<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_464"
                     title="COLUMN: &apos;Meaningful Use&apos; -- You Can Do This!"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Columns/18394?impressionId=1265760949011"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Certified EHR technology used in a meaningful way is one piece of a broader Health Information Technology (HIT in techie jargon) infrastructure intended to reform the healthcare system and improve healthcare quality, efficiency, and patient safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under the HITECH Act, the Medicare EHR incentive programs provide payments up to $44,000 over five years to eligible professionals who are &quot;meaningful&quot; users of certified electronic health records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Medicaid EHR program provides even bigger incentives  --  up to $63,750 over five years to practices with a 30% or higher Medicaid population for efforts to adopt, implement, or upgrade certified EHR technology or for meaningful use in the first year and up to another five years. (Pediatricians need only a 20% Medicaid patient volume to qualify.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The stimulus dollars have gotten our attention, especially in light of the eventual cuts to reimbursement scheduled to take effect in 2015 and beyond for those who don&apos;t use EHR technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On Jan. 13, 2010 two rules were published defining the certification criteria and the criteria for meaningful use of electronic health records. (The rules are available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html&lt;/a&gt;.) A forthcoming rule will establish an EHR certification program. With the EHR vendors offering stimulus guarantees, the EHR certification program seems less of a concern.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS proposed three stages of &quot;meaningful use&quot; criteria over the initial years of the program given the ongoing advancement in EHR technology and standards, as well as changes in quality measurement and other healthcare-related reporting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The focus in Meaningful Use Stage 1 is on the capture of health information in coded format and: 
&lt;ul&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;The use of it to track key clinical conditions&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;The communication of coded health information for care coordination purposes&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;Initial reporting of clinical quality measures and public health information&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The good news is that all results for all measures to be reported to CMS (for Medicare) or to the states (for Medicaid) will be done through attestation for the year 2011. In 2012, we&apos;ll be running all reports through certified EHR technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attestation can be achieved &quot;through a secure mechanism, such as through claims-based reporting or an online portal.&quot; But providers will still be required to &quot;use certified EHR technology to capture the data elements and calculate the results for the applicable clinical quality measures,&quot; the CMS rule said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Practices that have already implemented an EHR must ensure that their software is appropriately certified and that their clinicians are fulfilling all of the meaningful-use requirements to qualify for the incentives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, you have just about two years to implement, iterate, rehearse, pilot, and test your own implementation against the meaningful use criteria.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The initial criteria are presented in health outcomes policy priorities with associated care goals. Here are just six of the 25 criteria for Stage 1 Meaningful Use:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Improving quality, safety, efficiency, and reducing health disparities.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Provide access to comprehensive patient health data for patient&apos;s healthcare team&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Use evidence-based order sets and CPOE&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Apply clinical decision support at the point of care&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Generate lists of patients who need care and use them to reach out to patients&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Report information for quality improvement and public reporting&lt;br&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Engage patients and families in their healthcare.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Provide patients and families with timely access to data, knowledge, and tools to make informed decisions and to manage their health.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Improve care coordination.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Exchange meaningful clinical information among professional healthcare team.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Improve care coordination.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Exchange meaningful clinical information among professional healthcare team.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Improve population and public health.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Communicate with public health agencies.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Health Outcomes Policy Priority:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Ensure adequate privacy and security protections for personal health information.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Care Goals:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Ensure privacy and security protections for confidential information through operating policies, procedures, and technologies and compliance with applicable law&lt;br&gt;
&amp;bull; Provide transparency of data sharing to patient&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Each of the Care Goals has defined objectives with specific measures that must be achieved to demonstrate meaningful use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Following are examples of some of the objectives and what you&apos;ll have to do to meet each.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Maintain up-to-date problem list in ICD-9-CM or SNOMED-CT.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; 80% for unique patients.&lt;br&gt;
This objective will enable the user to manage problem lists that span multiple visits. If you&apos;ve been billing electronically, you&apos;ve already been capturing problems in ICD-9-CM format.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Generate and transmit prescriptions electronically.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; Transmit 75% of noncontrolled drug prescriptions electronically.&lt;br&gt;
Did you hop on the e-prescribing incentives? You&apos;re ahead of this one! If not, you&apos;ll need to enable e-prescribing.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Drug screening.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; Drug screening is enabled.&lt;br&gt;
