Exploring perception and usage of narrative medicine by physician specialty: a qualitative analysis

Background Narrative medicine is a well-recognized and respected approach to care. It is now found in medical school curricula and widely implemented in practice. However, there has been no analysis of the perception and usage of narrative medicine across different medical specialties and whether there may be unique recommendations for implementation based upon specialty. The aims of this study were to explore these gaps in research. Methods Fifteen senior physicians who specialize in internal medicine, pediatrics, or surgery (5 physicians from each specialty) were interviewed in a semi-structured format about the utilization, benefits, drawbacks (i.e., negative consequences), and roles pertaining to narrative medicine. Qualitative content analysis of each interview was then performed. Results Three themes emerged from our analysis: roles, practice, and outcomes. Through these themes we examined the importance, utilization, barriers, benefits, and drawbacks of narrative medicine. There was consensus that narrative medicine is an important tool in primary care. Primary care physicians (general internists and general pediatricians) also believed that narrative medicine is not as important for non-primary care providers. However, non-primary care providers (surgeons) generally believed narrative medicine is valuable in their practice as well. Within specialties, providers’ choice of language varied when trying to obtain patients’ narratives, but choice in when to practice narrative medicine did not differ greatly. Among specialties, there was more variability regarding when to practice narrative medicine and what barriers were present. Primary care physicians primarily described barriers to eliciting a patient’s narrative to involve trust and emotional readiness, while surgeons primarily described factors involving logistics and patient data as barriers to obtaining patients’ narratives. There was broad agreement among specialties regarding the benefits and drawbacks of narrative medicine. Conclusions This study sheds light on the shared and unique beliefs in different specialties about narrative medicine. It prompts important discussion around topics such as the stereotypes physicians may hold about their peers and concerns about time management. These data provide some possible ideas for crafting narrative medicine education specific to specialties as well as future directions of study.

Practical Recommendations of Scientific Society for the Study of Human Microbiome and the Russian Gastroenterological Association on Use of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics and Functional Foods in Treatment and Prevention of Gastroenterological Diseases in Children and Adults

Aim. The practical guidelines are intended for primary care physicians, general practitioners, paediatricians, gastroenterologists and general internists to advance the treatment and prevention of gastroenterological diseases in adults and children in therapies with probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and their enriched functional foods.Key points. Probiotics are live microorganisms that sustain health of the host when supplied in adequate amounts. Prebiotics include human-indigestible but accessible to gut microbiota substances expediting specific changes in the composition and/or activity of gastrointestinal microbiota that favour the host health. The mechanism of probiotic action comprises the quorum resistance maintenance, nutrient substrate metabolism and end metabolite recycling, macroorganism-sustaining substrate production, as well as the mediation of local and adaptive immune responses.The Russian Federation regulates market differently for biologically active food additives (BAFA), medicinal products (drugs) and functional food products (FFP). We overview the probiotic strains regulated in Russia as BAFAs, drugs and FFPs and provide recommendations on the use of these strains in treatment and prevention of gastroenterological diseases in children and adults.Conclusion. The clinical efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and fortified functional foods depends on the prebiotic and strain properties and is verified in appropriate comparative clinical trials. Not all probiotics registered in Russia as BAFAs, drugs and FFPs have a strain identity, which provides no warranty of the clinical effect expected. The FFP legislation demands improved regulation mechanisms and control for therapeutic efficacy.

