PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Rita Engelhardt

Publications and source records attributed to Rita Engelhardt.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Predictors of clinical outcome in children undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation for acute and chronic liver disease.

The current United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy is to allocate liver grafts to pediatric patients with chronic liver disease based on the pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) scoring system, while children with fulminant hepatic failure may be urgently listed as Status 1a. The objective of this study was to identify pre-transplant variables that influence patient and graft survival in those children undergoing LTx (liver transplantion) for FHF (fulminant hepatic failure) compared to those patients transplanted for extrahepatic biliary atresia (EHBA), a chronic form of liver disease. The UNOS Liver Transplant Registry was examined for pediatric liver transplants performed for FHF and EHBA from 1987 to 2002. Variables that influenced patient and graft survival were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis of FHF and EHBA groups revealed that 5 year patient and graft survival were both significantly worse (P < 0.0001) in those patients who underwent transplantation for FHF. Multivariate analysis of 29 variables subsequently revealed distinct sets of factors that influenced patient and graft survival for both FHF and EHBA. These results confirm that separate prioritizing systems for LTx are needed for children with chronic liver disease and FHF; additionally, our findings illustrate that there are unique sets of variables which predict survival following LTx for these two groups.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Views of practicing dentists regarding a mandatory fifth year of training.

As part of a U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration-funded evaluation of the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentistry programs, a random sample of 6,725 dentists graduating in 1989, 1993, and 1997 were surveyed regarding practice patterns, advanced training, populations served, services provided, and their position on a mandatory fifth year of training. Responses (1,965) showed 48 percent supporting a mandatory year and 52 percent not supportive. Open-ended comments were provided by 1,626 respondents. The main reasons for supporting a mandatory fifth year were the need for more instructional time and need for a transition year. Individual choice, no value in a fifth year of dental school, mentoring available elsewhere, and cost were cited in opposition. The following respondents were significantly more likely than other respondents to support a mandatory fifth year: individuals who had completed an AEGD, GPR, or specialty program; were Asian; held salaried positions in a community clinic, nursing home, or hospital; or described themselves as a consultant. Graduates in 1993 and 1997 were less supportive of a mandatory fifth year than were 1989 graduates. Significant differences in the reasons offered in support of respondents' positions on the issue were observed among AEGD, GPR, specialists, and nonspecialists and the three cohort years.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

Analysis of federal support for postgraduate general dentistry.

We compared the funding granted by the federal government between 1985 and 1997 to stimulate the growth of AEGD and GPR programs across HRSA regions, states, and populations. Information regarding the number, size, and location of programs available during the time period of 1985 to 1997 was collected. During this period, although the number of programs remained constant, the composition of the programs changed, with AEGD programs increasing by 113 percent and GPR programs decreasing by 13 percent. HRSA Regions 2, 3, and 5 combined offered over 50 percent of all programs. The number of residency positions rose by 28 percent in civilian programs and dropped by 11 percent in Veterans and Military (VA/M) positions. Overall growth in AEGD positions increased 208 percent, while the civilian GPR positions remained constant and the number of VA/M GPR positions dropped by 30 percent. A higher percentage increase in programs occurred in cities of greater than 500,000 population than in less densely populated areas. HRSA spent dollar 41,254,501 in the thirteen-year time frame, and funding by region varied by over a hundredfold. Programs in the least dense population groups were often the least funded. There was great variability in the amount of HRSA money received by state, with fifteen states receiving no funding during the thirteen years. Without HRSA dollars, it is apparent that the postgraduate general dental training program would not have gained the vitality it currently offers. However, attention must be paid to developing programs among states with a lack of infrastructure in dental education and training.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Military and VA general dentistry training: a national resource.

In 1999, HRSA contracted with the UCLA School of Dentistry to evaluate the postgraduate general dentistry (PDG) training programs. The purpose of this article is to compare the program characteristics of the PGD training programs sponsored by the Armed Services (military) and VA. Surveys mailed to sixty-six VA and forty-two military program directors in fall 2000 sought information regarding the infrastructure of the program, the program emphasis, resident preparation prior to entering the program, and a description of patients served and types of services provided. Of the eighty-one returned surveys (75 percent response rate), thirty were received from military program directors and fifty-one were received from VA program directors. AEGDs reported treating a higher proportion of children patients and GPRs more medically intensive, disadvantaged and HIV/AIDS patients. Over half of the directors reported increases in curriculum emphasis in implantology. The program directors reported a high level of inadequate preparation among incoming dental residents. Having a higher ratio of residents to total number of faculty predicted inadequate preparation (p=.022) although the model was weak. Although HRSA doesn't financially support federally sponsored programs, their goal of improved dental training to care for medically compromised individuals is facilitated through these programs, thus making military and VA general dentistry programs a national resource.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Characteristics of civilian postdoctoral general dentistry programs.

