[Multicenter performance of the different classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the classification criteria of early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) and compare the sensitivity and specificity with the criteria of 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and 2010 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). METHODS: Patients from 4 hospitals, aged more than 16 years, with arthritis, whose disease duration was ≤1 year, and with ≥1 joint pain and swelling were enrolled in the study. The indicators including clinical manifestations, laboratory tests and imaging examinations were observed. The ERA patients were dignosed by two experienced rheumatologists based on the clinical features, drug therapy information and radiography features. RESULTS: (1) A total of 325 patients with arthritis were enrolled, including 98 males (30.15%) and 227 females (69.85%), The average age was (47.53±14.44) years, and the median disease duration was 5 (2, 8) months. Finally, 236 patients were dignosed with ERA, and 89 patients were dignosed with other diseases (Non-ERA, including osteoarthritis, reactive arthritis, undifferentiated arthritis, spondyloarthritis, etc). (2) The sensitivity of ERA criteria was 87.29%, and the specificity was 84.37%. The sensitivity was higher than that of 1987 ACR criteria (χ2=43.641, P < 0.001), and had no significant difference compared with 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (χ2=0.446, P=0.593). But the specificity of ERA criteria was lower than that of 1987 ACR criteria (χ2=4.891, P=0.027), which was not statistically significant compared with 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (χ2=0.044, P=1.000). (3) In the patients with arthritis whose disease duration was ≤3 months and ≤6 months, the sensitivity of ERA criteria was 81.71% and 86.79%, respectively, both were higher than the 1987 ACR criteria (χ2=7.131, P=0.008; χ2=22.015, P < 0.001) and had no statistically difference compared with the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (χ2=0.220, P=0.755; χ2=0.473, P=0.491). The differences of the three criteria in specificity were not statistically significant. (4) The three different classification criteria were consistent with the clinical diagnosis, among which the ERA criteria and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria were slightly higher (Kappa>0.6). The results of the consistency comparison between the three criteria showed that the ERA criteria and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria had a better consistency (Kappa=0.836). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of ERA classification criteria in the diagnosis of ERA was higher than that of 1987 ACR criteria, and was equivalent to that of 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria. There is no significant difference in specificity between these three criteria. The ERA criteria can also identify patients with RA at a very early stage in arthritis with disease duration ≤3 months.

Breast Cancer Surgery Decision-Making and African-American Women.

Prior research has used focus group methodology to investigate cultural factors impacting the breast cancer experience of women of various ethnicities including African-Americans; however, this work has not specifically addressed treatment decision-making. This study identifies key issues faced by African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer regarding treatment decisions. We used an interpretive-descriptive study design based on qualitative data from three focus groups (n = 14) representing a population of African-American women in central Pennsylvania. Participants were asked to think back to when they were diagnosed with breast cancer and their visit with the breast surgeon. Questions were asked about the actual visit, treatment choices offered, sources of information, and whether the women felt prepared for the surgery and subsequent treatments. The prompts triggered memories and encouraged open discussion. The most important themes identified were fear across the breast cancer disease trajectory, a preference for visual information for understanding the diagnosis and surgical treatment, and support systems relying on family and friends, rather than the formal health-care system. Our results have implications for practice strategies and development of educational interventions that will help breast cancer patients better understand their diagnosis and treatment options, encourage their participation in treatment decision-making, and provide psychosocial support for those at high risk for emotional distress.

Screening for psychological distress in surgical breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study assessed the levels of patient emotional distress and impact on clinic throughput time. METHODS: From April through August 2012, 149 breast cancer patients at the Penn State Hershey Breast Center were screened with the emotions thermometer (ET), a patient-rated visual 0-10 scale that measures distress, anxiety, depression, anger, burden, and need for help. Also, patients indicated their most pressing cancer-related concerns. Clinic visit time was computed and compared with a control group. RESULTS: Using a previously validated cut point ≥4 for any thermometer, we found emotional difficulty in the following proportions: distress 22 %, anxiety 28 %, depression 18 %, anger 14 %, burden 16 %, and need for help 10 %; 35 % scored above the cut point on at least 1 thermometer. We found higher levels of distress in all domains associated with younger age at diagnosis. More extensive surgery (bilateral mastectomy vs unilateral mastectomy vs. lumpectomy) was correlated with higher levels of psychosocial distress. Most often cited concerns, experienced by >20 %, included eating/weight, worry about cancer, sleep problems, fatigue, anxiety, and pain. Mean clinic visit time for evaluable patients screened using the ET (n = 109) was 43.9 min (SD 18.6), compared with 42.6 min (SD 16.2) for the control group (n = 50). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing the ET, more than one-third of women screened met criteria for psychological distress. Younger age at diagnosis and more extensive surgery were risk factors. The ET is a simple validated screening tool that identifies patients in need of further psychological evaluation without impacting clinic throughput time.

