November 29, 2010

Vitamin E Supplements to Prevent Stroke May Raise Stroke Risk, Study Says

Taking Vitamin E to Prevent Stroke May Be Harmful, Study Says

Taking vitamin E supplements doesn't reduce the risk of stroke, and may even be harmful, an analysis of previous research found.

The vitamin raised the risk of a severe type of stroke by 22 percent, while it lowered the risk of a milder kind by 10 percent, according to the study, published today in the British Medical Journal.

Exercise as well as medicines to lower blood pressure or cholesterol have a far greater effect on stroke prevention, the researchers, led by Markus Schuerks of Harvard Medical School, wrote in the study. 

About 13 percent of the U.S. population takes the supplement, they said. Previous studies of the vitamin's effectiveness have produced conflicting results, with some showing a protective effect and others seeing no effect and an increase in the risk of early death, the study said.

"Given the relatively small risk reduction of ischemic stroke and the generally more severe outcome of hemorrhagic stroke, indiscriminate widespread use of vitamin E should be cautioned against," the authors said.

The study pooled data from 9 previous trials involving a total of 118,756 patients, about half of whom took the supplement while the other half took a sugar pill. When the data were analyzed, the researchers found an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a smaller decrease in ischemic stroke.

The absolute risk is small, the study said. For every 1,250 subjects taking the supplement, one hemorrhagic stroke occurred, while one ischemic stroke was prevented for every 476 patients.

Oxygen Supply

Stroke occurs when a blood vessel carrying oxygen to the brain ruptures or is blocked by a blood clot or some other particle, cutting off the brain's supply of oxygen. Nerve cells then die, affecting the part of the body they control. These cells aren't replaced, leading to disability, according to the American Heart Association.

About 800,000 Americans suffer a stroke each year, and 137,000 of them die, according to the association.

Hemorrhagic stroke is caused when tissue is compressed by a hematoma, a collection of blood that has leaked out of a vessel. Ischemic stroke is seen when a loss of blood supply to part of the brain triggers a biochemical reaction that leads to cell death.

By Eva von Schaper, Bloomberg News
Reviewed / Posted by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP

November 27, 2010

Texas and Texans

"To make something happen, tell a Texan it can't be done."
-- Anonymous

November 26, 2010

U.K. bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

Britain's top medical group ruled [in January this year] that a doctor who claimed autism was linked to a childhood vaccine can no longer practice in the U.K.

The General Medical Council also found Dr. Andrew Wakefield guilty of "serious professional misconduct" as it struck him from the country's medical register. The council was investigating how Wakefield and colleagues carried out their research, not the science behind it.

When the research was published a dozen years ago, British parents abandoned the measles vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of the disease. Vaccination rates have never recovered and there are outbreaks of measles in the U.K. every year.

In 1998, Wakefield and colleagues published a study alleging a link between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. Most of the study's authors renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the journal in February.

Many other studies have been conducted since then and none have found a connection between autism and the vaccines. Wakefield moved to the U.S. several years ago and the ruling does not affect his right to practice medicine there or in other countries.

In 2005, Wakefield founded a nonprofit autism center in Austin, Texas, but quit earlier this year.


In January, Britain's medical council ruled that Wakefield and two other doctors acted unethically and showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (today worth $7.20) each.

In a statement then, Wakefield said the medical council's investigation was an effort to "discredit and silence" him to "shield the government from exposure on the (measles) vaccine scandal."

In [a recent] ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and "brought the medical profession into disrepute."


Reviewed / Posted by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP

November 25, 2010

Happy Thanksgiving Humor

A lady was picking through the frozen turkeys at the grocery store, but couldn't find one big enough for her family. She asked the stock boy, 'Do these turkeys get any bigger?'

The stock boy answered, 'No ma'am, they're dead.'

November 24, 2010

What the Doctor Missed

Using Malpractice Claims to Help Physicians Avoid Diagnostic Mistakes, Delays

A doctor assumes a patient's recurrent cough is a respiratory infection and doesn't order a chest X-ray, missing a deadly lung cancer. A 40-year-old woman dies of a rare blood disease after her abnormal lab test falls through the cracks. A man dies from an obstructed bowel after different doctors treating him fail to share information about his acute abdominal pain.
Medical professionals are finding lessons in these and other past malpractice cases. By analyzing the breakdowns in care that led to missed, delayed or incorrect diagnoses, insurers and health-care providers are developing programs to avert mistakes. For example, some doctors are using electronic alerts and reminders to order tests, follow up on lab reports and close the loop with specialists to whom they refer patients.

