Dataset Information

Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To date, the outcomes of second opinions in internal medicine in terms of diagnostic yield and patient benefit have not been studied extensively. This retrospective study explores the outcomes of second opinions at a general internal medicine outpatient clinic in an academic hospital. METHODS:A register of all patients referred to the general internal medicine outpatient clinic of the University Medical Center in Utrecht for a second opinion, was kept. All 173 patients referred between June 2016 and August 2018 were selected. Case records were analyzed for patient characteristics, referring doctor, chief complaint, performed investigations, follow-up time and, established diagnosis, additional diagnoses, initiated treatment and reported benefit. RESULTS:A new diagnosis was established in 13% of all patients. A new treatment was initiated in 56% of all patients: 91% and 51% of patients with and without a new diagnosis respectively (p < 0.001). Of all patients, 19% received an effective treatment (52% vs 14% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p < 0.001). Regardless of treatment, resolution or improvement of the chief complaint was achieved in 28% of all patients (52% vs 25% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p = 0.006). Regarding diagnostics, 23-33% of radiology, endoscopy and pathology tests performed during second opinion were a repetition of previously conducted investigations. Conventional blood tests were a repetition in 89% of cases. Median time to diagnosis was 64 days (IQR: 25-128 days) and median time to discharge was 75 days (IQR: 31-144 days). CONCLUSION:Second opinions in general internal medicine lead to the establishment of a new diagnosis in a small proportion of patients. However, the value of second opinions may not be limited to the establishment of diagnoses, as new treatments are often initiated and overall patients report improved symptomatology in 28% of cases.

SUBMITTER: Burger PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7347190 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine.

Burger Pascal M PM Westerink Jan J Vrijsen Bram E L BEL

PloS one 20200709 7

<h4>Background</h4>To date, the outcomes of second opinions in internal medicine in terms of diagnostic yield and patient benefit have not been studied extensively. This retrospective study explores the outcomes of second opinions at a general internal medicine outpatient clinic in an academic hospital.<h4>Methods</h4>A register of all patients referred to the general internal medicine outpatient clinic of the University Medical Center in Utrecht for a second opinion, was kept. All 173 patients ...[more]

PMID: 32645107

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The precise scope of hospital care delivered under general internal medicine services remains poorly quantified. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics, medical conditions, health outcomes and resource use of patients admitted to general internal medicine at 7 hospital sites in the Greater Toronto Area. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study involving all patients who were admitted to or discharged from general internal medicine at the study sites between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015. Clinical data from hospital electronic information systems were linked to administrative data from each hospital. We examined trends in resource use and patient characteristics over the study period. RESULTS:There were 136?208 admissions to general internal medicine involving 88?121 unique patients over the study period. General internal medicine admissions accounted for 38.8% of all admissions from the emergency department and 23.7% of all hospital bed-days. Over the study period, the number of admissions to general internal medicine increased by 32.4%; there was no meaningful change in the median length of stay or cost per hospital stay. The median patient age was 73 (interquartile range [IQR] 57-84) years, and the median number of coexisting conditions was 6 (IQR 3-9). The median acute length of stay was 4.6 (IQR 2.5-8.6) days, and the median total cost per hospital stay was $5850 (IQR $3915-$10?061). Patients received at least 1 computed tomography scan in 52.2% of admissions. The most common primary discharge diagnoses were pneumonia (5.0% of admissions), heart failure (4.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.1%), urinary tract infection (4.0%) and stroke (3.6%). INTERPRETATION:Patients admitted to general internal medicine services represent a large, heterogeneous, resource-intensive and growing population. Understanding and improving general internal medicine care is essential to promote a high-quality, sustainable health care system.

