Medical Liability Standards and Clinical Practice in the U.S. Comment

Author(s):  
Susanne Prantl
Contexts ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 57-59
Author(s):  
Ashley C. Rondini

This article highlights that the standardization of medical care in the U.S. relies on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which indicate institutionalized norms about when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to administer specific medical tests and courses of treatment. However, when CPGs in medicine derive from medical research that was informed by since-debunked ideas about race, they may also facilitate structural racism.


2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen K. Williams ◽  
Joseph Ravenell ◽  
Sara Seyedali ◽  
Husam Nayef ◽  
Gbenga Ogedegbe

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 492 ◽  

In 2005, an estimated 40,340 new cases of rectal cancer will occur in the U.S., and experts estimate that during the same year, 56,290 people will die of rectal and colon cancer. As with colon cancer, however, mortality from rectal cancer has also decreased over the past 30 years. The NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel believes a multidisciplinary approach is necessary for effectively managing rectal cancer, an approach detailed here. For the most recent version of the guidelines, please visit NCCN.org


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2986-2986
Author(s):  
Ajeet Gajra ◽  
Stephanie Fortier ◽  
Yolaine Jeune-Smith ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg

Abstract Introduction Gene therapies, defined as the introduction, removal, or change in genetic material into a patient's cells to treat a specific disease, represent a significant advance in medicine, with the potential to cure or significantly improve outcomes of various benign and malignant hematologic disorders (American Society of Gene Therapy). Gene therapies have received approvals for subsets of patients with spinal muscular atrophy or retinal dystrophy, and almost a thousand studies are actively recruiting patients for various gene therapy trials. Aside from CAR-T therapies, several gene therapies are in advanced clinical development in the U.S. for disorders such as hemophilia, hemoglobinopathies, and congenital immunodeficiency syndromes. Results of many such trials were presented at the 2020 ASH annual meeting. While approvals for some gene therapy products are expected in the near future, the complexity of treatment, knowledge gaps among providers, or barriers with accessibility or cost may limit the integration of these treatments into routine clinical practice. Therefore, the present study surveyed U.S.-based community oncologists/hematologists (cO/H) to evaluate their perceptions of the utility of gene therapies and barriers to adoption or integration into clinical practice. Methods Between February and April 2021, cO/H from across the U.S. were invited to complete a web-based survey about gene therapies. Physician demographics and practice characteristics were also captured in the survey. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 369 cO/H completed the survey; 36% identified as a medical oncologist and 63% as a hematologist/oncologist. cO/H had an average of 19 years of clinical experience and spent an average of 86% of their working time in direct patient care and saw an average of 17 patients per day on clinic days. Half of cO/H stated that they were not aware of recent data of gene therapies for adult hematology/oncology indications (35% "not very aware"; 15% "not at all aware"). When asked to report the number of approved gene therapy products (excluding CAR-T products) in the U.S. in early 2021, 27% of participants reported 0, 24% reported 1, and 20% reported 2 products were currently available. Regarding gene therapy use for adult hematologic/oncologic indications in the next 2 years, 53% of cO/H reported that they expect gene therapies to mostly be administered and managed by academic centers to which they will refer their patients; 27% reported that indications will be limited and unlikely to affect their practice (Table 1). cO/H perceived cost as the greatest barrier to adopting gene therapies into their clinical practice; specifically, cO/H cited cost limitations by payers (49%), the prohibitive cost to patients (46%), and the prohibitive cost to practices/hospitals (37%). Other barriers to adoption were limited real-world efficacy data (18%) and long-term complications (13%). Most cO/H reported a moderate (39%) or high (43%) comfort level with prescribing a gene therapy for adult hematology/oncology indications if it were reimbursed. Conclusions Many cO/H were not aware of recent data of gene therapy products, with over half expecting to refer their patients to large academic centers for gene therapies. While most cO/H would be comfortable prescribing gene therapies for their patients, cost was perceived as prohibitive. This information can inform various stakeholders, including patients, advocacy groups, pharmaceutical manufacturers, payers, and professional societies, in laying the foundations for gene therapy products in hematology. Future work should focus on enhancing education of gene therapy products to community providers as well as identifying support programs that lessen the burden of cost. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gajra: Cardinal Health: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fortier: Cardinal Health: Current Employment. Jeune-Smith: Cardinal Health: Current Employment. Feinberg: Cardinal Health: Current Employment.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie B Mayer ◽  
Sky Graybill ◽  
Susan D Raffa ◽  
Christopher Tracy ◽  
Earl Gaar ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Introduction In May of 2020, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Department of Defense (DoD) approved a new joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients who have overweight and obesity. This guideline is intended to give healthcare teams a framework by which to screen, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients who may have either of these conditions. It can be accessed at https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/CD/obesity/. Materials and Methods In January of 2019, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine’s tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. Results The guideline panel developed 12 key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created a 1-page algorithm, and advanced 18 recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Conclusions This synopsis summarizes the key recommendations of the guideline regarding management of overweight and obesity, including referral to comprehensive lifestyle interventions that combine behavioral, dietary, and physical activity change, and additional tools of pharmacologic and procedural interventions. Additionally, recommendations based on evidence found in the literature for short-term weight loss are included. A clinical practice algorithm that is part of the guideline is also included. Additional materials, such as provider and patient summaries and a provider pocket card, are also available for public use, accessible at the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) website listed above.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e22126-e22126
Author(s):  
A. Barlev ◽  
M. Yong ◽  
G. Cherkowski ◽  
K. Cetin ◽  
J. Fryzek

