Biomedical subjects

J Kutner

Publications and source records attributed to J Kutner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2000

Alternative/complementary medicine: wider usage than generally appreciated.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is substantial use of a practitioner of alternative/complementary medicine by patients traditionally considered to be underserved. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered survey study. SETTINGS: Three university hospital-affiliated general ambulatory clinics serving patients of different socioeconomic status and racial origin. SUBJECTS: Five hundred and thirty-six (93% of those attending) consecutive clinic attendees. OUTCOME MEASURES: Past use and desired future use of one or more practitioners of five modalities of alternative/complementary medicine and willingness to pay for these modalities out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Past usage and desired future usage of one or more practitioners of alternative/complementary medicine was comparable at the three clinic sites despite wide differences in socioeconomic status and willingness/ability to pay out-of-pocket for these services. Multivariable analyses revealed lower self-rated health status and female gender (both p < 0.006) but not income, race, age or education as independent, significant predictors of use of a practitioner of alternative/complementary medicine. CONCLUSION: Usage of alternative/complementary medicine is not confined to any well-circumscribed socioeconomic group and is common in patients often considered to be underserved. Self-assessed lower health status is significantly and independently associated with use of a practitioner of alternative/complementary care.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

Recognition of patient referral desires in an academic managed care plan frequency, determinants, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and determinants of provider nonrecognition of patients' desires for specialist referral. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Internal medicine clinic in an academic medical center providing primary care to patients enrolled in a managed care plan. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve faculty internists serving as primary care providers (PCPs) for 856 patient visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were given previsit and postvisit questionnaires asking about referral desire and visit satisfaction. Providers, blinded to patients' referral desire, were asked after the visit whether a referral was discussed, who initiated the referral discussion, and whether the referral was indicated. Providers failed to discuss referral with 27% of patients who indicated a definite desire for referral and with 56% of patients, who indicated a possible desire for referral. There was significant variability in provider recognition of patient referral desire. Recognition is defined as the provider indicating that a referral was discussed when the patient marked a definite or possible desire for referral. Provider recognition improved significantly (P <.05), when the patient had more than one referral desire, if the patient or a family member was a health care worker and when the patient noted a definite desire versus a possible desire for referral. Patients were more likely (P <.05) to initiate a referral discussion when they had seen the PCP previously and had more than one referral desire. Of patient-initiated referral requests, 14% were considered "not indicated" by PCPs. Satisfaction with care did not differ in patients with a referral desire that were referred and those that were nor referred. CONCLUSIONS: These PCPs frequently failed to explicitly recognize patients' referral desires. Patients were more likely to initiate discussions of a referral desire when they saw their usual PCP and had more than a single referral desire.

Colorado↗

PubMed1997

Marginally effective medical care: ethical analysis of issues in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

Outcomes from cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain distressingly poor. Overuse of CPR is attributable to unrealistic expectations, unintended consequences of existing policies and failure to honour patient refusal of CPR. We analyzed the CPR outcomes literature using the bioethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice and developed a proposal for selective use of CPR. Beneficence supports use of CPR when most effective. Non-maleficence argues against performing CPR when the outcomes are harmful or usage inappropriate. Additionally, policies which usurp good clinical judgment and moral responsibility, thereby contributing to inappropriate CPR usage, should be considered maleficent. Autonomy restricts CPR use when refused but cannot create a right to CPR. Justice requires that we define which medical interventions contribute sufficiently to health and happiness that they should be made universally available. This ordering is necessary whether one believes in the utilitarian standard or wishes medical care to be universally available on fairness grounds. Low-yield CPR fails justice criteria. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be performed when justified by the extensive outcomes literature; not performed when not desired by the patient or not indicated; and performed infrequently when relatively contraindicated.

Beneficence↗