Project description:BackgroundSecond medical opinions have become commonplace and even mandatory in some health-care systems, as variations in diagnosis, treatment or prognosis may emerge among physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether physicians' judgment is affected by another medical opinion given to a patient.DesignOrthopedic surgeons and neurologists filled out questionnaires presenting eight hypothetical clinical scenarios with suggested treatments. One group of physicians (in each specialty) was told what the other physician's opinion was (study group), and the other group was not told what it was (control group).ParticipantsA convenience sample of 332 physicians in Israel: 172 orthopedic surgeons (45.9% of their population) and 160 neurologists (64.0% of their population).MeasurementsScoring was by choice of less or more interventional treatment in the scenarios. We used ?(2) tests and repeated measures ANOVA to compare these scores between the two groups. We also fitted a cumulative ordinal regression to account for the dependence within each physician's responses.ResultsOrthopedic surgeons in the study group chose a more interventionist treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention than those in the control group [F (1, 170)?=4.6, p=0.03; OR=1.437, 95% CI 1.115-1.852]. Evaluating this effect separately in each scenario showed that in four out of the eight scenarios, they chose a more interventional treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention (scenario 1, p=0.039; scenario 2, p<0.001; scenario 3, p=0.033; scenario 6, p<0.001). These effects were insignificant among the neurologists [F (1,158)?=0.44, p=0.51; OR=1.087, 95% CI 0.811-1.458]. In both specialties there were no differences in responses by level of clinical experience [orthopedic surgeons: F (2, 166)?=0.752, p=0.473; neurologists: F (2,154)?=1.951, p=0.146].ConclusionsThe exploratory survey showed that in some cases physicians' judgments may be affected by other physicians' opinions, but unaffected in other cases. Weighing previous opinions may yield a more informed clinical decision, yet physicians may be unintentionally influenced by previous opinions. Second opinion has the potential to improve the clinical decision-making processes, and mechanisms are needed to reconcile discrepant opinions.

Project description:BackgroundSecond medical opinions (SOs) can assist patients in making informed treatment decisions and improve the understanding of their diagnosis. In Germany, there are different approaches to obtain a structured SO procedure: SO programs by health insurers and SOs according to the SO Directive. Through a direct survey of the population, we aimed to assess how structured SOs should be provided to fulfil patients' needs.MethodsA stratified sample of 9990 adults (≥18 years) living in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) were initially contacted by post in April and sent a reminder in May 2020. The survey results were analyzed descriptively.ResultsAmong 1349 participants (response rate 14%), 56% were female and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-69). Participants wanted to be informed directly and personally about the possibility of obtaining an SO (89%; 1201/1349). They preferred to be informed by their physician (93%; 1249/1349). A majority of participants would consider it important to obtain an SO for oncological indications (78%; 1049/1349). Only a subset of the participants would seek an SO via their health insurer or via an online portal (43%; 577/1349 and 16%; 221/1349). A personally delivered SO was the preferred route of SO delivery, as 97% (1305/1349) would (tend to) consider this way of obtaining an SO. Participants were asked to imagine having moderate knee pain for years, resulting in a treatment recommendation for knee joint replacement. They were requested to rate potential qualification criteria for a physician providing the SO. The criteria rated to be most important were experience with the recommended diagnosis/treatment (criterion (very) important for 93%; 1257/1349) and knowledge of the current state of research (criterion (very) important for 86%; 1158/1349). Participants were willing to travel 60 min (median; IQR 60-120) and wait 4 weeks (median; IQR 2-4) for their SO in the hypothetical case of knee pain.ConclusionIn general, SOs were viewed positively. We found that participants have clear preferences regarding SOs. We propose that these preferences should be taken into account in the future design and development of SO programs.