e22126 Background: AIs and ADT are used to prevent recurrence of breast and prostate cancers but have been shown to accelerate bone loss. We estimated the prevalence of early-stage ER+ breast and prostate cancer patients on hormone therapy in the U.S., as this is not well-described in the literature. Methods: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, published literature, clinical practice, and a large claims database were used. We began with the American Cancer Society's estimated number of new breast and prostate cancer cases for the year 2008. We then assessed the number of patients with localized/regional disease and ER+ tumors and those receiving primary ADT (both chemical and surgical) or AI therapy by applying proportions from SEER, published literature, clinical practice, and the claims database. Using these incident case counts, we calculated the 5-year prevalence using appropriate cohort-specific survival rates to sum the number of new and surviving cases over a 5-year period. Results: The estimated 5-year prevalence of early-stage ER+ breast cancer for women aged ≥50 years in the U.S. was 607,411, of which 293,904 (48.4%) were on AI therapy based on the claims database. However, because this data source was limited to women aged <65 years, we also used estimates from clinical practice to capture AI use for women of all ages. Based on clinical practice, 402,637 (66.3%) to 460,156 (75.8%) of early-stage ER+ breast cancer patients were on AI therapy. For early-stage prostate cancer, the estimated 5-year prevalence for all ages was 1,024,238, of which 141,451 (13.8%) were on primary ADT. However, these figures may underestimate current usage of hormone therapies, as our data and the literature show increasing trends in ADT and AI use for early-stage disease. Conclusions: Based on a combination of population-based data and the published literature, approximately half of all early-stage ER+ breast cancer patients and a modest proportion of early-stage prostate cancer patients are on hormone therapy in the U.S. [Table: see text]


1992 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet M. Bronstein ◽  
Leonard J. Nelson

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4

Psycho-Oncology, 4th edition, is the first edition of this series of textbooks, which have defined the field of psycho-oncology, to be edited without Jimmie C. Holland as the senior editor. Hence, those of us who have taken on the both sacred and significant responsibility of editing this 4th edition of Psycho-Oncology have done so with a sense of both sadness and honor. William Breitbart, MD, serves as the new senior editor along with associate editors Phyllis N. Butow, PhD, MPH, of the University of Sydney; Paul B. Jacobsen, PhD, of the U.S. National Cancer Institute; Wendy W. T. Lam, RN, PhD, of the University of Hong Kong; Mark Lazenby, APRN, PhD, of the University of Connecticut School of Nursing; and Matthew J. Loscalzo, MSW, of the City of Hope. In this 4th edition of Psycho-Oncology, we feel we have accomplished the delicate but critical task of balancing the tasks of having this ‘Official Textbook of our Field” to serve both as the source textbook that provided the broadest and most multidisciplinary and essential science and practice of the field of psycho-oncology, as well as the newest and latest innovations and cutting-edge research and clinical practice that would equip our readers with the knowledge and resources to participate in the “new frontiers of psycho-oncology.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document