEY RESULTS: Among 300 respondents, 26% reported "large" ethical and/or religious barriers to their involvement in MAiD. Physicians with longer time in practice and those identifying as non-White were more likely to report conscience-based barriers to MAiD. Comparing physicians with and without conscience-based barriers to MAiD, we found no difference in ancillary participation (discussing, referring) but significant differences in direct participation (serving as consultant [5% vs. 31%] or attending [0% vs. 22%]). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of physicians likely to care for MAiD-eligible patients in Colorado reported religious and/or ethical barriers to MAiD. Despite religious and/or ethical barriers, the vast majority of physicians were willing to discuss MAiD and/or refer patients seeking MAiD services. These data provide important empirical foundation for policy from hospitals and health systems as well as medical specialty groups with official positions on MAiD.

Physicians' Attitudes and Experiences with Medical Aid in Dying in Colorado: a "Hidden Population" Survey.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of the US population live in states where MAiD is a legal, though highly contentious, practice. Little generalizable data exists on the experiences of MAiD providers who comprise a small, and intentionally hidden, population. OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature, extent, and consequences of physicians' participation in MAiD. DESIGN: An anonymous, multi-wave, mailed survey (RR= 55%). PARTICIPANTS: An enriched sample (n=583) of Colorado physicians caring for potential MAiD patients. MAIN MEASURES: Physician willingness, preparedness, and participation in a continuum of MAiD activities. Other outcomes include the effects of providing MAiD and the barriers physicians face related to MAiD. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 81.1% of respondents were willing to discuss MAiD with a patient, 88.3% to refer for MAiD, 46.3% to be a consultant, and 28.1% to be an attending. Fewer felt prepared to discuss MAiD (54.4%), provide a MAiD referral (62.8%), be a consultant (30.7%), or be an attending (18.0%). More than half of respondents (52.3%) had discussed MAiD with a patient, 27.3% provided a MAiD referral, 12.8% had been a MAiD consultant, and 8.5% had been a MAiD attending. Among MAiD consultants and attendings, 75% reported that their most recent MAiD case was emotionally fulfilling and professionally rewarding, though 75% also reported that it was time consuming and 46.9% reported that it was ethically challenging. Common barriers to physician participation in MAiD include lack of knowledge about MAiD (46.8%), the emotional (45.6%) and time (41.7%) investments, and ethical concerns (41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians in our sample are both willing and prepared to discuss MAiD with patients and to provide MAiD referrals. Fewer are prepared and willing to serve as an attending or consultant and fewer have provided these services. MAID consultants and attendings largely report the experience to be emotionally fulfilling and professionally rewarding, but all respondents reported multiple barriers to participation.

Snus use and rejection in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether snus might become a strategy for reducing the harm associated with cigarette smoking in the USA as appears to be the case in Sweden, we examined receptivity to snus use in two cities with the greatest exposure to the major brands. METHODS: A dual frame, telephone survey and a brief mail survey were conducted in 2011 and 2012 in Indianapolis, Indiana and Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. Over 5000 adults completed surveys. Trial, ever use, current use and reasons for using or quitting snus after trial were measured. RESULTS: Among male smokers, 29.9% had ever tried snus (CI 22.7 to 38.1) and 4.2% were current users (CI 1.6 to 10.7). Among female smokers, 8.5% ever tried snus (CI 4.4 to 15.7) and current use was unknown. Current use was virtually absent among former smokers and never smokers. A major predictor of any level of snus use was current use of conventional smokeless tobacco. Those who tried and gave up snus cited curiosity (41.3%) and the fact that it was available at low or no cost (30%) as reasons for trial; reasons for not continuing included preferring another form of tobacco (75.1%) and disliking the mouth feel (34.6%). Almost all current snus users indicated that they were trying to cut down on cigarettes, but few (3.9%) were using it to quit smoking entirely. CONCLUSIONS: The low rate of adoption of snus suggests that neither the hopes nor the fears surrounding this new product are likely to be realised in the USA with the current marketing patterns.