Another easy objective to meet if you&apos;ve already implemented e-prescribing. If not, you&apos;ll need to be sure your system provides real-time alerts for drug-drug interactions and drug allergy contraindications, has an electronic formulary check, maintains drug-drug and drug-allergy warnings, and tracks the number of alerts that were responded to.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Maintain active medication list.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; 80% for unique patients.&lt;br&gt;
You&apos;ve been doing this too with your e-prescribing implementation. The system must be able to manage an active medication list and a medication history that spans multiple visits.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Record demographics.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; 80% for unique patients, including ALL data elements. Denominator is the number of patients seen.&lt;br&gt;
For each of your patients you should be aware of gender, race, ethnicity, date of birth, preferred language, and insurance type. You&apos;ll probably need to add fields for &quot;race&quot; and &quot;ethnicity&quot; to supplement the demographics you&apos;re already collecting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective:&lt;/strong&gt; Record vital signs.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Measure:&lt;/strong&gt; 80% of patients seen age 2 and over, including ALL data elements. Denominator is total of unique patients age 2 and over seen.&lt;br&gt;
Your system must allow you to record height, weight, and blood pressure, calculate and display BMI, and plot and display growth charts for patients 2 to 20 years old, including BMI. If your system doesn&apos;t calculate BMI, ask your vendor when that will be updated in a release to your software.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;With the specific criteria objectives and measures such as these in hand you can implement the EHR and achieve meaningful use, improved healthcare quality and efficiency in operations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It will take work, but it can be done!&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_422"
                     title="Nurses Often Silent About Workplace Violence (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HospitalBasedMedicine/WorkForce/tb/18335?impressionId=1265760949011"
                     
      The physical and verbal abuse nurses face on the job often goes unreported, according to an Australian survey.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Over the prior year, 52% of nurses in one community hospital said they had been physically assaulted and 69% reported being threatened with violence, according to Rose Chapman, PhD, of the University of Western Australia in Perth, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Verbal abuse was almost universal, being reported by 92% of respondents, the researchers wrote in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Nursing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, only half mentioned the incidents to senior staff or co-workers, and just 16% filed an official report.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;The reasons for not reporting are many and may include lack of time and management support and the belief that being attacked is &apos;just part of the job,&apos;&quot; they wrote.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The same is true in the U.S., where assaults and under-reporting appear just as common as suggested in the Australian survey, commented Kathleen M. McPhaul, PhD, RN, MPH, of the University of Maryland School of Nursing in Baltimore, who has been involved in such research in the U.S.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;A culture change would likely be needed to make a real difference for nurses, Chapman&apos;s group suggested.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hospitals would have to ensure that nurses have necessary support, education, encouragement, and time to complete official reports. Nurses who report abuse should get positive feedback from all levels of nursing, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If administrators and governments are serious in their intention to reduce workplace violence and provide staff with safe work environments, they should be seen to act on all reported [incidents],&quot; which is rare today, Chapman&apos;s group wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, currently there&apos;s no strong lever or incentive to address this kind of workplace abuse since hospitals focus mainly on patient safety as part of accreditation, and national and state workplace safety organizations have little mechanism for monitoring such incidents, McPhaul noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers&apos; survey was intended to reach all 332 nurses working at one nontertiary hospital across all departments  --  emergency, medical, surgical, maternity, pediatric, and mental health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 113 nurses who responded were mainly women in their early 40s who worked part time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among them, about three-quarters reported at least one incident of workplace violence over the preceding 12 months  --  25% said it occurred weekly, 27% said monthly, and for 25% it was rarer, at once every six months. &lt;ul&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fully 30% of the nurses said they had been involved in an episode involving a weapon  --  often hospital equipment and more rarely a knife or gun.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of total incidents was lowest among nurse midwives, with a mean of 1.67 per year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, the rate was highest among emergency department and mental health staff, who reported an average of 46.43 and 40.39 episodes over 12 months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One reason behind the high risk in these two departments may be the &quot;shift to a community-based approach to mental health care and a reduction in mental health beds&quot; such that the same psychiatric patients that assault mental health department nurses are mainstreamed to the emergency department as their point of entry to the hospital, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, more years of experience or higher educational qualification didn&apos;t appear to protect nurses. Senior nurse unit managers and clinical nurse specialists actually reported more physical assaults than less senior nurses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Age and gender didn&apos;t predict occurrence or type of incident either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When nurses did report workplace violence or verbal abuse, it was most often to their immediate manager (29%), other senior nursing staff (14.5%), or to their friends and colleagues (6%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, 30% of nurses who responded to the survey gave as their reason for not reporting that workplace violence happens all the time and is simply part of the job.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even among those who did make a report of some sort, half said they thought hospital management failed to act on it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, when the researchers audited hospital records, they found that 42 official incident reports had been filed by nurses over the prior one year period, nearly always involving injuries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 95% of the cases, the only action taken by the hospital was making staff in the area aware of the incident. No other actions had been documented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the voluntary nature and limited scope of the study may have limited generalizability, although the occurrence of violence against nurses is likely similar across developed countries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers provided no information on conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;McPhaul reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_416"
