Chronic Daily Headache: Ten Steps for Primary Care Providers to Regain Control.

BACKGROUND: Chronic daily headache (CDH) affects 2% to 4% of the North American and European population. Various pathways lead to this condition, although chronification of migraine and the occurrence of central sensitization in tension headache are the 2 most common. Medication overuse headaches complicate a substantial portion of other primary headaches that have become chronic and often make their treatment more complex and less successful. METHODS/RESULTS: A 10-step process to help primary care providers evaluate and treat CDH patients begins with excluding secondary headache disorders, then moves on to classification of the primary underlying headache disorder. Next, the exacerbating factors, as well as relevant comorbid conditions, are identified. The patient's current acute therapy is examined, and attempts are made to identify and resolve medication overuse if present. Past preventive therapies are reviewed, allowing for thoughtful design of a headache action plan with preventive, acute, and lifestyle components. Patients are asked to keep a headache diary, used to initiate a cycle of continuous improvement in a patient's response to acute and preventive therapeutic approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach and partnership with patients often make it possible to convert CDH to episodic headache that is responsive to both acute and preventive therapies.

Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic. OBJECTIVE: To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians. DESIGN: Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior. SETTING: US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses. INTERVENTIONS: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing. KEY RESULTS: In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Predictors of medical school clerkship performance: a multispecialty longitudinal analysis of standardized examination scores and clinical assessments.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor performance on standardized tests before and early in medical school is associated with poor performance on standardized tests later in medical school and beyond. This study aimed to explore relationships between standardized examination scores (before and during medical school) with test and clinical performance across all core clinical clerkships. METHODS: We evaluated characteristics of 435 students at Mayo Medical School (MMS) who matriculated 2000-2009 and for whom undergraduate grade point average, medical college aptitude test (MCAT), medical school standardized tests (United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE] 1 and 2; National Board of Medical Examiners [NBME] subject examination), and faculty assessments were available. We assessed the correlation between scores and assessments and determined USMLE 1 cutoffs predictive of poor performance (≤10th percentile) on the NBME examinations. We also compared the mean faculty assessment scores of MMS students vs visiting students, and for the NBME, we determined the percentage of MMS students who scored at or below the tenth percentile of first-time national examinees. RESULTS: MCAT scores correlated robustly with USMLE 1 and 2, and USMLE 1 and 2 independently predicted NBME scores in all clerkships. USMLE 1 cutoffs corresponding to poor NBME performance ranged from 220 to 223. USMLE 1 scores were similar among MMS and visiting students. For most academic years and clerkships, NBME scores were similar for MMS students vs all first-time examinees. CONCLUSIONS: MCAT, USMLE 1 and 2, and subsequent clinical performance parameters were correlated with NBME scores across all core clerkships. Even more interestingly, faculty assessments correlated with NBME scores, affirming patient care as examination preparation. USMLE 1 scores identified students at risk of poor performance on NBME subject examinations, facilitating and supporting implementation of remediation before the clinical years. MMS students were representative of medical students across the nation.

Teaching an experiential mind-body method to medical students to increase interpersonal skills: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigate whether inner relationship focusing increases self-awareness in medical students and, in the process, to give them experience with empathic listening. METHODS: Thirteen second-year medical students were randomized into experimental and control groups and surveyed pre-course and post-course about their self-awareness and perceived comfort with clinical interpersonal skills. Subjects attended a 20-h course on inner relationship focusing, followed by 5 months of weekly sessions. Pre-course and post-course survey scores were averaged by group, and mean differences were calculated and compared using the two-sample t test. RESULTS: The experimental group showed improvement in all areas compared to the control group. Improvement in one area (comfort talking to patients about how recurring symptoms might relate to issues in their lives) reached statistical significance (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Inner relationship focusing is a potential tool to increase self-awareness and empathic listening in medical students.

Controlling health costs: physician responses to patient expectations for medical care.

BACKGROUND: Physicians have dual responsibilities to make medical decisions that serve their patients' best interests but also utilize health care resources wisely. Their ability to practice cost-consciously is particularly challenged when faced with patient expectations or requests for medical services that may be unnecessary. OBJECTIVE: To understand how physicians consider health care resources and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness in response to patient expectations and requests for medical care. DESIGN: Exploratory, qualitative focus groups of practicing physicians were conducted. Participants were encouraged to discuss their perceptions of resource constraints, and experiences with redundant, unnecessary and marginally beneficial services, and were asked about patient requests or expectations for particular services. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two physicians representing a variety of specialties and practice types participated in nine focus groups in Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota in 2012 MEASUREMENTS: Iterative thematic content analysis of focus group transcripts PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Physicians reported making trade-offs between a variety of financial and nonfinancial resources, considering not only the relative cost of medical decisions and alternative services, but the time and convenience of patients, their own time constraints, as well as the logistics of maintaining a successful practice. They described strategies and techniques to educate patients, build trust, or substitute less costly alternatives when appropriate, often adapting their management to the individual patient and clinical environment. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often make nuanced trade-offs in clinical practice aimed at efficient resource use within a complex flow of clinical work and patient expectations. Understanding the challenges faced by physicians and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness provides insight into policy measures that will address physician's roles in health care resource use.