Shared decision making in breast cancer: national practice patterns of surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess national practices of surgeons who treat breast cancer in order to identify opportunities to improve patient education. METHODS: In June 2012, the membership of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) (n = 2,818) was surveyed via email questionnaire to evaluate their current practice of shared decision making and informed consent for breast cancer patients. RESULTS: A total of 737 members (26 %) responded, including 384 breast surgeons and 306 general surgeons, 13 midlevel providers, and 25 other specialists. It was found that 90 % of surgeons spent more than 30 min meeting with a new cancer patient, and of these, 30 % spent more than an hour. Surgeons who spent more than 1 h face-to-face with a new cancer patient reported higher levels of overall patient knowledge compared with those who spent less (mean = 3.80 vs. 3.64 of 5; p = 0.001). Also, 89 % of respondents reported using educational tools, of whom more than 90 % used written tools. In addition, 65 % of members stated an interest in a free online educational tool if available and indicated a preference for a flexible tool that could be used by the patient alone or with a nurse. CONCLUSIONS: While practice patterns may vary, our results reveal that one-third of surgeons spend at least 1 h in consultation with a new breast cancer patient. More time spent translated to a higher perceived patient understanding of their disease and treatment options. Although the majority of surgeons currently use written materials, there was clear support for a free online educational tool.

Use of breast simulators compared with standardized patients in teaching the clinical breast examination to medical students.

OBJECTIVE: Simulators have replaced some standardized patients in medical student teaching, and their use seems to decrease anxiety related to the clinical breast examination (CBE). We compared learning the CBE on a breast palpation simulator with learning on a standardized patient with respect to skill acquisition and comfort level. METHODS: At Penn State College of Medicine, the class of 2008 (historical control group, n = 113) learned the CBE on a standardized patient, whereas the class of 2009 (experimental group, n = 131) learned on the breast palpation simulator. We used measures of the process (conducting the CBE) and measures of the outcome (examination scores and detection of abnormal findings). During their third-year surgical clerkship, students in both groups completed a questionnaire reporting the number of CBEs performed and confidence in performing the CBE. The students then performed an observed examination on the simulator, and the number of positive findings detected was recorded. The mean number of positive findings was compared between groups, and an economic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The experimental group had a significantly higher mean examination score than the historical control. In subgroups, this difference was significant for those who reported performing 0-5 clinical examinations but for not those who had performed >6 examinations. On individual items, the experimental group scored significantly higher in examining for neck nodes, nipple retraction, skin changes, and axillary evaluation. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in the mean number of positive findings detected or in ratings of comfort level. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students who learned the CBE on breast palpation simulators performed as well or better than those who learned on standardized patients; however, a subgroup analysis revealed that the benefit was limited to students with less clinical experience.

Challenges confronting female surgical leaders: overcoming the barriers.

BACKGROUND: The number of women reaching top ranks in academic surgery is remarkably low. The purpose of this study was to identify: 1) barriers to becoming a female surgical leader; 2) key attributes that enable advancement and success; and 3) current leadership challenges faced as senior leaders. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of ten female surgical leaders queried the following dimensions: attributes for success, lessons learned, mistakes, key career steps, the role of mentoring, gender advantages/disadvantages, and challenges. RESULTS: Perseverance (60%) and drive (50%) were identified as critical success factors, as were good communication skills, a passion for scholarship, a stable home life and a positive outlook. Eighty percent identified discrimination or gender prejudice as a major obstacle in their careers. While 90% percent had mentors, 50% acknowledged that they had not been effectively mentored. Career advice included: develop broad career goals (50%); select a conducive environment (30%); find a mentor (60%); take personal responsibility (40%); organize time and achieve balance (40%); network (30%); create a niche (30%); pursue research (30%); publish (50%); speak in public (30%); and enjoy the process (30%). Being in a minority, being highly visible and being collaborative were identified as advantages. Obtaining buy-in and achieving consensus was the greatest leadership challenge reported. CONCLUSIONS: Female academic surgeons face challenges to career advancement. While these barriers are real, they can be overcome by resolve, commitment, and developing strong communication skills. These elements should be taken into consideration in designing career development programs for junior female surgical faculty.