                     title="For Diabetes, P4P Improves Patient Care, Outcomes (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/tb/18328?impressionId=1265760949011"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Measures of quality of care and clinical outcomes improved significantly when diabetic patients in a large private health plan were treated by physicians receiving pay-for-performance incentives, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The risk that diabetic patients would be hospitalized was 25% lower (incidence rate ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93) among those seen for three consecutive years by physicians who received extra pay for meeting quality-of-care targets, compared with the risk for patients whose physicians did not receive such incentives, reported Judy Ying Chen, MD, MSHS, of IMS Health in Woodland Hills, Calif., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;High-quality care  --  defined as receiving at least two tests for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and one for LDL cholesterol during a given year  --  was delivered 16% more often by physicians in the pay-for-performance system (rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22), the researchers also reported online in the &lt;em&gt;American Journal of Managed Care&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This study showed a robust, consistent, significant, and positive association between increased receipt of appropriate laboratory monitoring of A1c and LDL cholesterol levels and decreased hospitalization rates,&quot; Chen and colleagues declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the researchers also found that quality of care diminished when patients saw multiple primary care physicians during a given year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This finding supports the hypothesis that patients have better outcomes when they have a medical home,&quot; Chen and colleagues indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers examined records of diabetic patients enrolled with Hawaii Medical Services Association, a large preferred provider organization, from 1999 to 2006. The plan had about 19,600 such patients in 1999 and 32,365 in 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plan offered physicians in the network the opportunity to earn bonuses of 1.5% to 7.5% of their base fees for meeting care-quality targets including HbA1c and LDL cholesterol testing of diabetic patients. Bonuses ranged from $10,000 to $16,000 annually. Starting in 2001, physicians could earn an extra $6,000 if their adherence to care-quality processes improved over the previous year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bonuses were paid each year on the basis of administrative records for the previous year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proportion of diabetic patients seen by physicians in the pay-for-performance plan increased from 78.7% in 1999 to 94.6% in 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result of the bonus structure, Chen and colleagues observed, improvements in care quality lagged implementation of these incentives by a year or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most substantial improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes were seen among patients seen continuously by a physician participating in the pay-for-performance system from 2004 to 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with patients seen by physicians who chose not to participate in the system, those whose treatment was subject to the incentives were seen by primary care physicians and endocrinologists far more often: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Six to 10 outpatient visits in a year: odds ratio 2.16 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.33)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eleven or more outpatient visits in a year: OR 2.35 (95% CI 2.14 to 2.57)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Visit to an endocrinologist: OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.38 to 1.75)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among patients receiving quality care continuously from 2004 to 2006, the chance of being hospitalized in 2006 was reduced by 33% compared with patients whose care failed to meet the quality target at some point (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But patients who saw more than two different primary care physicians in 2006 had a dramatically increased rate of hospitalizations (RR 6.13, 95% CI 5.33 to 7.04).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chen and colleagues noted several limitations to the study, including the fact that it was conducted in a PPO setting and might not be generalizable to health maintenance organizations or other frameworks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also had no data for years before the program started, leaving open the possibility that physicians participating in the pay-for-performance program were those who were already following treatment guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study also included only one clinical outcome; effects on others such as hypoglycemic episodes, cardiovascular events, and meeting HbA1c targets were not measured and might have been different.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also acknowledged that the claims data underlying the study might not have been totally accurate, and they noted that it did not include other factors known to affect hospitalizations such as cardiovascular risk factors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the Hawaii Medical Service Association, the health plan that was the focus of the work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;IMS Health is a healthcare consulting firm that, among other services, advises health insurers on performance and quality programs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Several co-authors were employees of the Hawaii Medical Service Association, and officials of the group reviewed the manuscript before submission. But the authors declared that the association had no influence on the study design, analysis, or results reported. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_467"
