Journal of General Internal Medicine最新文献

Workplace violence (WPV) is a commonly reported occupational hazard in healthcare and its prevalence is increasing. WPV occurs in all types of practice settings, but little is known about WPV in primary care settings in the United States (US). Because primary care practice settings differ from the inpatient settings, further examination of WPV in primary care is warranted. Our objective was to summarize the available literature highlight important gaps. We conducted a search using Pubmed and OVID for US studies of WPV in US-based adult primary care practices. Studies including only pediatric populations were excluded. Due to the lack of available literature conducted in US primary care settings, we expanded our search to include international studies. We identified 70 studies of which 5 were US based. Due to the lack of significant numbers of US-based studies, we opted to conduct a narrative review of all available studies. The evidence shows that WPV is a common occurrence in primary care settings in many countries and that the majority of primary care clinicians have experienced at least some form of non-physical violence in their careers. Most of the studies conducted were cross-sectional in design and reported on both non-physical and physical forms of WPV. There was not a consistent trend between genders in experiencing the major forms of WPV, but women were consistently more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment. Potential root causes for WPV could generally be categorized as patient-level, clinician-level, clinical encounter specific, and operational root causes. While most WPV was found to be non-physical, it still had significant emotional and job-related impacts on clinicians. These troubling results highlight the need for further studies to be conducted in the US.

Background: Latine people, comprising 18.5% of the US population, constitute the largest ethnic minority group, with nearly one-third self-identifying as having non-English language preference (NELP). Despite the importance of the telephone in health care access, there is limited understanding of how NELP patients navigate telephone calls with primary and specialty care clinics.

Objective: This qualitative study aims to capture how Spanish speakers with NELP characterize their telephone call experiences with primary and specialty care clinics.

Design: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 Spanish-speaking participants from primary care clinics with a sizeable proportion of patients who prefer to communicate in a language other than English at an urban academic medical center in Boston, MA.

Participants: Participants were selected from primary care clinics that were well-equipped to serve Spanish-speaking patients. A total of 24 Spanish-speaking patients with NELP, mainly women (83%), with a mean age of 55.8 years, participated. They represented diverse countries of origin, with an average length of time in the USA of 21.7 years.

Approach: Interview questions prompted participants to describe their telephone call experiences with front desk staff, with attention to interpreter availability, ancillary assistance, health outcomes stemming from a lack of language services, and emotional consequences of language discordance on calls.

Key results: Patients perceived primary care clinics as providing familiarity and language concordance during telephone interactions, contrasting with specialty care clinics, seen as sources of monolingual English communication. Participants utilized various strategies, such as requesting interpreters, using concise English phrases, or seeking assistance from acquaintances, relatives, or primary care clinic staff, to mitigate language barriers.

Conclusions: The findings underscore significant challenges faced by Spanish-speaking patients with NELP in ambulatory specialty care telephone calls. The study emphasizes the importance of creating inclusive multilingual telephone environments, standardizing interpreter access, and reflecting the diversity of the communities served.

Background: Some have advocated that nabilone be used rather than opioids to manage chronic, noncancer pain, since the former drug may have a better safety profile.

Objective: We compared the safety of incident nabilone use relative to incident opioid use with respect to multiple clinically important outcomes.

Design: A population-based, retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Province of Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Persons aged 12 years and older, diagnosed with a musculoskeletal condition within the past 3 years prior to the index date.

Exposures: Incident nabilone use, with incident opioid use serving as the reference group.

Measurements: Within 3 months following the index date, we separately evaluated for pneumonia, motor vehicle accidents, falls or fractures, mental and behavioral disorder due to psychoactive substance use, and all-cause mortality.

Results: A total of 18,863 incident nabilone users were propensity score matched to an equal number of opioid users. In the overall matched analysis, incident nabilone users vs. incident opioid users had significantly lower rates of pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.96), falls or fractures (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50-0.64), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95), but significantly higher rate of mental or behavioral disorder (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.45-3.43). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to rate of motor vehicle accidents.

Limitations: Unmeasured confounding may have influenced results.

Conclusions: While usage of nabilone relative to opioids was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia, falls or fractures, and all-cause mortality, it was simultaneously associated with an increased rate of adverse mental health outcomes. This picture of mixed safety results raises concerns with the policy approach of broadly substituting use of opioids with nabilone.

Funding source: Ontario Ministry of Health.

Patients with rare conditions often experience substantial delays between presentation and diagnosis, and some remain undiagnosed. In this Perspective, we outline the many challenges in diagnosing rare conditions in the modern clinical context. We review relevant concepts of diagnostic reasoning as they relate to rare conditions. We present solutions currently available for clinicians to mitigate some of these problems, including facilitating deliberate reflection, utilizing a diagnostic management team, and optimizing diagnostic calibration. Finally, we speculate how technology, such as chatbots and decision support tools enhanced by artificial intelligence, may augment a clinician's ability to diagnose rare conditions in a timely and accurate manner without excessive resource use.

Background: Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) can be an important part of comprehensive care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, but this care is not provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) because of an exclusion in the medical benefits package.

Objective: To describe the receipt of GAS by veterans and assess the associations between key sociodemographic characteristics and receipt of chest ("top") and genital ("bottom") surgeries.

Design: Cross-sectional national survey (the GendeR Affirming Care Evaluation (GRACE)), among TGD Veterans conducted between September 2022 and July 2023.

Participants: A total of 6653 Veterans (54% response rate) completed the survey.

Main measures: Self-reported "top" and "bottom" GAS were key outcomes. Covariates included gender identity, sex assigned at birth, age, race, ethnicity, income, employment status, education, relationship status, sexual orientation, and geographic region.

Key results: Among all respondents, 39% had ≥ 1 GAS. Among the 4430 veterans interested in top surgery, 38% received it; 23% of 3911 veterans interested in bottom surgery had received it. In multivariable models, older age (50 + vs. 18-39) was associated with higher receipt of top and bottom surgery while nonbinary gender identity (vs. binary gender identity), lower household income (< $50,000 vs. > $75,000), less education (less than a college graduate vs. Master's degree or more), sexual orientations other than heterosexual, and residing in a region other than the Pacific were associated with lower receipt of top and bottom surgery. Individuals assigned male (vs. assigned female) at birth had lower receipt of top surgery and higher receipt of bottom surgery.

Conclusions: GAS receipt was low and there were important disparities by gender, sex, income, education, sexual orientation, and region. By removing the exclusion to providing GAS, VA could reduce barriers to accessing GAS and decrease disparities among TGD veterans.

Introduction: Although a well-established component of bone metabolism, the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of fractures in elderly healthy individuals is still unclear.

Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo and its contributions on fracture incidence.

Methods: This meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), under protocol CRD42023484979. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to November 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin D supplementation versus placebo in individuals with 60 years of age or more and without bone related medical conditions such as cancer and osteoporosis.

Results: Seven RCTs with 71,899 patients were included, of whom 36,822 (51.2%) were women. There was no significant difference in total fracture incidence (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.93-1.14; p = 0.56; I² = 58%) between groups or subgroups. However, women had an increased risk for hip fractures (164 vs. 121 events; RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.06-1.70; p = 0.01; I² = 0%). There was no significant difference in non-vertebral fractures, osteoporotic fractures development, or falls (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94-1.12; p = 0.6; I² = 47%; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.08; p = 0.63; I² = 0%; RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.04; p = 0.66; I² = 55%, respectively).

Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation does not reduce the total fracture development rate in the elderly healthy population, and it may increase the incidence of hip fractures among elderly healthy women. This finding suggests refraining from prescribing high intermittent doses of vitamin D, without calcium, to individuals aged 60 or older with unknown vitamin D serum concentration or osteoporosis status and inadequate calcium intake.

Introduction: Decisions to prescribe opioids to patients depend on many factors, including illness severity, pain assessment, and patient age, race, ethnicity, and gender. Gender and sex disparities have been documented in many healthcare settings, but are understudied in inpatient general medicine hospital settings.

Objective: We assessed for differences in opioid administration and prescription patterns by legal sex in adult patient hospitalizations from the general medicine service at a large urban academic center.

Designs, setting, and participants: This study included all adult patient hospitalizations discharged from the acute care inpatient general medicine services at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Helen Diller Medical Center at Parnassus Heights from 1/1/2013 to 9/30/2021.

Main outcome and measures: The primary outcomes were (1) average daily inpatient opioids received and (2) days of opioids prescribed on discharge. For both outcomes, we first performed logistic regression to assess differences in whether or not any opioids were administered or prescribed. Then, we performed negative binomial regression to assess differences in the amount of opioids given. We also performed all analyses on a subgroup of hospitalizations with pain-related diagnoses.

Results: Our study cohort included 48,745 hospitalizations involving 27,777 patients. Of these, 24,398 (50.1%) hospitalizations were female patients and 24,347 (49.9%) were male. Controlling for demographic, clinical, and hospitalization-level variables, female patients were less likely to receive inpatient opioids compared to male patents (adjusted OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.82, 0.92) and received 27.5 fewer morphine milligram equivalents per day on average (95% CI - 39.0, - 16.0). When considering discharge opioids, no significant differences were found between sexes. In the subgroup analysis of pain-related diagnoses, female patients received fewer inpatient opioids.

Conclusions: Female patients were less likely to receive inpatient opioids and received fewer opioids when prescribed. Future work to promote equity should identify strategies to ensure all patients receive adequate pain management.