Public opinion about FDA regulation of menthol and nicotine.

OBJECTIVE: Regulations that reduce nicotine and eliminate menthol in cigarettes have been proposed to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as product alterations that could reduce smoking prevalence in the USA. This study sought to assess the public response to either action. METHODS: A mail survey of a representative sample of 1074 adults was conducted in two major metropolitan areas to determine the level of support for immediate, gradual or no reduction of menthol and nicotine in cigarettes. RESULTS: There was more support for reducing nicotine (79%) than for reducing or removing menthol (59.5%). Most smokers (59.2%; 95% CI 50.7 to 67.2) and 36% of non-smokers (95% CI 31.7 to 40.8) opposed eliminating menthol, but few smokers (23.8%) or non-smokers (20.3%) were opposed to reducing nicotine. Logistic regression showed no significant effect of smoking status on support for reductions in nicotine, but that smokers were significantly less supportive than non-smokers of FDA action on menthol (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.49). A significant race by smoking status interaction showed that African-American smokers were more supportive of removing menthol than non-African-American smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The greater smoker support for reductions in nicotine than menthol could be due to inaccurate beliefs about the disease risk associated with the two substances (ie, a belief that nicotine is more harmful than menthol), or to greater awareness of the sensory role that menthol plays in smokers' satisfaction. In any case, if FDA goes ahead with regulations to remove menthol, it will be important to develop strategies to reduce smoker resistance.

Sex, race, and consideration of bariatric surgery among primary care patients with moderate to severe obesity.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is one of few obesity treatments to produce substantial weight loss but only a small proportion of medically-eligible patients, especially men and racial minorities, undergo bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care patients' consideration of bariatric surgery, potential variation by sex and race, and factors that underlie any variation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Telephone interview of 337 patients with a body mass index or BMI > 35 kg/m(2) seen at four diverse primary care practices in Greater-Boston. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' consideration of bariatric surgery. RESULTS: Of 325 patients who had heard of bariatric surgery, 34 % had seriously considered surgery. Men were less likely than women and African Americans were less likely than Caucasian patients to have considered surgery after adjustment for sociodemographics and BMI. Comorbid conditions did not explain sex and racial differences but racial differences dissipated after adjustment for quality of life (QOL), which tended to be higher among African American than Caucasian patients. Physician recommendation of bariatric surgery was independently associated with serious consideration for surgery [OR 4.95 (95 % CI 2.81-8.70)], but did not explain variation in consideration of surgery across sex and race. However, if recommended by their doctor, men were as willing and African American and Hispanic patients were more willing to consider bariatric surgery than their respective counterparts after adjustment. Nevertheless, only 20 % of patients reported being recommended bariatric surgery by their doctor and African Americans and men were less likely to receive this recommendation; racial differences in being recommended surgery were also largely explained by differences in QOL. High perceived risk to bariatric surgery was the most commonly cited barrier; financial concerns were uncommonly cited. LIMITATIONS: Single geographic region; examined consideration and not who eventually proceeded with bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: African Americans and men were less likely to have considered bariatric surgery and were less likely to have been recommended surgery by their doctors. Differences in how obesity affects QOL appear to account for some of these variations. High perceived risk rather than financial barrier was the major deterrent for patients.

Accommodating hearing loss in outpatient physician offices in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 16.2 million Americans ages 18 and older (5.7%) report being deaf or having serious difficulty hearing. Hearing loss impedes effective communication during clinical encounters putting patients' safety at risk. A large fraction of Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits addresses whether providers offered auxiliary aids and services required to ensure effective communication. OBJECTIVE: Examine use of different hearing accommodations for deaf or hard of hearing patients by U.S. physicians. METHODS: We surveyed randomly selected physicians nationwide representing 7 specialties about their reported use of 8 types of accommodations when communicating with adult outpatients who are deaf or have significant difficulty hearing, even with hearing aids (overall weighted response rate = 61.0%). We performed a descriptive analysis of responses, using survey sampling weights. RESULTS: Among the 526 physicians in this analysis, most were male, white, urban, and practiced in community-based practices. Overall, 81.5% (SE = 1.9) reported that patients with significant hearing limitations get worse quality health care than others. Among participants, 49.8% (2.4) reported never using an in-person sign language interpreter hired by the practice, and 63.2% (2.4) never use video remote interpreting. In contrast, 30.7% (2.1) always and 29.8% (2.2) usually speak louder and slower to patients with significant hearing limitations. None of the 8 accommodations were always or usually used by 8.9% (1.3) of participants. CONCLUSIONS: More than 32 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians do not offer accommodations sufficient to ensure effective communication with adult outpatients with significant hearing limitations.