U.S. civilian (non-VA/non-military) Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and General Practice Residency (GPR) programs were identified (n=208) and surveyed. The assessment evaluated infrastructure support, populations served, services provided, and trainee stipends. One hundred thirty-one programs responded (thirty-two AEGD, 64 percent/ninety-nine GPR, 63 percent). Sixty-nine programs were HRSA-funded (53 percent), and sixty-three (47 percent) were nonfunded. One hundred and five responses identified hospital/medical center resources; fifty-six indicated dental school support. Mean faculty support was similar regardless of program type or HRSA funding. Mean first-year positions in AEGDs were greater than GPRs. Mean first-year GPR positions were greater in funded than in nonfunded programs. A comparison of AEGD and GPR programs showed that residents in GPRs treated more children, medically intensive, economically/socially disadvantaged, and in-patient/same-day surgery patients (p<0.05). Residents in AEGDs treated more healthy adults (p<0.05). GPRs treated more lower fee (no pay, Medicaid, welfare/general relief, Medicare, and capitation/HMO) patients. AEGDs treated more insurance/private pay patients (p=.0001). No differences existed in comprehensive care and emergency visits between AEGDs and GPRs. GPRs treated more hospital-based patients. The mean stipends for GPRs ($32,055) and AEGDs ($22,403) were different.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

PGD training and its impact on general dentist practice patterns.

This study compares the practice patterns of general dentists with and without formal advanced training in AGED or GPR programs. The UCLA School of Dentistry surveyed a random selection of dentists from graduating years 1989, 1993, and 1997 as part of a Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA)-supported evaluation of the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentistry (PGD) programs. Using a sample drawn by the American Dental Association (ADA), 6,725 dentists were surveyed about their practice, advanced training, patients served, and services provided. Of the 2,029 dentists (30 percent) who responded, 49 percent were practicing dentists with no formal advanced training in general dentistry or one of the eight ADA specialties; 7 percent had Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) experience; 20 percent trained in a General Practice Residency (GPR); and 24 percent were specialists. Additionally, 7 percent of respondents had PGD training and a clinical specialty. GPR-trained dentists were significantly more likely to be on a hospital staff and to treat medically compromised patients even after ten years of practice. PGD dentists were less likely to seek specialty training. Major reasons for seeking PGD training were increasing treatment speed, learning to treat medically compromised patients, and wanting hospital experience. Primary reasons for not selecting training were starting a practice and having a great practice opportunity. Our conclusion is that PGD training has an enduring impact on practice patterns and improves access to dental care for underserved populations.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2002

Gender differences in career and practice patterns of PGD-trained dentists.

This study compares differences by gender in the practice patterns and professional activities of general dentists, specialists, and dentists with Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) or General Practice Residency (GPR) training. The UCLA School of Dentistry surveyed a random sample of 6,725 dentists graduating from dental school in 1989, 1993, and 1997 as part of an evaluation of the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentist (PGD) programs. The survey asked about current practice, services referred and provided, and professional activities. Of the 2,029 dentists (30 percent) who responded, 49 percent were general dentists with no specialty training; 7 percent had AEGD training; 20 percent had GPR training; and 24 percent had specialty training. General dentists were more likely to be in private practice (p < 0.05). AEGDs, specialists, and females were more likely to report faculty positions as a secondary occupation. General dentists were more likely to be practice owners than AEGD- or GPR-trained dentists. The mean number of patients seen was highest for specialists. Females reported fewer patients than males, and this difference was significant for GPR-trained dentists. With respect to services, GPR-trained dentists reported significantly more biopsy procedures, conscious sedation, periodontal surgery, and implants than general dentists. AEGD-trained dentists reported more conscious sedation than general dentists. GPR dentists were more likely to volunteer time than general dentists without specialty training. PGD training appears to result in different types of employment and specific practice patterns that strengthen primary care dentistry. We further conclude that there are gender differences in the types of practice, patients seen, and services provided. These findings occur in addition to training differences.

Career Choice↗