Diagnostic errors are the leading cause of malpractice suits, accounting for as many as 40% of cases and costing insurers an average of $300,000 per case to settle, studies of resolved claims show. Peter Pronovost, a patient-safety researcher at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that diagnostic errors kill 40,000 to 80,000 hospitalized patients annually, based on autopsy studies over the past four decades.

Studies of malpractice-claims data show that diagnostic errors often don't have a single cause. There are often at least three breakdowns that lead to missed or delayed diagnoses. Patients play a role as well: They may not seek care on a timely basis, fail to show up for tests or fail to follow instructions, such as not fasting before a blood test or not adequately emptying the bowels before a colonoscopy.

One concern is that using claims data to educate doctors will lead to more "defensive medicine," in which doctors order more tests and procedures than needed to protect themselves against malpractice suits. In a study in the June Archives of Internal Medicine, 91% of physicians surveyed reported that doctors practice defensive medicine; the majority of physicians also agreed that legal protections against unwarranted malpractice suits are needed to decrease the unnecessary use of diagnostic tests.

"Medicine is often a crapshoot and an odds game," and doctors can miss a diagnosis even if they adhere to guidelines on when to order a test, says Dr. Pronovost. Reducing diagnostic errors, he says, will require a focus on larger system failures, such as preventing lab results from getting lost and developing checklists to help doctors distinguish between, say, a "low-risk" headache and a "high-risk" headache.

Diagnostic mistakes most often involve cancer, with breast cancer the most commonly missed or delayed diagnosis. Last year, a jury awarded $2.5 million in a case brought by Barbara Glasow, who, before she died in May 2009, sued St. Luke's Hospital in Bethlehem, Pa., claiming the hospital and one of its doctors failed to diagnose her breast cancer in May 2004, when she came to see him for a lump on her chest. According to the suit, the doctor told her it was a cyst. By February 2005, it had broken in two and began to bleed. A biopsy determined that it was breast cancer. Her attorney, Steven Margolis, is pursuing the award, plus interest, totaling $2.9 million on behalf of her family. St. Luke's is appealing the case, and the hospital declined to comment.

Oakland, Calif.-based managed-care giant Kaiser Permanente also uses malpractice-claims data for educational purposes. But it relies on close tracking and follow-up of patients with abnormal test results to avoid missed diagnoses, says breast cancer surgeon Susan Kutner. Over the past 15 years it has identified 420,000 abnormal biopsies and 320,000 abnormal mammograms. As a result, 450 patients were found to have a new or recurrent cancer or an abnormal biopsy "who would not have been found if we did not bring them in proactively," Dr. Kutner says.

The Veterans Health Administration is developing programs to help doctors more closely follow up on abnormal lab results, which it delivers through an electronic medical record system. VA studies show that doctors are often overwhelmed by alerts and may not follow up, even when an alert says the test is abnormal. Hardeep Singh, chief of the health quality and policy program at the Houston VA research center, says its studies also show that if both a primary-care doctor and a specialist get test results, each assumes the other will follow up.
"Patients may think that if something was wrong, my doctor would have told me," says Dr. Singh. "But no news is not necessarily good news, and patients need to be empowered to follow up on their lab results and participate more actively in their care."

While malpractice claims represent only a fraction of all medical cases, "they are reflective of deeply rooted problems that are much more widespread in health care," says Robert Hanscom, vice president of loss prevention and patient safety for Crico/RMF, a malpractice insurer that covers Harvard University-affiliated hospitals and doctors. Mr. Hanscom says cases linked to diagnostic errors appear to be on the rise as primary care doctors, struggling with heavy case loads, take shortcuts or don't act on their patient's symptoms. Also hospitals are concerned about trial lawyers who may seek high monetary damages.

Of 1,137 malpractice cases between 2005 and 2009, diagnostic errors accounted for 26% of Crico/RMF's claims. But among the 456 "high severity" cases that resulted in serious patient harm or death, nearly half were diagnostic errors.

"People may show up with a series of symptoms or complaints that aren't taken seriously at the moment, or a physician...doesn't see the complaint as something new to be concerned about," says Ann Louise Puopolo, a nurse and patient-safety program director at Crico/RMF. For example, in missed or delayed colorectal cancer cases, patients often showed up with some kind of rectal bleeding, a usual sign that further testing is needed, but was not performed, says Ms. Puopolo.

Crico/RMF is offering continuing medical-education credits to doctors who study its analysis of the closed malpractice cases. And in a program it is co-sponsoring at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, researchers are working with 16 primary-care practices in Massachusetts, using lessons from the claims to help them avoid common pitfalls like failing to consider that a patient with persistent symptoms might need a diagnostic test, and failing to follow up on abnormal test results when they come in.