Caring for Adults With Significant Levels of Intellectual Disability in Outpatient Settings: Results of a National Survey of Physicians.

Between 1% and 2% of the U.S. population has an intellectual disability (ID) and often experience disparities in health care. Communication patterns and sedation use for routine medical procedures are important aspects of care for this population. We explored physicians' communication patterns and sedation use in caring for patients with significant levels of ID through a mailed survey of 1,400 physicians among seven specialties in outpatient settings (response rate = 61.0%). Among physicians who saw at least one patient with significant levels of ID in an average month, 74.8% reported usually/always communicating primarily with someone other than the patient. Among specialists, 85.5% (95% CI: 80.5%-90.5%) reported doing so, compared to 69.9% (95% CI: 64.4%-75.4%) for primary care physicians (p < 0.001). Also, 11.4% reported sedating at least one patient with significant levels of ID for a routine procedure. Three quarters of physicians reported communicating primarily with persons other than the patient usually or always-an approach that, in some instances, may not align with best medical practice. The percentage of physicians who report sedating at least one individual is associated with significant ID and the physician's volume of patients with significant ID.

Ethics and Medical Aid in Dying: Physicians' Perspectives on Disclosure, Presence, and Eligibility.

Medical aid in dying (MAiD), despite being legal in many jurisdictions, remains controversial ethically. Existing surveys of physicians' perceptions of MAiD tend to focus on the legal or moral permissibility of MAiD in general. Using a novel sampling strategy, we surveyed physicians likely to have engaged in MAiD-related activities in Colorado to assess their attitudes toward contemporary ethical issues in MAiD.

Incidence of Accommodations for Patients With Significant Vision Limitations in Physicians' Offices in the US.

IMPORTANCE: Despite documented disparities in health care for patients with significant vision impairments and legal mandates that patients with disability receive equitable care, little is known about the extent to which physicians practicing in the US accommodate these patients in outpatient clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To empirically explore the extent of basic accommodations physicians practicing in the US provide to patients with significant vision limitations in outpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this physician survey study, randomly selected physicians were surveyed throughout the US on their attitudes toward patients with disability. A total of 1400 randomly selected active board-certified physicians representing 7 specialties (family medicine, general internal medicine, rheumatology, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics-gynecology) were surveyed. Data were collected from October 2019 to June 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported use of basic accommodations when caring for patients with significant vision limitations (defined here as blind or significant difficulty seeing even with glasses or other corrective lenses). Physicians' accommodation performance was assessed based on whether they always or usually described the clinic space and always or usually provided printed material in large font. Use of Braille materials was reported too rarely to include in analyses. RESULTS: Of the 462 survey participants, 297 of 457 (65.0%) were male. The weighted response rate was 61.0%. Only 48 physicians (9.1%; 95% CI, 6.6-12.3) provided both accommodations (always or usually describing clinic spaces and providing large-font materials), while 267 (60.2%; 95% CI, 55.3-65.0) provided neither of these accommodations. Although 62.8% (95% CI, 57.5-67.8; n = 245) of nonophthalmologists did not provide either accommodation, 29.3% (95% CI, 20.1-40.7; n = 22) of ophthalmologists also did not do so; only 24.0% (95% CI, 15.6-35.0; n = 18) of ophthalmologists provided both accommodations compared with 8.4% (95% CI, 5.4-12.7) of other physicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This survey study suggests that less than one-tenth of physicians practicing in the US who care for patients with significant vision limitations usually or always describe clinic spaces or provide large-font materials, and less than one-third of ophthalmologists do so. Actions to address this seem warranted.