                     title="FDA Unveils New Safety Plan for Medical Imaging"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/tb/18398?impressionId=1265760949011"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it wants to issue new safety requirements for manufacturers of computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic devices to reduce unnecessary radiation from medical imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA&apos;s plan focuses on three procedures with high radiation doses: CT, nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopy. These are the greatest contributors to total radiation exposure within the U.S. population, the FDA said. That&apos;s because they require much higher radiation doses than other radiographic procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays, and mammography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,&quot; Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA&apos;s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a prepared statement. &quot;The goal of FDA&apos;s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the three procedures have led to early diagnosis of disease, they expose patients to ionizing radiation that may increase lifetime cancer risk  --  although there is debate within the medical community about the extent of the danger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiologist Joseph Schoepf, MD, director of Cardiovascular Imaging at the Medical University of South Carolina, lauded the FDA&apos;s initiative and said it would restore the public&apos;s trust in imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is important to note, however, that an increase in cancer mortality [from radiation] has not been observed,&quot; he added. &quot;On the contrary, cancer mortality has dramatically decreased over the past decades, in step with increased utilization of medical imaging.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Archives of Internal Medicine &lt;/em&gt;recently published results from two studies indicating that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;CT&amp;#8200;Scans&amp;#8200;May&amp;#8200;Deliver&amp;#8200;Higher-than-Expected&amp;#8200;Radiation&amp;#8200;Doses&quot;&gt;CT scans deliver much higher doses of radiation &lt;/a&gt;than previously thought. The FDA has noted that a patient would have to get 400 standard chest X-rays to be exposed to the same level of radiation as just one CT abdomen scan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, the journal&apos;s editor, Rita Redberg, MD, wrote that the studies &quot;make us question if we have gotten carried away in our enthusiasm&quot; for CT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s becoming clear, she said, that the large doses of radiation from CT scans will lead to additional cancers, which must be taken into account when physicians consider CT for their patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By working with healthcare providers and other federal agencies, the FDA says it hopes to promote safer use of medical imaging and increase patient awareness of their radiation exposure. Part of that involves pushing providers to justify their radiation procedures and optimize the radiation dose in each one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Schoepf, who serves on several American College of Radiology committees that discuss the proper used of various imaging procedures, approved of the FDA&apos;s goal but cautioned against restrictions that would hinder clinicians.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is indeed a need for enhanced transparency, better patient education, more dialogue between patients and their healthcare providers, and increased involvement of the patient in the decision process leading up to an imaging study,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;&quot;What is often forgotten in this discussion is that serious injury or death, resulting from missing a potentially life-threatening diagnosis if no imaging is performed, is a much greater, more imminent, and very real risk.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its statement, the FDA said it wants to boost efforts to develop at least one national registry of radiation doses that will capture information from a variety of imaging studies that can be used to establish benchmarks for healthcare facilities to use with patients.&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Donald Frush, MD, a radiologist at Duke Medical Center and expert in CT radiation doses in children, said that radiation doses for CT examination vary widely, depending on the size of the patient and the body area scanned, among other things.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;However, sometimes this variation is not necessary, and the dose may be excessive,&quot; Frush said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The ACR launched a similar registry about a year ago, according to spokesman Shawn Farley. The database is intended as a guide so a radiologist can quickly see how levels of radiation delivered in other practices and hospitals compare to what he or she is delivering.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now that the FDA has come out in favor of doing that, we&apos;re hoping that will put a little more weight behind the process and make more facilities want to take part in this,&quot; Farley told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Schoepf noted that European governments already require a permanent record of radiation exposure for each patient.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;As a result, manufacturers of radiation equipment, most of whom sell their products in Europe, already have that capability, he said. So it shouldn&apos;t be difficult to implement the same standard in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Radiation exposure should be no secret,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;The FDA will hold a public meeting March 30 and 31 to hear comments on what types of safety requirements to establish for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices. Requirements might include: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;That the radiation device display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Alerting users when the dose exceeds the optimal dose for most patients&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Increased training for users&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ability to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient&apos;s electronic medical record in addition to national dose registries &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_466"
