Pleural Effusion: Diagnostic Approach in Adults.

Pleural effusion affects 1.5 million patients in the United States each year. New effusions require expedited investigation because treatments range from common medical therapies to invasive surgical procedures. The leading causes of pleural effusion in adults are heart failure, infection, malignancy, and pulmonary embolism. The patient's history and physical examination should guide evaluation. Small bilateral effusions in patients with decompensated heart failure, cirrhosis, or kidney failure are likely transudative and do not require diagnostic thoracentesis. In contrast, pleural effusion in the setting of pneumonia (parapneumonic effusion) may require additional testing. Multiple guidelines recommend early use of point-of-care ultrasound in addition to chest radiography to evaluate the pleural space. Chest radiography is helpful in determining laterality and detecting moderate to large pleural effusions, whereas ultrasonography can detect small effusions and features that could indicate complicated effusion (i.e., infection of the pleural space) and malignancy. Point-of-care ultrasound should also guide thoracentesis because it reduces complications. Computed tomography of the chest can exclude other causes of dyspnea and suggest complicated parapneumonic or malignant effusion. When diagnostic thoracentesis is indicated, Light's criteria can help differentiate exudates from transudates. Pleural aspirate should routinely be evaluated using Gram stain, cell count with differential, culture, cytology, protein, l-lactate dehydrogenase, and pH levels. Additional assessments should be individualized, such as tuberculosis testing in high-prevalence regions. Parapneumonic effusions are the most common cause of exudates. A pH level less than 7.2 is indicative of complicated parapneumonic effusion and warrants prompt consultation for catheter or chest tube drainage, possible tissue plasminogen activator/deoxyribonuclease therapy, or thoracoscopy. Malignant effusions are another common cause of exudative effusions, with recurrent effusions having a poor prognosis.

Improving Patient Health Literacy During Telehealth Visits Through Remote Teach-Back Methods Training for Family Medicine Residents: Pilot 2-Arm Cluster, Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: As telemedicine plays an increasing role in health care delivery, providers are expected to receive adequate training to effectively communicate with patients during telemedicine encounters. Teach-back is an approach that verifies patients' understanding of the health care information provided by health care professionals. Including patients in the design and development of teach-back training content for providers can result in more relevant training content. However, only a limited number of studies embrace patient engagement in this capacity, and none for remote care settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to design and evaluate the feasibility of patient-centered, telehealth-focused teach-back training for family medicine residents to promote the use of teach-back during remote visits. METHODS: We codeveloped the POTENTIAL (Platform to Enhance Teach-Back Methods in Virtual Care Visits) curriculum for medical residents to promote teach-back during remote visits. A patient participated in the development of the workshop's videos and in a patient-provider panel about teach-back. We conducted a pilot, 2-arm cluster, nonrandomized controlled trial. Family medicine residents at the intervention site (n=12) received didactic and simulation-based training in addition to weekly cues-to-action. Assessment included pre- and postsurveys, observations of residents, and interviews with patients and providers. To assess differences between pre- and postintervention scores among the intervention group, chi-square and 1-tailed t tests were used. A total of 4 difference-in-difference models were constructed to evaluate prepost differences between intervention and control groups for each of the following outcomes: familiarity with teach-back, importance of teach-back, confidence in teach-back ability, and ease of use of teach-back. RESULTS: Medical residents highly rated their experience of the teach-back training sessions (mean 8.6/10). Most residents (9/12, 75%) used plain language during training simulations, and over half asked the role-playing patient to use their own words to explain what they were told during the encounter. Postintervention, there was an increase in residents' confidence in their ability to use teach-back (mean 7.33 vs 7.83; P=.04), but there was no statistically significant difference in familiarity with, perception of importance, or ease of use of teach-back. None of the difference-in-difference models were statistically significant. The main barrier to practicing teach-back was time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights ways to effectively integrate best-practice training in telehealth teach-back skills into a medical residency program. At the same time, this pilot study points to important opportunities for improvement for similar interventions in future larger-scale implementation efforts, as well as ways to mitigate providers' concerns or barriers to incorporating teach-back in their practice. Teach-back can impact remote practice by increasing providers' ability to actively engage and empower patients by using the features (whiteboards, chat rooms, and mini-views) of their remote platform.

Family physicians delivering babies: what do obstetricians think?

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the attitudes of obstetricians about family physicians delivering babies. METHODS: We performed a two-stage mail survey of physicians who self-reported their specialty as obstetrics- gynecology in the 2001 South Carolina Directory of Licensed Physicians. After excluding physicians who retired or moved, a response rate of 65% was obtained. RESULTS: Fewer than half of the respondents (45%) supported family physicians providing pregnancy care. Obstetricians in favor of family physicians providing pregnancy care were more likely to work near a family physician who delivered babies, less likely to have been sued in the last 5 years, and more likely to be over age 60. Practice location (rural versus urban) did not predict support for family physicians participating in pregnancy care. Those obstetricians who supported family physicians participating in pregnancy care were comfortable with family physicians managing a wide range of common complications. CONCLUSIONS: Since fewer than half of obstetricians believe that family physicians should offer pregnancy care, family physicians may experience difficulty finding appropriate backup. Because older obstetricians were most likely to support family physicians, the retirement of these individuals from practice may create a problem for family physicians seeking obstetrical backup.