US Physicians' Knowledge About The Americans With Disabilities Act And Accommodation Of Patients With Disability.

More than thirty years since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with disability continue to experience health care disparities. The ADA mandates that patients with disability receive reasonable accommodations. In our survey of 714 US physicians in outpatient practices, 35.8 percent reported knowing little or nothing about their legal responsibilities under the ADA, 71.2 percent answered incorrectly about who determines reasonable accommodations, 20.5 percent did not correctly identify who pays for these accommodations, and 68.4 felt that they were at risk for ADA lawsuits. Physicians who felt that lack of formal education or training was a moderate or large barrier to caring for patients with disability were more likely to report little or no knowledge of their responsibilities under the law and were more likely to believe that they were at risk for an ADA lawsuit. To achieve equitable care and social justice for patients with disability, considerable improvements are needed to educate physicians and make health care delivery systems more accessible and accommodating.

A novel methodology to identify and survey physicians participating in medical aid-in-dying.

Physicians who participate in medical-aid-in-dying (MAID) cannot be easily identified and studied due to cost and anonymity barriers. We developed and empirically tested a novel methodology to identify and survey physicians highly likely to participate in MAID activities. We used a state-level comprehensive administrative claims database to identify a cohort of patients with diagnoses and hospice enrollment similar to those known to have filled a prescription for MAID from 2017-2018. We then identified physicians who provided routine outpatient care to these patients using National Provider Identifier numbers. We surveyed these physicians in 3 waves (n = 583 total surveys), ranking physicians in order of their likelihood of being asked about MAID for each wave based on characteristics including specialty and the number of unique patients they had provided care to. We re-ranked physicians in waves 2 and 3 based on responses from prior waves. Physicians were surveyed only once and there was no follow-up to preserve anonymity. Surveys assessed the proportion of respondents who participated in MAID activities (discussions, referrals, and/or prescriptions). We identified 6369 physicians that provided care to 2960 patients. In survey waves one, two, and three respectively, response rates (55%, 52%, and 55%; p = 0.98) and the proportion of respondents that participated in MAID activities (58%, 56%, and 42%; p = 0.05) were similar. Small adjustments made to physician ranking criteria in waves two and three did not increase the proportion of physicians that participated in MAID activities. We used a novel methodology using administrative data to identify and survey physicians at high likelihood of participating in MAID activities. We achieved good overall response rates (52%), and a high proportion of respondents that participated in MAID activities (52%), demonstrating that it is possible to overcome cost and anonymity barriers to conducting quantitative research on MAID. This methodology could be used in larger scale studies of MAID or other bioethical issues with "hidden" physician populations.

Use of Accessible Weight Scales and Examination Tables/Chairs for Patients with Significant Mobility Limitations by Physicians Nationwide.

BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations are the most common disability type among the 61 million Americans with disability. Studies of patients with mobility limitations suggest that inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment poses significant barriers to care. METHODS: The study team surveyed randomly selected US physicians nationwide representing seven specialties about their reported use of accessible weight scales and exam tables/chairs when caring for patients with mobility limitations. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between accessible equipment and participants' characteristics. RESULTS: The 714 participants (survey response rate = 61.0%) were primarily male, White, and urban, and had practiced for 20 or more years. Among those reporting routinely recording patients' weights (n = 399), only 22.6% (standard error [SE] = 2.2) reported always or usually using accessible weight scales for patients with significant mobility limitations. To determine weights of patients with mobility limitations, 8.1% always, 24.3% usually, and 40.0% sometimes asked patients. Physicians practicing ≥ 20 years were much less likely than other physicians to use accessible weight scales: odds ratio (OR) = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.99). Among participants seeing patients with significant mobility limitations (n = 584), only 40.3% (SE = 2.2) always or usually used accessible exam tables or chairs. Specialists were much more likely than primary care physicians to use accessible exam tables/chairs: OR = 1.96 (95% CI = 1.29-2.99). CONCLUSION: More than 30 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians surveyed do not use accessible equipment for routine care of patients with chronic significant mobility limitations.

