PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Robert H Fletcher

Publications and source records attributed to Robert H Fletcher.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed2006

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Patients with resected colorectal cancer are at risk for recurrent cancer and metachronous neoplasms in the colon. This joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer addresses only the use of endoscopy in the surveillance of these patients. Patients with endoscopically resected Stage I colorectal cancer, surgically resected Stages II and III cancers, and Stage IV cancer resected for cure (isolated hepatic or pulmonary metastasis) are candidates for endoscopic surveillance. The colorectum should be carefully cleared of synchronous neoplasia in the perioperative period. In nonobstructed colons, colonoscopy should be performed preoperatively. In obstructed colons, double-contrast barium enema or computed tomography colonography should be performed preoperatively, and colonoscopy should be performed 3 to 6 months after surgery. These steps complete the process of clearing synchronous disease. After clearing for synchronous disease, another colonoscopy should be performed in 1 year to look for metachronous lesions. This recommendation is based on reports of a high incidence of apparently metachronous second cancers in the first 2 years after resection. If the examination at 1 year is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 3 years. If that examination is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 5 years. Shorter intervals may be indicated by associated adenoma findings (see "Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society"). Shorter intervals also are indicated if the patient's age, family history, or tumor testing indicate definite or probable hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing low anterior resection of rectal cancer generally have higher rates of local cancer recurrence compared with those with colon cancer. Although effectiveness is not proven, performance of endoscopic ultrasound or flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3- to 6-month intervals for the first 2 years after resection can be considered for the purpose of detecting a surgically curable recurrence of the original rectal cancer.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2005

Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care.

BACKGROUND: Physicians with more experience are generally believed to have accumulated knowledge and skills during years in practice and therefore to deliver high-quality care. However, evidence suggests that there is an inverse relationship between the number of years that a physician has been in practice and the quality of care that the physician provides. PURPOSE: To systematically review studies relating medical knowledge and health care quality to years in practice and physician age. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE from 1966 to June 2004 and reference lists of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that provided empirical results about knowledge or a quality-of-care outcome and included years since graduation or physician age as explanatory variables. DATA EXTRACTION: We categorized studies on the basis of the nature of the association between years in practice or age and performance. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 32 of the 62 (52%) evaluations reported decreasing performance with increasing years in practice for all outcomes assessed; 13 (21%) reported decreasing performance with increasing experience for some outcomes but no association for others; 2 (3%) reported that performance initially increased with increasing experience, peaked, and then decreased (concave relationship); 13 (21%) reported no association; 1 (2%) reported increasing performance with increasing years in practice for some outcomes but no association for others; and 1 (2%) reported increasing performance with increasing years in practice for all outcomes. Results did not change substantially when the analysis was restricted to studies that used the most objective outcome measures. LIMITATIONS: Because of the lack of reliable search terms for physician experience, reports that provided relevant data may have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who have been in practice longer may be at risk for providing lower-quality care. Therefore, this subgroup of physicians may need quality improvement interventions.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2005

Teaching care management in a longitudinal primary care clerkship.

BACKGROUND: Harvard Medical School developed a longitudinal primary care clerkship as an opportunity to teach 7 themes of modern medicine: care over time, evidence-based medicine, prevention, uncertainty, cost effectiveness, teamwork, and shared decision making. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the longitudinal experience. METHODS: Students followed 1 patient throughout a 9-month clerkship and integrated the 7 themes into their management plans. We coded their written reports for number and duration of student-patient encounters; characteristics of students, preceptors, sites, and patients related to encounter frequency; and integration of themes into management plans. RESULTS: The median number of student-patient contacts was 4.0, as was the median number of months that students maintained contact with the patients. Patients with complex diagnoses were seen more times. No characteristics of patient, student, preceptor, or site limited the number or duration of contacts. Proportions of students integrating each theme into their plans ranged from 66% (care over time) to 11% (cost effectiveness). Those who had a greater number of patient contacts integrated more themes into their plans. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal relationships with patients can be achieved with a variety of patients and drive integration of some themes.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Implementation of a cancer prevention program for working class, multiethnic populations.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the implementation of the Healthy Directions-Health Centers intervention and examines the characteristics of participants associated with completion of intervention activities. Healthy Directions-Health Centers was designed to address social contextual factors relevant to cancer prevention interventions for working class, multi-ethnic populations. METHODS: Ten community health centers were paired and randomly assigned to intervention or control. Patients who resided in low income, multi-ethnic neighborhoods were approached for participation. This study targeted fruit and vegetable consumption, red meat consumption, multi-vitamin intake, and physical activity. The intervention components consisted of: (1) a brief study endorsement from a clinician; (2) an in-person counseling session with a health advisor; (3) four follow-up telephone counseling sessions; and (4) multiple distributions of tailored materials. RESULTS: Among the 1,088 intervention group participants, 978 participants (90%) completed at least five out of six intervention activities. Participants who missed clinical appointments were less likely to complete all components of the intervention. Participant characteristics that predicted receipt of clinician endorsement differed from characteristics that predicted completion of health advisor activities. Low acculturation did not present a barrier to delivery of the intervention once the participant was enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Collection and reporting on process evaluation results can help explain variations in program implementation.

