Screening for microalbuminuria to prevent nephropathy in patients with diabetes: a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate whether screening patients with diabetes for microalbuminuria (MA) is effective according to the criteria developed by Frame and Carlson and those of the US Preventive Services Task Force. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the MEDLINE database (1966-present) and bibliographies of relevant articles. OUTCOMES MEASURED: We evaluated the impact of MA screening using published criteria for periodic health screening tests. The effect of the correlation between repeated tests on the accuracy of a currently recommended testing strategy was analyzed. RESULTS: Quantitative tests have reported sensitivities from 56% to 100% and specificities from 81% to 98%. Semiquantitative tests for MA have reported sensitivities from 51% to 100% and specificities from 21% to 100%. First morning, morning, or random urine sampling appear feasible. Assuming an individual test sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 90%, and a 10% prevalence of MA, the correlation between tests would have to be lower than 0.1 to achieve a positive predictive value for repeated testing of 75%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for MA meets only 4 of 6 Frame and Carlson criteria for evaluating screening tests. The recommended strategies to overcome diagnostic uncertainty by using repeated testing are based on expert opinion, are difficult to follow in primary care settings, do not improve diagnostic accuracy sufficiently, and have not been tested in a controlled trial. Although not advocated by the American Diabetes Association, semiquantitative MA screening tests using random urine sampling have acceptable accuracy but may not be reliable in all settings.

Cost effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis for healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) published recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of healthcare workers in May 1998. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study in the setting of the US healthcare system in 1989. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective; however, only HIV healthcare costs were considered and health-related losses of productivity were not included. METHODS: A decision tree incorporating a Markov model was created for 4 PEP strategies: the current USPHS recommendations, triple drug therapy, zidovudine monotherapy or no prophylaxis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) around cost-effectiveness estimates were estimated by a bootstrapping method. RESULTS: The costs (in 1997 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) save by each strategy were as follows: monotherapy $US688 (95% CI: $US624 to $US750); USPHS recommendations $US5211 (95% CI: $US5126 to $US5293); and triple drug therapy $US8827 (95% CI: $US8715 to $US8940). The marginal cost per year of life saved was: USPHS recommendations $US81 987 (95% CI: $US80 437 to $US83 689); triple drug therapy $US970 451 (95% CI: $US924 786 to $US 1 014 429). Sensitivity testing showed that estimates of the probability of seroconversion for each category of exposure were most influential, but did not change the order of strategies in the baseline analysis. With the prolonged HIV stage durations and increased costs associated with recent innovations in HIV therapy, the marginal cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP strategy was decreased to $US62 497/QALY saved. All 3 intervention strategies were cost effective compared with no postexposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Current USPHS PEP recommendations are marginally cost effective compared with monotherapy, but the additional efficacy of triple drug therapy for all risk categories is rewarded by only a small reduction in HIV infections at great expense. For the foreseeable future, assuming innovations in therapy that employ expensive drug combinations earlier in the HIV disease course to extend life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of HIV drug resistance, our model supports the use of the USPHS PEP guidelines.

The cost of medical dictation transcription at an academic family practice center.

BACKGROUND: Very little is known about the volume or cost of medical transcription in primary care. A study of the number of lines and cost of transcription at an academic family practice center was performed to establish the average number of lines and costs of transcription by level of service and type of provider (faculty physician, physician assistant, resident physician, and others). METHODS: Parallel 4-month sets of computerized billing records and computerized transcription summary logs (listing the patient name and identification, the dictator, the number of lines of dictation, and the date for each dictation) were merged and analyzed to compare the cost and volume of dictation by types of service and types of provider. RESULTS: During the study period there were 11,085 patient encounters, 9013 with transcription. The average cost of transcription per encounter using transcription was $3.96 and the median was $3.64. The cost per encounter ranged from $0.39 (3 lines of dictation) to $24.83 (191 lines of dictation). Faculty physicians and physician assistants had the lowest cost, resident physicians were intermediate in cost, and others (such as medical students) had the highest costs for medical transcription. Transcription costs rose with increasing level of service but became a smaller proportion of the collected fee, averaging only 5% for a level 5 encounter. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of transcription as a part of overhead was higher than anticipated. Specific education regarding dictation form and content and ways to decrease these costs is appropriate.

Does family practice at residency teaching sites reflect community practice?

BACKGROUND: Family medicine has aspired to train residents and conduct research in settings that closely resemble community practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the patient characteristics of the ambulatory teaching centers of a consortium of seven community-based university-affiliated family practice residency programs in northeast Ohio with the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) results for family physicians (FPs) and general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: Ninety-eight faculty and resident physicians at the residency training site of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine collected data on all ambulatory patient visits (N = 1498) for one randomly chosen week between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1992. We compared these data with patient visits reported in the 1990 NAMCS for FPs and GPs. RESULTS: The residency training sites saw slightly more children, women, blacks, and Medicare and Medicaid patients. The most common reason for an office visit in both populations was an undifferentiated symptom. Fifteen of the top 20 "reason for visit" codes were identical, as were 14 of the top 20 diagnoses. More preventive and therapeutic services were offered or performed at our residency training sites but fewer diagnostic services were performed. There were fewer consultations requested at our residency training sites but similar hospitalization rates for patients. The mean duration of visit differed by only 1 minute. CONCLUSIONS: The residency training sites of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine provide patient care opportunities similar to those found in a national survey of family and general practitioners.