Project description:BackgroundPeople who are homeless have a higher burden of illness and higher rates of hospital admission and readmission compared to the general population. Identifying the factors associated with hospital readmission could help healthcare providers and policymakers improve post-discharge care for homeless patients.ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge from a general internal medicine unit among patients experiencing homelessness.DesignThis prospective observational study was conducted at an urban academic teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Interviewer-administered questionnaires and chart reviews were completed to assess medical, social, processes of care, and hospitalization data. Multivariable logistic regression with backward selection was used to identify factors associated with a subsequent readmission and estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.ParticipantsAdults (N = 129) who were admitted to the general internal medicine service between November 2017 and November 2018 and who were homeless at the time of admission.Main measuresUnplanned all-cause readmission to the study hospital within 90 days of discharge.Key resultsThirty-five of 129 participants (27.1%) were readmitted within 90 days of discharge. Factors associated with lower odds of readmission included having an active case manager (adjusted odds ratios [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13-0.76), having informal support such as friends and family (aOR: 0.25, 95% CI, 0.08-0.78), and sending a copy of the patient's discharge plan to a primary care physician who had cared for the patient within the last year (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI, 0.17-1.16). A higher number of medications prescribed at discharge was associated with higher odds of readmission (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI, 1.02-1.23).ConclusionInterventions to reduce hospital readmission for people who are homeless should evaluate tailored discharge planning and dedicated resources to support implementation of these plans in the community.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Short hospital stays may represent opportunities to avert unnecessary admissions or expedite inpatient care. To inform the design of interventions that target patients with potentially avoidable hospital admissions or brief stays, we examined the patient, physician and situational characteristics associated with short stays among patients admitted to general internal medicine wards and describe the use of hospital resources by these patients. METHODS:This was a multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2015, at 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto. We included all general internal medicine admissions through the emergency department. We examined patient, physician and situational predictors of a short hospital stay, which was defined as the patient's being discharged home alive in 2 possible time windows: less than 24 hours, or 72 hours or less. RESULTS:The final study sample included 56 055 admissions and 37 700 unique patients. Patients discharged in less than 24 hours and in 72 hours or less accounted for 4245 (7.6%) and 13 442 (31.6%) admissions, respectively. After we controlled for patient factors, patients of female physicians were less likely than those of male physicians to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.86) or 72 hours or less (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.86). Patients admitted at night or on a weekday were significantly more likely than those admitted at other times to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (night: adjusted OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.44-3.06; weekday: adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.36) or 72 hours or less (night: adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37, weekday: adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10). Among stays lasting less than 24 hours and 24-72 hours, intravenously administered medications were ordered for 2788 (65.7%) and 10 722 (79.8%) patients, respectively, and computed tomography scans were performed for 1561 (36.8%) and 5354 (39.1%) patients, respectively. INTERPRETATION:Short general internal medicine hospital stays were common and were associated with patient, physician and situational factors. Interventions to avert hospital admission or reduce length of stay may be more effective if they are accessible outside typical working hours and provide access to intravenous therapy and radiological investigations.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral internal medicine (GIM) careers are increasingly viewed as challenging and unsustainable.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess academic GIM worklife and determine remediable predictors of stress and burnout.DesignWe conducted an email survey.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in 15 GIM divisions participated.Main measuresA ten-item survey queried stress, burnout, and work conditions such as electronic medical record (EMR) challenges. An open-ended question assessed stressors and solutions. Results were categorized into burnout, high stress, high control, chaos, good teamwork, high values alignment, documentation time pressure, and excessive home EMR use. Frequencies were determined for national data, Veterans Affairs (VA) versus civilian populations, and hospitalist versus ambulatory roles. A General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) evaluated associations with burnout. A formal content analysis was performed for open-ended question responses.Key resultsOf 1235 clinicians sampled, 579 responded (47 %). High stress was present in 67 %, with 38 % burned out (burnout range 10-56 % by division). Half of respondents had low work control, 60 % reported high documentation time pressure, half described too much home EMR time, and most reported very busy or chaotic workplaces. Two-thirds felt aligned with departmental leaders' values, and three-quarters were satisfied with teamwork. Burnout was associated with high stress, low work control, and low values alignment with leaders (all p?<?0.001). The 45 VA faculty had less burnout than civilian counterparts (17 % vs. 40 %, p?<?0.05). Hospitalists described better teamwork than ambulatory clinicians and fewer hospitalists noted documentation time pressure (both p?<?0.001). Key themes from the qualitative analysis were short visits, insufficient support staff, a Relative Value Unit mentality, documentation time pressure, and undervaluing education.ConclusionsWhile GIM divisions overall demonstrate high stress and burnout, division rates vary widely. Sustainability efforts within GIM could focus on visit length, staff support, schedule control, clinic chaos, and EMR stress.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine.

Publications

Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure