Whose Patient Is This? A Scoping Review of Patient Ownership.

PURPOSE: The scope of physicians' responsibility toward patients is becoming increasingly complicated to delimit as interdisciplinary care delivery and degrees of subspecialization increase. Patients can easily be lost across multiple transitions involved in care. Preparing learners to engage in safe and responsible patient care requires that we be clear about parameters of patient ownership. This scoping review (1) explores and synthesizes definitions of patient ownership and (2) describes the factors that influence patient ownership. METHOD: Searching PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO, the authors sought out publications of any format (i.e., original research papers, review articles, commentaries, editorials, and author discussions) that (1) addressed patient ownership directly or a closely related concept that explicitly affected patient ownership, (2) included medical care providers (attending/faculty physicians, medical residents, and/or medical students), and (3) were published in English. The authors analyzed findings to construct common themes and categorize findings. RESULTS: Of 411 papers screened, 82 met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-three papers defined patient ownership in highly variable ways. Common themes across definitions included responsibility for patient care, personally carrying out patient care tasks, knowledge of patients' medical information, independent decision making, and putting patients' needs above one's own. Factors influencing patient ownership were (1) logistical concerns, (2) personal attributes, and (3) socially or organizationally constructed expectations. CONCLUSIONS: A new definition of patient ownership is proposed encompassing findings from the review, while also respecting the shift from individual to a team-based patient care, and without removing the centrality of an individual provider's commitment to patients.

Characterization of herpes simplex virus clinical isolate Y3369 as a glycoprotein G variant and its bearing on virus typing.

BACKGROUND: Herpes simplex viruses exist as two major serotypes, type 1 (HSV-1) and type 2 (HSV-2). Determination of type, either HSV-1 or HSV-2, is important in accurate diagnosis and clinical control of transmission. Several tests are available for typing HSV, including a monoclonal antibody specific for glycoprotein G and several PCR assays. FINDINGS: A clinical isolate was identified as herpes simplex virus, but tested negative for both HSV-1 and HSV-2 antigens using type-specific monoclonal antibody assays. The isolate was determined to be HSV-1 by PCR analysis. A mutation which likely caused the monoclonal antibody non-reactivity was found in glycoprotein G. Phylogenetic analysis revealed two groups of HSV, one with the mutation and one without. Three population studies examining mutations in HSV-1 glycoprotein G were analyzed by chi-squared test. To this point, the epitope which the monoclonal antibody recognizes was only found in HSV-1 isolates from human European populations (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the PCR-based methods for HSV typing may be more useful than the standard monoclonal antibody test in areas of the world where the variant in glycoprotein G is more prevalent.