Physicians' Perceptions Of People With Disability And Their Health Care.

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials: a factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial evidence in controversial areas such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) must be approached with an open mind. OBJECTIVE: To determine what factors may influence practitioners' interpretation of evidence from CAM trials. RESEARCH DESIGN: In a mailed survey of 2400 US CAM and conventional medicine practitioners we included 2 hypothetical factorial vignettes of positive and negative research results for CAM clinical trials. Vignettes contained randomly varied journal (Annals of Internal Medicine vs. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and CAM treatment type (acupuncture, massage, glucosamine, meditation, and reiki). Response items also included randomly varied patient circumstances-chronic refractory symptoms and the patient requesting CAM. MEASURES: All practitioners rated the effectiveness and their willingness to recommend the therapy for a described patient. We used logistic regression to determine the independent influence of the 4 factors on respondents' effectiveness and legitimacy judgments. RESULTS: A total of 1561 practitioners responded (65%). Relative to Reiki, conventional medicine practitioners were most willing to recommend glucosamine (OR = 3.0; 95% CI [1.6-5.4]), than massage (1.9 [1.1-3.3]), acupuncture (1.3 [0.8-2.2]), and meditation (1.2 [0.7-2.0]). CAM practitioners rated acupuncture as effective more than other CAM therapies (OR = 5.8 [2.6-12.8] compared with Reiki), and were more willing to recommend acupuncture (OR = 12.3 [4.8-31.8]). When presented evidence of inefficacy, CAM practitioners were most willing to recommend acupuncture relative to other CAM therapies (OR = 15.5 [9.0-26.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners' judgments about CAM trial evidence depend on the type of treatments reported. Confirmation bias may play a role in the clinical translation of new evidence from clinical trials.

Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research.

It is unclear whether the regulatory distinction between non-identifiable and identifiable information--information used to determine informed consent practices for the use of clinically derived samples for genetic research--is meaningful to patients. The objective of this study was to examine patients' attitudes and preferences regarding use of anonymous and identifiable clinical samples for genetic research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,193 patients recruited from general medicine, thoracic surgery, or medical oncology clinics at five United States academic medical centers. Wanting to know about research being done was important to 72% of patients when samples would be anonymous and to 81% of patients when samples would be identifiable. Only 17% wanted to know about the identifiable scenario but not the anonymous scenario (i.e., following the regulatory distinction). Curiosity-based reasons were the most common (37%) among patients who wanted to know about anonymous samples. Of patients wanting to know about either scenario, approximately 57% would require researchers to seek permission, whereas 43% would be satisfied with notification only. Patients were more likely to support permission (versus notification) in the anonymous scenario if they had more education, were Black, less religious, in better health, more private, and less trusting of researchers. The sample, although not representative of the general population, does represent patients at academic medical centers whose clinical samples may be used for genetic research. Few patients expressed preferences consistent with the regulatory distinction between non-identifiable and identifiable information. Data from this study should cause policy-makers to question whether this distinction is useful in relation to research with previously collected clinically derived samples.

Adverse events during hospitalization: results of a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: A two-stage probability sample of patients recently discharged from 16 general acute care hospitals in Massachusetts were interviewed to determine the rates at which patients experience what they considered to be adverse events, to describe the kinds of events they reported, and to identify the correlates of those reports. METHODS: Eligible respondents were adults, 18 years of age or older, who were medical or surgical patients overnight or longer between April 1 and October 1, 2003, and who were discharged to their homes in Massachusetts. Questions covered perceptions of adverse events during hospitalizations and possible correlates of those events. Telephone interviews were carried out an average of nine months after discharge with 2,582 patients (response rate, 53%-60%). RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of respondents reported at least one unexpected "negative" event during their hospitalization. After physician review, the revised estimate was that 25% perceived that they had experienced at least one event that met our definition for an adverse event. The most common reported events were reactions to newly prescribed drugs (40%) and the effects of surgery (34%). Physician reviewers coded 57% of the adverse events as "significant" and 18% as "serious" or "life-threatening." The physician reviewers also rated 31% of the reported adverse events as likely to be preventable. DISCUSSION: The estimate that one in four hospital patients experienced an adverse event is considerably higher than the published rates based on hospital record review, indicating the potential value of surveys for studies of patient safety. Because of nonresponse among older patients, that estimate is probably an underestimate. Designs that would reduce lags between discharge and interviews and decrease hospital nonresponses would reduce two key threats to confidence in the survey results.