Community Health Centers↗
PubMed2004

Pearls and pitfalls in patient care: need to revive traditional clinical values.

Medicine has achieved phenomenal progress in recent years, yet there is ample evidence of dysfunction, reflected in persistently high rates of misdiagnosis, frequent iatrogenic illness, the popularity of 'alternative' medicine, and rising healthcare costs. An urgent need for a change is indicated. True adherence to basic clinical and personal values may avoid significant pitfalls in patient care. These include the immense value of a really careful history and physical examination; the wealth of information that can be obtained through patient's families, physicians, past records, and a search of electronic databases for the best evidence; restraint in management decisions; making the most of simple preventive measures and effective nonpharmacological interventions; appropriate "bed-to-door" intervals; a more personal care of the patient as a unique person, paying more attention to emotional factors that affect medical illness; constructive management of medical errors; and humility. The great potential of the many recent advances in medicine may be more fully realized if we accept that new capabilities should complement, not replace, old values and skills, which still make the essential foundation for medical decision making and patient care.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: are women different from men?

OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to compare women and men's understanding of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) and to identify predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: We mailed a 36-item questionnaire to asymptomatic patients aged 50 years or older who were scheduled for routine health assessments at a large multispecialty health-care group. Data collection included demographics, health behaviors, psychosocial factors, and CRC screening compliance. We followed participants for 1 year and assessed completion of endoscopic CRC screening. Both cross-sectional results examining previous screening and prospective results examining screening 1 year later were evaluated. RESULTS: 554 (54%) of 998 patients responded to the survey. Responses of 13 patients were excluded in the analyses due to unverifiable screening outcome. The majority of the respondents were white, and their average age was 62 years. Women reported significantly more embarrassment and fear about having FS than men. Women were more willing to consider having a FS if a female endoscopist performed the procedure. Of the 334 participants who were eligible to have endoscopic CRC screening, 53 (16%) had the procedure within a year. The odds of having the endoscopic procedures increased with the length of time the patients were under the care of their primary care providers and how strongly patients believed that one should have an FS even without symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest some unique gender-specific attitudes and beliefs that act as potential barriers for CRC screening and further support the important role of primary care providers in facilitating timely completion of screening.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Preparing faculty to teach managing care competencies: lessons learned from a national faculty development program.

BACKGROUND: Although competencies for managing care are often described in the medical literature, educators have been slow to integrate these competencies into clinical curricula. Backlash against managed care has created a skeptical educational environment. Many faculty feel unprepared to teach the competencies in clinical settings. METHODS: From 1999 to 2001, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a faculty development program, funded by the Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Medicine. The goal of the program was to increase Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) and Partnerships for Quality Education (PQE) faculty skills in teaching quality improvement and costeffectiveness in the clinical setting and to prepare them to teach these topics to other faculty. RESULTS: Thirty-nine faculty attended the 4-month faculty development program. The program, in a train-the-trainer model, consisted of two 2-day workshops as well as pre-, mid-, and end-program activities and teaching experiences. Readings, brief lectures followed by focused discussion, and active learning experiences were used to teach content, provide experience and feedback with teaching skills, and model a variety of teaching approaches. CONCLUSIONS: By the end of the program, participants believed that they had learned content (knowledge) and gained practical teaching skills. To be successful in effecting curriculum change around new topics, such as the managing care competencies, faculty need to not only master new content and methods but also learn how to be change agents in their schools. Because this work can be lonely, faculty need support within the school and connections with others, locally and nationally, who have similar ideas.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

How do precepting physicians select patients for teaching medical students in the ambulatory primary care setting?