                     title="Surgery Trumps Lifestyle Change for Teen Weight Loss (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Obesity/tb/18397?impressionId=1265760949011"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Gastric banding resulted in significantly greater weight loss in obese teens than an intensive lifestyle modification program, a randomized trial showed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the two-year study, 84% of patients in the surgery group lost at least half of their excess weight, compared with 12% who underwent the lifestyle intervention (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001), according to Paul O&apos;Brien, MD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;None of the teens who had surgery had metabolic syndrome at the end of follow-up, compared with 22% in the control group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.025), the researchers reported in the Feb. 10 issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Medical Association&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the improvements were substantial, O&apos;Brien and his colleagues stressed that &quot;the gastric banding approach to weight loss is not a quick fix.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;For optimal effectiveness,&quot; they wrote, &quot;it requires long-term supportive follow-up by trained health professionals.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also noted that the study demonstrates that lifestyle interventions can be effective for some teens and should remain the first option.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Surgeons contacted for comment on the study unanimously touted the results as evidence that bariatric surgery can be a safe and effective means of weight loss for obese adolescents, a topic that remains controversial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J. Christopher Eagon, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, noted in an e-mail that the significance of the study lies in the fact that participants were randomized between surgery and medical management of weight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This helps to eliminate biases that may have been present in other studies of the effectiveness of bariatric surgery and should make the case for the benefits of surgery more compelling,&quot; Eagon wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are more than five million obese adolescents in the U.S., according to O&apos;Brien and his colleagues, and obesity-related complications, once rare in pediatric populations, are becoming more common.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of the generally disappointing results of lifestyle programs aimed at improving diet, increasing exercise, and modifying unhealthy behaviors, bariatric surgery, widely used in adults, has been explored as a strategy for reducing weight in these patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But no randomized trials of bariatric surgery had been conducted in adolescents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So O&apos;Brien&apos;s group randomized 50 obese teens ages 14 to 18 (mean 16.5) to laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding or an intensive, supervised lifestyle modification program.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The participants all had a body mass index of at least 35 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and had obesity-related complications, such as hypertension, metabolic syndrome, asthma, back pain, physical limitations, and psychosocial difficulties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All had previously failed to lose weight through lifestyle changes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before the study began, prospective participants attended a two-month program teaching them about healthy eating and the importance of physical activity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those randomized to the lifestyle intervention were on a diet of 800 to 2,000 calories a day, and were instructed to increase activity and decrease sedentary behavior at regular visits with a physician, dietitian, exercise coordinator, nurse, and sports medicine physician. The program included six weeks with a personal trainer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Teens in the surgery group were given instructions on correct eating and exercising at regular visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Through two years, all but one of the teens in the surgery group completed the study; 18 of 25 in the lifestyle group completed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The mean weight loss was significantly greater in the surgery group (76.3 pounds versus 6.6), which equated to a significantly greater percentage of excess weight lost (78.8% versus 13.2%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The mean decrease in BMI was 12.7 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; in the surgery group and 1.3 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; in the lifestyle modification group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All differences were significant at &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Insulin sensitivity improved in both groups, but to a larger extent in the surgery group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Quality of life was also improved in the surgery group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, adverse events occurred at similar rates in the surgery (48%) and lifestyle modification (44%) groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There were no perioperative adverse events in the surgery group, but seven patients required revisional procedures during follow-up, for proximal pouch dilatation or tubing injury.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers said eating small meals slowly is an important way to avoid these problems.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, Edward Livingston, MD, a surgeon at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said the high rate of revisional procedures is significant because the study authors &quot;are among the most experienced group in the world with these operations, suggesting that these complication rates will probably be higher in actual community practice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Added Jonathan Schoen, MD, a bariatric surgeon at the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver, in an e-mail: &quot;One thing to keep in mind is that the results they get in Australia with the band are the best in the world and are not uniformly reproducible.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to the uncertain generalizability to other settings, the researchers said the study may be limited by its length, which may not be long enough to assess outcomes from the surgery over time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The laparoscopic adjustable gastric bands used in the study were provided by the manufacturer, Allergan. The Center for Obesity Research and Education receives an unrestricted research support grant from Allergan.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;O&apos;Brien did not make any financial disclosures. One of his co-authors reported having relationships with Allergan, Bariatric Advantage, Scientific Intake, SP Health Co., Optifast, Abbott Australasia, Eli Lilly Australia, Merck Sharp &amp;amp; Dohme Australia, Nestle Australia, and Roche Products Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Livingston did not make any financial disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>