Clinical Information Search
Search Results for "im_matters_articles"
- Online Learning Center (0)
- Policy Library (52)
- Performance Measures (0)
- Annals of Internal Medicine (430)
- Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (20)
- IM Matters (8)
- ACP Hospitalist (19)
- ACP Diabetes Monthly (3)
- ACP Gastroenterology Monthly (0)
Sorry, no results were found for "im_matters_articles" in Online Learning Center.
Sorry, no results were found for "im_matters_articles" in Performance Measures.
Displaying 121 - 130 of 430 in Annals of Internal Medicine
These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.
- Visit annals.org to search all content back to 1927.
- View Annals of Internal Medicine CME by topic here.
Synopsis of the 2017 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Description: In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature through June 2016, developed an algorithm, and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in 7 areas: patient-centered care and shared decision making, glycemic biomarkers, hemoglobin A1c target ranges, individualized treatment plans, outpatient pharmacologic treatment, glucose targets for critically ill patients, and treatment of hospitalized patients.
Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts
Background: Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted for managing low-risk prostate cancer, yet there is no consensus about implementation. This lack of consensus is due in part to uncertainty about risks for disease progression, which have not been systematically compared or integrated across AS studies with variable surveillance protocols and dropout to active treatment. Objective: To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS studies after accounting for differences in surveillance intervals and competing treatments and to evaluate tradeoffs of more versus less frequent biopsies. Design: Joint statistical model of longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and risks for biopsy upgrading. Setting: Johns Hopkins University (JHU); Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS); University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); and University of Toronto (UT) AS studies. Patients: 2576 men aged 40 to 80 years with a GS between 2 and 6 and clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer enrolled between 1995 and 2014. Measurements: PSA levels and biopsy GSs. Results: After variable surveillance intervals and competing treatments were accounted for, estimated risks for biopsy upgrading were similar in the PASS and UT studies but higher in UCSF and lower in JHU studies. All cohorts had a delay of 3 to 5 months in detecting upgrading with biennial biopsies starting after a first confirmatory biopsy versus annual biopsies. Limitation: The model does not account for possible misclassification of biopsy GS. Conclusion: Men in different AS studies have different risks for biopsy upgrading after variable surveillance protocols and competing treatments are accounted for. Despite these differences, the consequences of more versus less frequent biopsies seem to be similar across cohorts. Biennial biopsies seem to be an acceptable alternative to annual biopsies. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.
Age Differences in Hospital Mortality for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Hospital Profiling
Background: Publicly reported hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are calculated for Medicare beneficiaries. Outcomes for older patients with AMI may not reflect general outcomes. Objective: To examine the relationship between hospital 30-day RSMRs for older patients (aged ≥65 years) and those for younger patients (aged 18 to 64 years) and all patients (aged ≥18 years) with AMI. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 986 hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry—Get With the Guidelines. Participants: Adults hospitalized for AMI from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014. Measurements: Hospital 30-day RSMRs were calculated for older, younger, and all patients using an electronic health record measure of AMI mortality endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Hospitals were ranked by their 30-day RSMRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted. The correlation in hospital AMI achievement scores for each age group was also calculated using the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program method computed with the electronic health record measure. Results: 267 763 and 276 031 AMI hospitalizations among older and younger patients, respectively, were identified. Median hospital 30-day RSMRs were 9.4%, 3.0%, and 6.2% for older, younger, and all patients, respectively. Most top- and bottom-performing hospitals for older patients were neither top nor bottom performers for younger patients. In contrast, most top and bottom performers for older patients were also top and bottom performers for all patients. Similarly, HVBP achievement scores for older patients correlated weakly with those for younger patients (R = 0.30) and strongly with those for all patients (R = 0.92). Limitation: Minority of U.S. hospitals. Conclusion: Hospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients. Incorporation of younger patients into assessment of hospital outcomes would permit further examination of the presence and effect of age-related quality differences. Primary Funding Source: American College of Cardiology.
Pharmacist-Led Chronic Disease Management: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Harms Compared With Usual Care
Background: Increased involvement of pharmacists in patient care may increase access to health care and improve patient outcomes. Purpose: To determine the effectiveness and harms of pharmacist-led chronic disease management for community-dwelling adults. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1995 through February 2016, and reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies. Study Selection: 65 patient populations in 63 studies conducted in the United States of any design reported outcomes of pharmacist-led chronic disease management versus a comparator for community-dwelling adults in the United States. Studies set in retail pharmacies were excluded. Data Extraction: Data extraction done by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; risk of bias was assessed by 2 investigators; and strength of evidence was determined by consensus. Data Synthesis: Pharmacist-led care was associated with similar numbers of office visits, urgent care or emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (moderate-strength evidence) and medication adherence (low-strength evidence) compared with usual care (typically continuing a prestudy visit schedule). Pharmacist-led care increased the number or dose of medications received and improved study-selected glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid goal attainment (moderate-strength evidence). Mortality and clinical events were similar (low-strength evidence). Evidence on patient satisfaction was mixed and insufficient. The reporting of harms was limited. Limitations: Interventions were heterogeneous. Studies were typically short-term and designed to assess physiologic intermediate outcomes rather than clinical events. Reporting of many clinical outcomes of interest was limited, and often they were not the study-defined primary end points. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led chronic disease management was associated with effects similar to those of usual care for resource utilization and may improve physiologic goal attainment. Further research is needed to determine whether increased medication utilization and goal attainment improve clinical outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.