"These errors may be less visible and dramatic than getting the wrong leg cut off, but a delay in diagnosis can adversely affect a patient's long-term outcome," says Gordon Schiff, associate director of patient-safety research at Brigham and Women's. Malpractice cases "let us drill down and learn deeper lessons, like what could have been done differently," Dr. Schiff says.

By Laura Landro, The Wall Street Journal

Reviewed / Posted by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP

November 23, 2010

John Wayne

''Life's tough ... it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
-- John Wayne

November 22, 2010

‘You’ve Got Mail’ — But Not From Your Doctor!

Less Than 7% Are Emailing Patients

Doctors aren't exactly lining up to swap emails with their patients, as it turns out.

According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, only 6.7% of the 4,200-plus office-based physicians who responded to a 2008 national survey "routinely" emailed patients about clinical matters. Most just didn't have the technology available, but even among the doctors who had email access, only 19.5% regularly emailed with patients.

This survey didn't ask non-emailing physicians why they weren't trading LOLs and emoticons with their patients, but the CSHSC brief has a host of previously cited reasons: "lack of reimbursement, the potential for increased workload, maintaining data privacy and security, avoiding increased medical liability and the uncertain impact on care quality." (Given that list, it's hard to figure out why any physician would choose to email patients.)

Doctors working in practices the have already converted to electronic medical records were more likely to communicate with patients via email. So were physicians in HMOs or academic centers, compared to those in solo or two-doctor practices.

Given the reimbursement issue, it's not surprising that physicians on a fixed salary were more likely to communicate with patients than those with other compensation arrangements. (Aetna and Cigna are among the insurers reimbursing providers for communicating with patients via secure messaging.) Other options for compensation include a set per-patient fee paid to physicians for agreeing to coordinate care using email and other means or an annual fee paid directly by patients for email access privileges, the brief says.

Policy types "might more systematically explore whether email or other secure electronic communication with patients can deliver on its promise to enhance communication, increase patient engagement and satisfaction, improve patient outcomes and quality of care and boost efficiency," the brief says. If email does all (or some) of that, "expanding incentives to encourage email communication between physicians and patients might be a worthwhile investment."

By Katherine Hobson, The Wall Street Journal
Reviewed / Posted by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP

November 20, 2010

Miss me?

What a summer!

The scary month of May (here's that story in case you missed it) gave way to a blur of June, July and August recovering. In September, I went back to work knowing that I'd need to do "something" in the future but had hoped to avoid surgery. In early October it became clear that to finally put an end to this mess, I would need more surgery, so back to the hospital I went. Apparently, I like to have my surgeries in pairs (though I don't recommend this strategy to others) because again, after the first surgery complications necessitated another. My body must also be in tune with the calendar because I also managed surgery on Mother's Day and twice the week of Ingrid's birthday. I may be in a little trouble for that.

November has been much better! I've been back to work this past week and today the last of the tubes was removed. Now I can focus on getting back my strength and endurance, getting caught up in the office, and spending some fun time with family. Several people have told me I should write a book. Don't know if anyone would read it but I did learn a lot - and much of what I already knew was reinforced. Like the value of having a physician who listens...stuff like that.

Recovery from the surgeries in October was painful and it took until last week to get off of all the pain medication. I was so excited to get back to work that I had trouble sleeping. I hate lying in bed (did a lot of that this summer too) so Wednesday morning I got up about 3:00, showered and went to the office. It was so quiet - and so nice to be back - I got a lot done early that morning. I sent a bunch of emails and got several responses that day asking why in the world I was working at 4:00 AM. It's great to be back!

While I was out of the office, Sherri, Dr. Schrader, our wonderful office staff and Dr. Martin - the latest addition to our practice (more on that later) kept the office humming and patients well cared for. Many patients sent cards or letters, visited me in the hospital, brought food to the house, helped Ingrid with errands and watching the kids...and some did all of these. One patient and his wife stood in line for 12 hours to get me a signed copy of George Bush's new book. Thank you all for being so generous and caring.

Seeing friends (patients) this week has been wonderful. I'm blessed that I get to take care of and advise such wonderful people. We've gotten the hospital bed out of our house, all the tubes are gone and we are packing up the medicines and paraphernalia. Getting that stuff out of the house and getting back to work some this week has made life feel much more normal.

So this Thanksgiving, the Yates family truly has many things for which to be thankful!

Posted by: Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP