scholarly journals 1636. Variation in Clinical Practice Patterns Among Infectious Diseases Faculty at a Large Academic Institution

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S44-S44
Author(s):  
Varun K Phadke ◽  
Jennifer O Spicer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Patterns

Abstract Background Clinical practice patterns vary between providers, but few studies have examined this variation among infectious disease (ID) physicians. Characterizing these differences in practice can help identify areas where targeted educational interventions or further research are needed to improve clinical decision-making. We describe a faculty survey conducted at our institution designed to identify clinical practice variation within a large academic ID division. Methods In January 2017, an electronic survey was distributed to all clinical ID faculty at our institution. The survey collected baseline demographic information as well as responses to 28 common clinical dilemmas encountered in routine practice. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results Twenty-four (44%) of 54 active clinical ID faculty (12 assistant professors, 6 associate professors, and 6 professors) completed the survey. Examples of clinical dilemmas with >80% agreement among faculty included: (1) S. aureus bacteremia should be a mandatory ID consult (88%) and (2) lumbar puncture should be performed for all patients with suspected ocular syphilis (88%). The majority of clinical dilemmas had less than 80% agreement, and these spanned the range of routine ID practice. Examples included: (1) use of ceftriaxone for outpatient antibiotic therapy for nonbacteremic invasive methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections (58% agree), (2) length of treatment for guideline-defined uncomplicated S. aureus bacteremia (50% 2 weeks, 50% 4 weeks), (3) use of fixed-dose dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine as a single-drug regimen for an HIV-infected patient with an M184V mutation (42% agree), and (4) benefit of routine anal Pap smears among HIV-infected men who have sex with men (50% agree). Conclusion Practice patterns vary between ID physicians within our institution, particularly for clinical dilemmas for which there is insufficient or conflicting published data. Further studies to examine practice pattern variation among ID physicians across institutions and geographic regions could identify areas where further research or educational interventions are needed to enhance clinical care. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Clinical value of measurable residual disease testing for assessing depth, duration, and direction of response in multiple myeloma

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (14) ◽  
pp. 3295-3301
Author(s):  
Joaquin Martinez-Lopez ◽  
Sandy W. Wong ◽  
Nina Shah ◽  
Natasha Bahri ◽  
Kaili Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Clinical Value ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Measurable Residual Disease

Abstract Few clinical studies have reported results of measurable residual disease (MRD) assessments performed as part of routine practice. Herein we present our single-institution experience assessing MRD in 234 multiple myeloma (MM) patients (newly diagnosed [NDMM = 159] and relapsed [RRMM = 75]). We describe the impact of depth, duration, and direction of response on prognosis. MRD assessments were performed by next-generation sequencing of immunoglobulin genes with a sensitivity of 10−6. Those achieving MRD negativity at 10−6, as well as 10−5, had superior median progression-free survival (PFS). In the NDMM cohort, 40% of the patients achieved MRD negativity at 10−6 and 59% at 10−5. Median PFS in the NDMM cohort was superior in those achieving MRD at 10−5 vs <10−5 (PFS: 87 months vs 32 months; P < .001). In the RRMM cohort, 36% achieved MRD negativity at 10−6 and 47% at 10−5. Median PFS was superior for the RRMM achieving MRD at 10−5 vs <10−5 (PFS: 42 months vs 17 months; P < .01). Serial MRD monitoring identified 3 categories of NDMM patients: (A) patients with ≥3 MRD 10−6 negative samples, (B) patients with detectable but continuously declining clonal numbers, and (C) patients with stable or increasing clonal number (≥1 log). PFS was superior in groups A and B vs C (median PFS not reached [NR], NR, 55 respectively; P < .001). This retrospective evaluation of MRD used as part of clinical care validates MRD as an important prognostic marker in NDMM and RRMM and supports its use as an endpoint in future clinical trials as well as for clinical decision making.

scholarly journals Physicians’ Prescribing Behaviour and Clinical Practice Patterns for Allergic Rhinitis Management in Italy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Passalacqua ◽  
Antonino Musarra ◽  
Gianenrico Senna ◽  
Jean Bousquet ◽  
Carmen Ferrara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Pharmacological Management ◽  
Clinical Practice Patterns

Abstract Background: Despite availability of clinical guidelines, underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and poor adherence are still significant concerns in allergic rhinitis (AR) therapeutic management. We investigated clinical practice patterns and prescribing behavior of Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) specialized in AR management. Methods: One-hundred allergologists, 100 ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists, and 150 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. The survey assessed: socio-demographic, work experience, monthly caseload, prescription drivers. Next, HCPs were invited to retrospectively recover patients’ clinical data to investigate: AR clinical characteristics, therapy management, prescription patterns, patient adherence. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, One-Way analysis of variance, and Two-Way Analysis of Variance were performed.Results: Allergologists visited more AR patients (31% of monthly caseload) than ENTs (21%, p<0.001), while GPs’ caseload was the lowest (6%). Clinical information of 2823 patients were retrieved of whom 1906 (67,5%) suffered from moderate/severe AR (discomfort score: 7,7±1,3) and 917 (32,4%) from mild AR (5.7±1.9). About one-third of mild patients had a discomfort score >=7. Main prescription drivers were “effective on all symptoms” (54,3% patients) and “quick symptom relief” (47,8%), whereas minor drivers were “affordable price” (13,4%) and “refundable” (8,7%). The most prescribed drugs were antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (79% and 55% prescriptions), followed by fixed-dose-combination of intranasal azelastine/fluticasone (19%). Polytherapy was the most common treatment strategy (59,6%). HCPs’ believe that the majority of the patients was adherent to treatment (88% with score>7).Conclusions: This survey describes AR pharmacological management by Italian physicians. HCPs underestimated AR severity and had a non-realistic perception of patients’ adherence. These findings suggest that further efforts are required to improve AR clinical management in Italy.

scholarly journals Physicians’ prescribing behaviour and clinical practice patterns for allergic rhinitis management in Italy

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Passalacqua ◽  
Antonino Musarra ◽  
Gianenrico Senna ◽  
Jean Bousquet ◽  
Carmen Ferrara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Clinical Practice Patterns

Abstract Background Despite availability of clinical guidelines, underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and poor adherence are still significant concerns in allergic rhinitis (AR) therapeutic management. We investigated clinical practice patterns and prescribing behavior of Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) specialized in AR. Methods One-hundred allergologists, 100 ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists, and 150 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. The survey assessed: socio-demographic, work experience, monthly caseload, prescription drivers. Next, HCPs were invited to retrospectively recover patients’ clinical data to investigate: AR clinical characteristics, therapy management, prescription patterns, patient adherence. Descriptive statistics, Chi square, One-Way analysis of variance, and Two-Way Analysis of Variance were performed. Results Allergologists visited more AR patients (31% of monthly caseload) than ENTs (21%, p < 0.001), while GPs’ caseload was the lowest (6%). Clinical information of 2823 patients were retrieved of whom 1906 (67.5%) suffered from moderate/severe AR (discomfort score: 7.7 ± 1.3) and 917 (32.4%) from mild AR (5.7 ± 1.9). About one-third of mild patients had a discomfort score ≥ 7. Main prescription drivers were “effective on all symptoms” (54.3% patients) and “quick symptom relief” (47.8%), whereas minor drivers were “affordable price” (13.4%) and “refundable” (8.7%). The most prescribed drugs were antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (79% and 55% prescriptions), followed by fixed-dose-combination of intranasal azelastine/fluticasone (19%). Polytherapy was the most common treatment strategy (59.6%). HCPs’ believe that the majority of the patients was adherent to treatment (88% with score > 7). Conclusions This survey describes the therapeutic approach adopted by Italian physicians to cope with AR and shows that HCPs underestimated AR severity and had a non-realistic perception of patients’ adherence. These findings suggest that further efforts are required to improve AR clinical management in Italy.

scholarly journals Physicians’ prescribing behaviour and clinical practice patterns for allergic rhinitis management in Italy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Passalacqua ◽  
Antonino Musarra ◽  
Gianenrico Senna ◽  
Jean Bousquet ◽  
Carmen Ferrara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Clinical Practice Patterns

Abstract Background: Despite availability of clinical guidelines, underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and poor adherence are still significant concerns in allergic rhinitis (AR) therapeutic management. We investigated clinical practice patterns and prescribing behavior of Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) specialized in AR. Methods: One-hundred allergologists, 100 ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists, and 150 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. The survey assessed: socio-demographic, work experience, monthly caseload, prescription drivers. Next, HCPs were invited to retrospectively recover patients’ clinical data to investigate: AR clinical characteristics, therapy management, prescription patterns, patient adherence. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, One-Way analysis of variance, and Two-Way Analysis of Variance were performed.Results: Allergologists visited more AR patients (31% of monthly caseload) than ENTs (21%, p<0.001), while GPs’ caseload was the lowest (6%). Clinical information of 2823 patients were retrieved of whom 1906 (67,5%) suffered from moderate/severe AR (discomfort score: 7,7±1,3) and 917 (32,4%) from mild AR (5.7±1.9). About one-third of mild patients had a discomfort score >=7. Main prescription drivers were “effective on all symptoms” (54,3% patients) and “quick symptom relief” (47,8%), whereas minor drivers were “affordable price” (13,4%) and “refundable” (8,7%). The most prescribed drugs were antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (79% and 55% prescriptions), followed by fixed-dose-combination of intranasal azelastine/fluticasone (19%). Polytherapy was the most common treatment strategy (59,6%). HCPs’ believe that the majority of the patients was adherent to treatment (88% with score>7).Conclusions: This survey describes the therapeutic approach adopted by Italian physicians to cope with AR and shows that HCPs underestimated AR severity and had a non-realistic perception of patients’ adherence. These findings suggest that further efforts are required to improve AR clinical management in Italy.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence: An Interprofessional Perspective on Implications for Geriatric Mental Health Research and Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenna N. Renn ◽  
Matthew Schurr ◽  
Oleg Zaslavsky ◽  
Abhishek Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Mental Health Research ◽  
Geriatric Mental Health

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare aims to learn patterns in large multimodal datasets within and across individuals. These patterns may either improve understanding of current clinical status or predict a future outcome. AI holds the potential to revolutionize geriatric mental health care and research by supporting diagnosis, treatment, and clinical decision-making. However, much of this momentum is driven by data and computer scientists and engineers and runs the risk of being disconnected from pragmatic issues in clinical practice. This interprofessional perspective bridges the experiences of clinical scientists and data science. We provide a brief overview of AI with the main focus on possible applications and challenges of using AI-based approaches for research and clinical care in geriatric mental health. We suggest future AI applications in geriatric mental health consider pragmatic considerations of clinical practice, methodological differences between data and clinical science, and address issues of ethics, privacy, and trust.

scholarly journals Assessing the utility and attitudes toward molecular testing in neuro-oncology: a survey of the Society for Neuro-Oncology members

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Fortin Ensign ◽  
Maya Hrachova ◽  
Susan Chang ◽  
Maciej M Mrugala
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Oncology Practice

Abstract Background Molecular testing (MT) is utilized in neuro-oncology with increasing frequency. The aim of this study was to determine clinical practice patterns to acquire this information, interpret and utilize MT for patient care, and identify unmet needs in the practical clinical application of MT. Methods We conducted a voluntary online survey of providers within the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) membership database between March and April 2019. Results We received 152 responses out of 2022 SNO members (7.5% of membership). 88.8% of respondents routinely order MT for newly diagnosed gliomas. Of those who do not, testing is preferentially performed in younger patients or those with midline tumors. 82.8% use MT in recurrent gliomas. Other common indications included: metastatic tumors, meningioma, and medulloblastoma. Many providers utilize more than one resource (36.0%), most frequently using in-house (41.8%) over commercially available panels. 78.1% used the results for clinical decision-making, with BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and H3K27 mutations most commonly directing treatment decisions. Approximately, half (48.5%) of respondents have molecular tumor boards at their institutions. Respondents would like to see SNO-endorsed guidelines on MT, organized lists of targeted agents available for specific mutations, a database of targetable mutations and clinical trials, and more educational programs on MT. Conclusion This survey was marked by several limitations including response rate and interpretation of MT. Among respondents, there is routine use of MT in Neuro-Oncology, however, there remains a need for increased guidance for providers to effectively incorporate the expanding genomic data resulting from MT into daily Neuro-Oncology practice.