OBJECTIVE: To study how clinical preceptors select patients for medical student teaching in ambulatory care and to explore key factors they consider in the selection process. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of transcribed interviews. SETTING: Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen physicians (14 general internists and 5 general pediatricians) who serve as clinical preceptors. MEASUREMENTS: Responses to in-depth open-ended interview regarding selection of patients for participation in medical student teaching. MAIN RESULTS: Preceptors consider the competing needs of the patient, the student, and the practice the most important factors in selecting patients for medical student teaching. Three dominant themes emerged: time and efficiency, educational value, and the influence of teaching on the doctor-patient relationship. These physicians consciously attempt to select patients whose participation in medical student teaching maximizes the efficiency of the clinical practice and optimizes the students' educational experiences, while minimizing any potential for harming the relationship between preceptor and patient. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may help validate the frustration preceptors frequently feel in their efforts to teach in the outpatient setting. Becoming more cognizant of the competing interests-the needs of the patient, the student, and the practice-may help physicians to select patients to enhance the educational experience without compromising efficiency or the doctor-patient relationship. For educators, this study suggests an opportunity for faculty development programs to assist the clinical preceptor both in selecting patients for medical student teaching and in finding ways to maximize the efficiency and educational quality of the outpatient teaching environment.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2002

Promoting early detection tests for colorectal carcinoma and adenomatous polyps: a framework for action: the strategic plan of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was to provide health professionals, professional organizations, policy makers, and the general public with a practical blueprint for increasing the practice of screening for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and adenomatous polyps over the next decade. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) was founded in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide strategic leadership, advocacy, long-range planning, and coordination of interventions targeted at reducing the disease burden of CRC through education, early detection, and prevention. The NCCRT and its three workgroups include CRC survivors; recognized experts in primary care, gastroenterology, radiology, colorectal surgery, nursing, public policy, epidemiology, and behavioral science; patient advocates; and representatives of health plans and insurers, government, and other organizations. METHODS: The NCCRT performed a literature review of published and unpublished data related to CRC screening guidelines, compliance, and barriers to adherence, as well as test effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Members of the three NCCRT workgroups developed summary reports regarding professional education, public education and awareness, and health policy. A drafting committee developed the final strategic plan from workgroup reports, which was reviewed by the entire NCCRT membership, amended, and subsequently approved in final form. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although the rationale for population-wide CRC screening is well established, the majority of adults in the U.S. are not currently being screened for CRC. Thus, the nation foregoes an opportunity to reduce CRC-related mortality by an estimated >or= 50%. To increase CRC screening rates, the issues of patient and physician barriers to screening, lack of universal coverage, lack of incentives to motivate adherence, and expanded infrastructure must be addressed.

Adenomatous Polyps↗
PubMed2002

Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: scientific review.

CONTEXT: Although vitamin deficiency is encountered infrequently in developed countries, inadequate intake of several vitamins is associated with chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: To review the clinically important vitamins with regard to their biological effects, food sources, deficiency syndromes, potential for toxicity, and relationship to chronic disease. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE for English-language articles about vitamins in relation to chronic diseases and their references published from 1966 through January 11, 2002. DATA EXTRACTION: We reviewed articles jointly for the most clinically important information, emphasizing randomized trials where available. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our review of 9 vitamins showed that elderly people, vegans, alcohol-dependent individuals, and patients with malabsorption are at higher risk of inadequate intake or absorption of several vitamins. Excessive doses of vitamin A during early pregnancy and fat-soluble vitamins taken anytime may result in adverse outcomes. Inadequate folate status is associated with neural tube defect and some cancers. Folate and vitamins B(6) and B(12) are required for homocysteine metabolism and are associated with coronary heart disease risk. Vitamin E and lycopene may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. Vitamin D is associated with decreased occurrence of fractures when taken with calcium. CONCLUSIONS: Some groups of patients are at higher risk for vitamin deficiency and suboptimal vitamin status. Many physicians may be unaware of common food sources of vitamins or unsure which vitamins they should recommend for their patients. Vitamin excess is possible with supplementation, particularly for fat-soluble vitamins. Inadequate intake of several vitamins has been linked to chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis

Ascorbic Acid↗
PubMed2002

Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults: clinical applications.

