<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_416"
                     title="For Diabetes, P4P Improves Patient Care, Outcomes (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/tb/18328?impressionId=1265801435985"
                     
      &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_464"
                     title="COLUMN: &apos;Meaningful Use&apos; -- You Can Do This!"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Columns/18394?impressionId=1265801435985"
                     
      &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_425"
                     title="AAN: Industrial Cleaner Again Tied to Parkinson Risk (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAN/tb/18338?impressionId=1265801435985"
                     
      TORONTO  --  The degreasing agent trichloroethylene (TCE) has been linked to increased rates of Parkinson&apos;s disease among industrial workers in yet another study, this time involving a large, well-studied group of World War II veterans.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Parkinson&apos;s disease developed in individuals with occupational exposure to TCE at more than five times the rate seen in those without such exposure (odds ratio 5.5, 95% CI 1.02 to 30), reported Samuel Goldman, MD, of the Parkinson&apos;s Institute in Sunnyvale, Calif.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Goldman described the research in a phone interview with &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. It&apos;s scheduled for presentation here in April at the American Academy of Neurology&apos;s annual meeting.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;A previous study in 2008 had fingered TCE as the most likely culprit behind a cluster of Parkinson&apos;s disease cases afflicting workers at a single industrial plant. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/ParkinsonsDisease/7894&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/ParkinsonsDisease/7894&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Trichloroethylene Implicated as Risk for Parkinsonism&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, Goldman said, animal studies have found that TCE is selectively toxic to nigral dopaminergic neurons, the same type of nerve cell that progressively dies off in Parkinson&apos;s disease. He said the chemical&apos;s activity in rodent brains is very similar to that of MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), a dopaminergic neurotoxin commonly used to simulate Parkinson&apos;s disease in preclinical research.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Goldman said the new study was the first population-based analysis to link TCE to the disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It focused on 198 twin pairs in the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council&apos;s World War II Twins Cohort, which comprises some 16,000 twin pairs overall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Members of the all-male cohort, who were born from 1917 to 1927 and served in the war, have been followed since the 1960s. Occupational histories for participants are available along with medical records from the VA healthcare system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In those pairs chosen for the current study, records showed that one twin had developed Parkinson&apos;s disease and the other had not. This design largely eliminates genetics as a confounding factor in the analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Goldman explained that occupational histories for each participant were reviewed by a blinded industrial hygienist and a preventive medicine physician to identify likely exposures to TCE and four other industrial chemicals: xylene, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, and tetrachloroethylene.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a single source of exposure, only TCE was significantly associated with development of Parkinson&apos;s disease, Goldman said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;People working as aircraft mechanics, machinists, plumbers, and electricians likely had regular exposure to TCE, Goldman said. The chemical was commonly used as a &quot;spot&quot; cleaner to remove grease and oils from metal surfaces. It was also used for a time as a dry cleaning solvent, although tetrachloroethylene was more common for that purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Goldman said no increased risk was seen with xylene or toluene, but there were near-significant trends toward increased Parkinson&apos;s disease risk from carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Carbon tetrachloride: OR 2.8 (95% CI 0.97 to 7.8)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Tetrachloroethylene: OR 9.0 (95% CI 0.78 to 103)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Twins exposed to either TCE or tetrachloroethylene were at significantly increased risk, with an odds ratio of 8.1 (95% CI 1.43 to 43) relative to individuals with no exposure to either chemical.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Goldman said the analysis also examined whether duration of exposure was associated with increased risk. He said the results were in the same pattern as for the yes-no exposure analysis, but the findings were very uncertain because of the relatively small sample size.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Occupational histories were available for only 99 of the 198 discordant twin pairs and some of the information was obtained by proxy rather than from the participant himself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because of the wide confidence intervals even for the yes-no exposure analysis, the findings need confirmation in a larger study, he said, noting that the best approach would be a cohort study involving people with known, long-term exposure to TCE, compared with well-chosen controls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The study wouldn&apos;t have to be large,&quot; Goldman said. He estimated that 1,000 to 2,000 participants would be adequate to determine if the connection to Parkinson&apos;s disease is real.&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 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the Valley Foundation, and the James and Sharron Clark Family Fund.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No 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_377"
                     title="Advisory Panel Rates Genomic Cancer Tests"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/tb/18269?impressionId=1265801435985"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Some genomic tests aimed at identifying patients most likely to respond to cancer drugs won a thumbs-up from a Medicare advisory panel, but others didn&apos;t make the grade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of a national coverage determination under way at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, members of the Medicare Evidence Development &amp;amp; Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) last week rated the clinical value of several pharmacogenomic cancer tests now available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tests would be used to select patients for treatment with drugs including tamoxifen, irinotecan (Camptosar), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and imatinib (Gleevec).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not previously decided whether such tests should be reimbursed by Medicare, although testing is already routine for some of these treatments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA-approved labeling for trastuzumab requires such testing. Imatinib&apos;s approvals include chronic myeloid leukemia featuring the BCR-ABL &quot;Philadelphia chromosome&quot; mutation, although the label doesn&apos;t explicitly mention testing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;CMS is aware that the body of evidence on the role of pharmacogenomic testing in cancer continues to evolve,&quot; according to the agency&apos;s notice of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Recognizing the rapid accumulation of such evidence, CMS seeks guidance from the panel to inform future coverage determinations. We want to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to any demonstrated improved health outcomes of pharmacogenomic testing, and are protected from inaccurate or inappropriate pharmacogenomic testing that could compromise therapy or increase the risks of adverse events during therapy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MEDCAC panelists were asked to rate their confidence in the clinical utility of five tests and in the scientific evidence available for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The five tests cover: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the CYP2D6 drug-metabolizing enzyme for breast cancer patients who are candidates for tamoxifen&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the UGT1A1 gene for colon cancer patients considered for irinotecan treatment&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of HER/neu epidermal growth factor receptor expression in patients with breast cancer, indicating suitability for trastuzumab&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of the BCR-ABL mutation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who would be candidates for imatinib&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Mutations in the K-ras gene for metastatic colorectal cancer patients eligible for cetuximab (Erbitux) or panitumumab (Vectibix)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 15 panel members assigned values of one to five, reflecting low to high confidence, to each test. A score of two reflected medium-low confidence, while a four meant medium-high confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most of the panelists agreed that the evidence underlying the tests for CYP2D6 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms was still too scant for an assessment of their clinical value. Mean scores for these tests were 2.07 and 1.83, respectively, with nearly all votes either a one or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But MEDCAC members were more confident that the usefulness of the other three tests for diagnostic and monitoring purposes could be evaluated. Mean scores for those tests were all well above four.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the HER/neu, BCR-ABL, and K-ras tests, since members believed the evidence was adequate for assessment, MEDCAC also voted on whether their use actually would improve health outcomes in cancer patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A third ranking provided the committee&apos;s views on whether the conclusions could be generalized to the Medicare population and patients in the community.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean scores for those rankings were all also above four, indicating the panel&apos;s support for these tests as clinically beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when asked whether there was enough evidence to assess the utility of the BCR-ABL test in detecting treatment failure, panelists didn&apos;t think so. Most of those votes were twos, and the mean was 2.47.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not given a time line for deciding whether to approve Medicare coverage for the tests.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_422"
                     title="Nurses Often Silent About Workplace Violence (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HospitalBasedMedicine/WorkForce/tb/18335?impressionId=1265801435985"
                     
      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>
</recommendedContent>