scholarly journals The use of multiple-criteria decision-making theory to measure students’ perceptions of high-fidelity simulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Anne Jersby ◽  
Paul Van-Schaik ◽  
Stephen Green ◽  
Lili Nacheva-Skopalik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
High Fidelity Simulation ◽  
Initial Exposure ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

BackgroundHigh-Fidelity Simulation (HFS) has great potential to improve decision-making in clinical practice. Previous studies have found HFS promotes self-confidence, but its effectiveness in clinical practice has not been established. The aim of this research is to establish if HFS facilitates learning that informs decision-making skills in clinical practice using MultipleCriteria DecisionMaking Theory (MCDMT).MethodsThe sample was 2nd year undergraduate pre-registration adult nursing students.MCDMT was used to measure the students’ experience of HFS and how it developed their clinical decision-making skills. MCDMT requires characteristic measurements which for the learning experience were based on five factors that underpin successful learning, and for clinical decision-making, an analytical framework was used. The study used a repeated-measures design to take two measurements: the first one after the first simulation experience and the second one after clinical placement. Baseline measurements were obtained from academics. Data were analysed using the MCDMT tool.ResultsAfter their initial exposure to simulation learning, students reported that HFS provides a high-quality learning experience (87%) and supports all aspects of clinical decision-making (85%). Following clinical practice, the level of support for clinical decision-making remained at 85%, suggesting that students believe HFS promotes transferability of knowledge to the practice setting.ConclusionOverall, students report a high level of support for learning and developing clinical decision-making skills from HFS. However, there are no comparative data available from classroom teaching of similar content so it cannot be established if these results are due to HFS alone.

Clinical Conundrums When Integrating the QbTest into a Standard ADHD Assessment of Children and Young People

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Vogt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Neuropsychological Test ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Standard Clinical Practice ◽  
Novel Method ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe uptake of the QbTest in clinical practice is increasing and has recently been supported by research evidence proposing its effectiveness in relation to clinical decision-making. However, the exact underlying process leading to this clinical benefit is currently not well established and requires further clarification. For the clinician, certain challenges arise when adding the QbTest as a novel method to standard clinical practice, such as having the skills required to interpret neuropsychological test information and assess for diagnostically relevant neurocognitive domains that are related to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or how neurocognitive domains express themselves within the behavioral classifications of ADHD and how the quantitative measurement of activity in a laboratory setting compares with real-life (ecological validity) situations as well as the impact of comorbidity on test results. This article aims to address these clinical conundrums in aid of developing a consistent approach and future guidelines in clinical practice.

Between a logic of disruption and a logic of continuation: Negotiating the legitimacy of algorithms used in automated clinical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 136345932199674
Author(s):  
Rikke Torenholt ◽  
Henriette Langstrup
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pro Tools

In both popular and academic discussions of the use of algorithms in clinical practice, narratives often draw on the decisive potentialities of algorithms and come with the belief that algorithms will substantially transform healthcare. We suggest that this approach is associated with a logic of disruption. However, we argue that in clinical practice alongside this logic, another and less recognised logic exists, namely that of continuation: here the use of algorithms constitutes part of an established practice. Applying these logics as our analytical framing, we set out to explore how algorithms for clinical decision-making are enacted by political stakeholders, healthcare professionals, and patients, and in doing so, study how the legitimacy of delegating to an algorithm is negotiated and obtained. Empirically we draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in relation to attempts in Denmark to develop and implement Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) tools – involving algorithmic sorting – in clinical practice. We follow the work within two disease areas: heart rehabilitation and breast cancer follow-up care. We show how at the political level, algorithms constitute tools for disrupting inefficient work and unsystematic patient involvement, whereas closer to the clinical practice, algorithms constitute a continuation of standardised and evidence-based diagnostic procedures and a continuation of the physicians’ expertise and authority. We argue that the co-existence of the two logics have implications as both provide a push towards the use of algorithms and how a logic of continuation may divert attention away from new issues introduced with automated digital decision-support systems.

Clinical Practice Patterns Suggest Female Patients Prefer Female Endoscopists

2015 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 3149-3150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Davis ◽  
Brandon Rieders ◽  
Marie L. Borum
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Clinical Practice Patterns ◽  
Female Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document