Vitamin deficiency syndromes such as scurvy and beriberi are uncommon in Western societies. However, suboptimal intake of some vitamins, above levels causing classic vitamin deficiency, is a risk factor for chronic diseases and common in the general population, especially the elderly. Suboptimal folic acid levels, along with suboptimal levels of vitamins B(6) and B(12), are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, neural tube defects, and colon and breast cancer; low levels of vitamin D contribute to osteopenia and fractures; and low levels of the antioxidant vitamins (vitamins A, E, and C) may increase risk for several chronic diseases. Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements. The evidence base for tailoring the contents of multivitamins to specific characteristics of patients such as age, sex, and physical activity and for testing vitamin levels to guide specific supplementation practices is limited. Physicians should make specific efforts to learn about their patients' use of vitamins to ensure that they are taking vitamins they should, such as folate supplementation for women in the childbearing years, and avoiding dangerous practices such as high doses of vitamin A during pregnancy or massive doses of fat-soluble vitamins at any age.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Evaluation of interventions.

The first modern randomized controlled trial was published in 1948, and featured randomly allocated treatment groups, blinded outcome assessment, and a sufficient number of patients. Randomized controlled trials are now accepted as the best possible way to assess the effects of clinical interventions, but good trials sometimes disagree. Although the elements of a credible trial have been defined, the relative importance of these elements to results is not known. Information from clinical trials may be difficult to use in the care of patients if trial outcomes are not patient centered or the conditions of the trial are very different from the situation in clinical practice. Observational studies are often, but not always, an adequate substitute from randomized trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses may reveal patterns of results when individual trials do not, and so complement the information content of large trials. When trials disagree, resolution may be found not by from more trials but also from critical appraisal of individual trials, weighing the totality of the evidence, and Bayesian reasoning.

History, 18th Century↗
PubMed2002

Rationale for combining different screening strategies.

It is generally accepted that screening programs should be quite safe, and that the benefits should substantially outweigh the harms. As Cochrane and Holland stated: We believe that there is an ethical difference between everyday medical practice and screening. If a patient asks a medical practitioner for help, the doctor does the best he can. He is not responsible for defects in medical knowledge. If, however, the practitioner initiates screening procedures he is in a very different situation. He should, in our view, have conclusive evidence that screening alters the natural history of disease in a significant proportion of those screened. If this is so, one should recommend the combination over either test alone only if there is sufficient evidence that the combination is more effective and no more dangerous. There is a difference of opinion over whether the evidence, which is certainly not strong, is nevertheless sufficient. This poses a dilemma. Many expert groups prefer that screening for colorectal cancer be done with both FOBT and sigmoidoscopy rather than either alone. Yet, the strength of the evidence for additional effectiveness, and information on the magnitude of that effect if it is present, is substantially less than for the individual tests. This being the case, the author believes that it is premature to advocate the combination over either test alone, especially when the most pressing national priority in colorectal cancer screening is to get a large proportion of the adult population to be screened at all.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2002

Evaluation of a faculty development program in managing care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a faculty development program that teaches quality improvement and cost-effectiveness. METHOD: From October 2000 to February 2001, a two-part faculty development program was offered to 39 physicians from 19 U.S. medical schools supported by grants from the Partnerships for Quality Education (PQE) and Undergraduate Medical Education in the 21st Century (UME-21). Special features of the program included partnerships between academic and community physicians from each school, development of an educational innovation of interest to the participants, concurrent development of teaching skills and new medical knowledge, learning leadership skills (e.g., how to train colleagues to teach), and practice periods. The program focused on quality improvement and cost-effectiveness, but included other "managing care" topics. Prior to and after the course, participants assessed their knowledge of and competence to teach these topics, as well as other managing care topics. They also assessed their competence as medical educators and leaders. After the course, they indicated their progress in implementing their proposed educational innovations. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 39 physicians completed evaluations both before and after the program. Self-assessed knowledge and competence to teach quality improvement and cost-effectiveness were significantly higher at the end of the course, as were all self-assessed teaching and leadership skills. The largest change scores occurred in assessments of competency to teach the new topics and to teach in new ways. Participants who implemented their innovations rated their competencies to teach quality improvement and cost-effectiveness higher than did non-implementers. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for faculty to learn how to teach a topic of stated importance to them, to practice what they have learned, and to work collaboratively with partners improved teaching skills.

Academic Medical Centers↗