Shared decision-making as a cost-containment strategy: US physician reactions from a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess US physicians' attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: US medical practice. PARTICIPANTS: 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of enthusiasm for "Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs"; degree of agreement with "Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice" and agreement with "should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs". RESULTS: Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were 'very enthusiastic' about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Specialty, political affiliation, and perceived social responsibility are associated with U.S. physician reactions to health care reform legislation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how U.S. physicians' political affiliations, specialties, or sense of social responsibility relate to their reactions to health care reform legislation. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' impressions about the direction of U.S. health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether that legislation will make reimbursement more or less fair, and examine how those judgments relate to political affiliation and perceived social responsibility. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, mailed, self-reported survey. PARTICIPANTS: Simple random sample of 3,897 U.S.physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Views on the ACA in general, reimbursement under the ACA in particular, and perceived social responsibility. KEY RESULTS: Among 2,556 physicians who responded (RR2: 65 %), approximately two out of five (41 %) believed that the ACA will turn U.S. health care in the right direction and make physician reimbursement less fair (44 %). Seventy-two percent of physicians endorsed a general professional obligation to address societal health policy issues, 65 % agreed that every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured or underinsured, and half (55 %) were willing to accept limits on coverage for expensive drugs and procedures for the sake of expanding access to basic health care. In multivariable analyses, liberals and independents were both substantially more likely to endorse the ACA (OR 33.0 [95 % CI, 23.6­46.2]; OR 5.0 [95 % CI, 3.7­6.8], respectively), as were physicians reporting a salary (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.2­2.5])or salary plus bonus (OR 1.4 [95 % CI, 1.1­1.9)compensation type. In the same multivariate models, those who agreed that addressing societal health policy issues are within the scope of their professional obligations (OR 1.5 [95 % CI, 1.0­2.0]), who believe physicians are professionally obligated to care for the uninsured / under-insured (OR 1.7 [95 % CI,1.3­2.4]), and who agreed with limiting coverage for expensive drugs and procedures to expand insurance coverage (OR 2.3 [95 % CI, 1.8­3.0]), were all significantly more likely to endorse the ACA. Surgeons and procedural specialists were less likely to endorse it (OR 0.5 [95 % CI, 0.4­0.7], OR 0.6 [95 %CI, 0.5­0.9], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant subsets of U.S. physicians express concerns about the direction of U.S. health care under recent health care reform legislation. Those opinions appear intertwined with political affiliation,type of medical specialty, as well as perceived social responsibility.

Views of US physicians about controlling health care costs.

IMPORTANCE: Physicians' views about health care costs are germane to pending policy reforms. OBJECTIVE: To assess physicians' attitudes toward and perceived role in addressing health care costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional survey mailed in 2012 to 3897 US physicians randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Enthusiasm for 17 cost-containment strategies and agreement with an 11-measure cost-consciousness scale. RESULTS: A total of 2556 physicians responded (response rate = 65%). Most believed that trial lawyers (60%), health insurance companies (59%), hospitals and health systems (56%), pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (56%), and patients (52%) have a "major responsibility" for reducing health care costs, whereas only 36% reported that practicing physicians have "major responsibility." Most were "very enthusiastic" for "promoting continuity of care" (75%), "expanding access to quality and safety data" (51%), and "limiting access to expensive treatments with little net benefit" (51%) as a means of reducing health care costs. Few expressed enthusiasm for "eliminating fee-for-service payment models" (7%). Most physicians reported being "aware of the costs of the tests/treatments [they] recommend" (76%), agreed they should adhere to clinical guidelines that discourage the use of marginally beneficial care (79%), and agreed that they "should be solely devoted to individual patients' best interests, even if that is expensive" (78%) and that "doctors need to take a more prominent role in limiting use of unnecessary tests" (89%). Most (85%) disagreed that they "should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services to certain patients because resources should go to other patients that need them more." In multivariable logistic regression models testing associations with enthusiasm for key cost-containment strategies, having a salary plus bonus or salary-only compensation type was independently associated with enthusiasm for "eliminating fee for service" (salary plus bonus: odds ratio [OR], 3.3, 99% CI, 1.8-6.1; salary only: OR, 4.3, 99% CI, 2.2-8.5). In multivariable linear regression models, group or government practice setting (ß = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.45, P = .004; and ß = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.79, P = .01, respectively) and having a salary plus bonus compensation type (ß = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.33; P = .002) were positively associated with cost-consciousness. Finding the "uncertainty involved in patient care disconcerting" was negatively associated with cost-consciousness (ß = -1.95; 95% CI, -2.71 to -1.18; P < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this survey about health care cost containment, US physicians reported having some responsibility to address health care costs in their practice and expressed general agreement about several quality initiatives to reduce cost but reported less enthusiasm for cost containment involving changes in payment models.