Medical Oncologists' Beliefs, Practices, and Knowledge Regarding Marijuana Used Therapeutically: A Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Background Although almost every state medical marijuana (MM) law identifies cancer as a qualifying condition, little research supports MM's use in oncology. We hypothesized that the discrepancy between these laws and the scientific evidence base poses clinical challenges for oncologists. Oncologists' beliefs, knowledge, and practices regarding MM were examined in this study. Methods In November 2016, we mailed a survey on MM to a nationally-representative, random sample of 400 medical oncologists. Main outcome measures included whether oncologists reported discussing MM with patients, recommended MM clinically in the past year, or felt sufficiently informed to make such recommendations. The survey also queried oncologists' views on MM's comparative effectiveness for several conditions (including its use as an adjunct to standard pain management strategies) and its risks compared with prescription opioids. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using standard statistical techniques. Results The overall response rate was 63%. Whereas only 30% of oncologists felt sufficiently informed to make recommendations regarding MM, 80% conducted discussions about MM with patients, and 46% recommended MM clinically. Sixty-seven percent viewed it as a helpful adjunct to standard pain management strategies, and 65% thought MM is equally or more effective than standard treatments for anorexia and cachexia. Conclusion Our findings identify a concerning discrepancy between oncologists' self-reported knowledge base and their beliefs and practices regarding MM. Although 70% of oncologists do not feel equipped to make clinical recommendations regarding MM, the vast majority conduct discussions with patients about MM and nearly one-half do, in fact, recommend it clinically. A majority believes MM is useful for certain indications. These findings are clinically important and suggest critical gaps in research, medical education, and policy regarding MM.

Reconciling medications at admission: safe practice recommendations and implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Fifty hospitals collaborated in a patient safety initiative developed and implemented by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors and the Massachusetts Hospital Association. METHODS: A consensus group identified safe practices and suggested implementation strategies. Four collaborative learning sessions were offered, and teams monitored their progress and shared successful strategies and lessons learned. Reports from participating teams and an evaluation survey were then used to identify successful techniques for reconciling medications. RESULTS: For the 50 participating hospitals, implementation strategies most strongly correlated with success included active physician and nursing engagement, having an effective improvement team, using small tests of change, having an actively engaged senior administrator, and sending a team to multiple collaborative sessions. DISCUSSION: Adoption of the reconciling safe practices proved challenging. The process of writing medication orders at patient transfer points is complex. The hospitals' experiences demonstrated that implementing the proposed safe practices requires a team effort with leadership support and vigilant measurement.

Using Cognitive Testing to Develop Items for Surveying Asian American Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers as a Pathway to Culturally Competent Care.

We report the results from cognitive interviews with Asian American patients and their caregivers. We interviewed seven caregivers and six patients who were all bilingual Asian Americans. The main goal of the cognitive interviews was to test a survey instrument developed for a study about perspectives of Asian American patients with advanced cancer who are facing decisions around end-of-life care. We were particularly interested to see whether items commonly used in White and Black populations are culturally meaningful and equivalent in Asian populations, primarily those of Chinese and Vietnamese ethnicity. Our exploration shows that understanding respondents' language proficiency, degree of acculturation, and cultural context of receiving, processing, and communicating information about medical care can help design questions that are appropriate for Asian American patients and caregivers, and therefore can help researchers obtain quality data about the care Asian American cancer patients receive.