Rates of Primary Aldosteronism Screening Among High-Risk Populations

Background: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common form of secondary hypertension. PA is associated with higher cardiovascular and renal morbidity and mortality than equivalent essential hypertension. Data on PA screening rates are scarce. Objective: To evaluate the rates of PA screening among at-risk populations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with hypertension (HTN) seen in a University setting outpatient clinics between 2010–2019 who had: 1) resistant HTN; 2) HTN and hypokalemia; 3) HTN at age <40; 4) HTN and known adrenal mass; or 5) HTN and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). We excluded patients with known high-renin HTN, renovascular HTN, or congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Results: We identified 11,627 patients with HTN meeting at least one of the inclusion criteria. Of these, only 3.27% were ever screened for PA. Patients screened were younger (47.5 ± 17.8 vs. 51.3 ±16.9, p <0.0001), more often women (55.28% vs. 45.71%, p=0.0003), had lower serum K+ (3.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.7 ± 0.4, p<0.0001), and were more likely to have chronic kidney disease (29.27% vs. 17.5%, p<0.0001) and cerebrovascular accidents (9.21% vs. 6.16%, p= 0.02) than those never screened. While most patients in this cohort were white (79.9% vs. 15.3% black, and 2.3% Asian), screening rates were overall higher in Asian (8.4%) and black (6.1%) than in white Americans (2.8%, p<0.0001). Of the different indications for PA screening, the rates were highest among patients with adrenal nodules (35%) and lowest in patients with HTN and OSA (2.1%). The rates of screening were similar in patients younger vs. older than age 40 (3.2%, p=0.9). Among patients with resistant hypertension, those screened were on average 10 years younger (58.5 ± 14.0 vs. 68.7 ± 12.8, p<0.0001) and twice as often black (20.7% vs. 10.1%) compared to those not screened for PA. Conversely, in patients with adrenal masses, there were no sex, age, or race differences between those screened vs. not screened for PA. PA screening was initiated most often by general internists (53.9%), followed by endocrinologists (15.8%), and rarely by nephrologists (9.5%), or cardiologists (4.2%). Conclusions: Despite its high prevalence and associated cardio-renal morbidity, PA screening is pursued in only 3% of high-risk populations. While patients screened are generally younger and more often black than those not screened, the diagnosis is often suspected after complications have already developed. These data indicate that initiatives to encourage PA screening are crucial for preventing cardiovascular and renal morbidity in many patients with HTN.

Procedural Competency Among Hospitalists: A Literature Review and Future Considerations

BACKGROUND: As general internists practicing in the inpatient setting, hospitalists at many institutions are expected to perform invasive bedside procedures, as defined by professional standards. In reality, hospitalists are doing fewer procedures and increasingly are referring to specialists, which threatens their ability to maintain procedural skills. The discrepancy between expectations and reality, especially when hospitalists may be fully credentialed to perform procedures, poses significant risks to patients because of morbidity and mortality associated with complications, some of which derive from practitioner inexperience. METHODS: We performed a structured search of the peer-reviewed literature to identify articles focused on hospitalists performing procedures. RESULTS: Our synthesis of the literature characterizes contributors to hospitalists’ procedural competency and discusses: (1) temporal trends for procedures performed by hospitalists and their associated referral patterns, (2) data comparing use and clinical outcomes of procedures performed by hospitalists compared with specialists, (3) the lack of nationwide standardization of hospitalist procedural training and credentialing, and (4) the role of medical procedure services, although limited in supportive evidence, in concentrating procedural skill and mitigating risk in the hands of a few well-trained hospitalists. CONCLUSION: We conclude with recommendations for hospital medicine groups to ensure the safety of hospitalized patients undergoing bedside procedures.

Caregiver-Provider Communication About Pain in Persons With Dementia

Pain in older persons with dementia (PWD) is severely under-detected and under-managed. Family caregivers can play an important role in addressing these disparities by acquiring the requisite skills to communicate PWD’s pain symptoms and behaviors to health care providers, but little is known about how caregivers of dementia patients and their providers approach such pain-related discussions. We employed qualitative methods to explore the perspectives of family caregivers of PWD (n=18) and health care providers (geriatricians, general internists, neurologists, emergency room physicians) involved in PWD’s treatment (n=16) regarding pain communication. We specifically focused on participants’: 1) priorities and expectations for communicating about pain and dementia, 2) challenges to communicating about pain and dementia, and 3) strategies and recommendations for optimizing communication about pain and dementia. Analyses revealed that caregivers and health care providers expected to receive accurate, detailed information from one another, but uncertainty in both groups around differentiating pain behaviors from dementia symptoms acted as a barrier to effective information exchange. Additional challenges to productive pain-related discussions were identified by caregivers, including provider fatalism and lack of interpersonal skills, and by providers, including patient-caregiver disagreement about pain symptoms and unreliable caregiver reporting. Participants endorsed using practical approaches, such as pain scales and logs, as well as rapport-building strategies, such as affirmation of caregivers’ input, to facilitate collaborative discussions.