Specialty, Political Affiliation, and Perceived Social Responsibility Are Associated with U.S. Physician Reactions to Health Care Reform Legislation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how U.S. physicians' political affiliations, specialties, or sense of social responsibility relate to their reactions to health care reform legislation. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' impressions about the direction of U.S. health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether that legislation will make reimbursement more or less fair, and examine how those judgments relate to political affiliation and perceived social responsibility. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, mailed, self-reported survey. PARTICIPANTS: Simple random sample of 3,897 U.S. physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Views on the ACA in general, reimbursement under the ACA in particular, and perceived social responsibility. KEY RESULTS: Among 2,556 physicians who responded (RR2: 65 %), approximately two out of five (41 %) believed that the ACA will turn U.S. health care in the right direction and make physician reimbursement less fair (44 %). Seventy-two percent of physicians endorsed a general professional obligation to address societal health policy issues, 65 % agreed that every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured or underinsured, and half (55 %) were willing to accept limits on coverage for expensive drugs and procedures for the sake of expanding access to basic health care. In multivariable analyses, liberals and independents were both substantially more likely to endorse the ACA (OR 33.0 [95 % CI, 23.6-46.2]; OR 5.0 [95 % CI, 3.7-6.8], respectively), as were physicians reporting a salary (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.2-2.5]) or salary plus bonus (OR 1.4 [95 % CI, 1.1-1.9) compensation type. In the same multivariate models, those who agreed that addressing societal health policy issues are within the scope of their professional obligations (OR 1.5 [95 % CI, 1.0-2.0]), who believe physicians are professionally obligated to care for the uninsured / under-insured (OR 1.7 [95 % CI, 1.3-2.4]), and who agreed with limiting coverage for expensive drugs and procedures to expand insurance coverage (OR 2.3 [95 % CI, 1.8-3.0]), were all significantly more likely to endorse the ACA. Surgeons and procedural specialists were less likely to endorse it (OR 0.5 [95 % CI, 0.4-0.7], OR 0.6 [95 % CI, 0.5-0.9], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant subsets of U.S. physicians express concerns about the direction of U.S. health care under recent health care reform legislation. Those opinions appear intertwined with political affiliation, type of medical specialty, as well as perceived social responsibility.

Avoidable after-hours calls to physicians in family medicine.

OBJECTIVES: To assess avoidability in after-hours telephone calls. Identification of predictors of avoidable calls is necessary so that system changes can be implemented in the interest of efficiency in patient care. BACKGROUND: A new after-hours family physician call service was established in a large group practice to replace some of the resident call shifts and meet patient expectations. DATA SOURCE: Call logs completed by physicians who were on call. SAMPLE: A total of 131 completed after-hours calls. AVOIDABLE CALL: An after-hours call to a physician that could have been effectively handled by another person, by a communication mechanism, or at another time. ASSESSMENT RESULT: Call defined as avoidable or not avoidable as assessed by the physician on call. SURVEY RESULTS: Less than half (41.9%) of calls were avoidable. Run charts failed tests for shifts and runs. Patient age, time of day, and day of the week were not related to being avoidable, but avoidability varied by physician (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The after-hours call service experienced high rates of avoidable calls. Avoidability was associated with the physician on call. Reducing avoidable after-hours calls to physicians will require building clinical consensus on which types of calls should be considered avoidable and how avoidable calls should be redirected.

Naming migraine and those who have it.

Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, the responses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that "migraine," not "migraine headache," was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and "sufferer" should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, "disease" was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term "migraineur" at all or if "person with migraine" was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language.

Accuracy of rapid strep testing in patients who have had recent streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Some clinicians have questioned the accuracy of rapid diagnosis of group A streptococcal pharyngitis by commercial immunochemical antigen test kits in the setting of recent streptococcal pharyngitis, believing that the false-positive rate was increased because of presumed antigen persistence. METHODS: We studied 443 patients--211 cases--who had clinical pharyngitis diagnosed as group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus infection in the past 28 days and compared them with 232 control patients who had symptoms of pharyngitis but no recent diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis. Our aim was narrowly focused to compare the rapid strep test with the culture method we used in our clinical practice. RESULTS: We found that the rapid strep test in this setting showed no difference in specificity (0.96 vs 0.98); hence, the assertion that rapid antigen testing had higher false-positive rates in those with recent infection was not confirmed. We also found that in patients who had recent streptococcal pharyngitis, the rapid strep test appears to be more reliable (0.91 vs 0.70, P < .001) than in those patients who had not had recent streptococcal pharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that the rapid strep test is both sensitive and specific in the setting of recent group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis, and its use might allow earlier treatment in this subgroup of patients.