PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S R Rush

Publications and source records attributed to S R Rush.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Migraine practice patterns among neurologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes, knowledge, and practice patterns of US neurologists regarding migraine management relative to the US Headache Consortium Guidelines (the Guidelines). METHODS: Two samples of 600 neurologists each were selected from the American Academy of Neurology membership database. The first group received a Migraine Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practice Patterns (MKAPP) Survey. The second group received a Clinical Vignette (CV) Survey, presenting two patient histories and correspondent questions. RESULTS: The MKAPP Survey showed that most neurologists felt that migraine was primarily a disease of the brain with a well-established neurobiological basis (69%) and an important part of their practice (60%). Most (53%) indicated that they routinely used neuroimaging in evaluating severe headache, an approach not recommended by the Guidelines. Most favored acute treatment limits, but 36% did not agree with the Guidelines that acute treatment should be limited to 2 or 3 days/week. In the CV Survey, for vignette 1, most (91%) correctly diagnosed migraine, 31% requested neuroimaging in the absence of indications, 64% appropriately recommended a triptan, and 45% recommended a preventive medication in the absence of indications. For vignette 2, 78% diagnosed migraine, 71% appropriately ordered neuroimaging, 80% appropriately recommended a preventive medication, and 38% prescribed a triptan in face of clear contraindication. CONCLUSIONS: Educational initiatives aiming to increase the awareness of the Guidelines among neurologists should highlight the full range of migraine symptoms that support the diagnosis, appropriate use of neuroimaging, indications for preventive treatments, issues of triptan cardiovascular safety, and preventing rebound headaches.

Adult↗

Stroke prevention: narrowing the evidence-practice gap.

Many interventions reduce stroke risk. However, the full benefits of these interventions are not realized at current levels of utilization, as nearly all evidence-based or guideline-endorsed stroke prevention services are underused. The cause for such underuse is multifactorial and includes factors relating to both patients and providers, as well as to a health care system that has de-emphasized prevention at the expense of acute, technologically based care. Much like the evidence for stroke interventions themselves, there is a growing literature to support methods of implementing research evidence into clinical practice. There is still much to learn, however, about the effectiveness of interventions aimed at achieving changes in stroke prevention practice or the delivery of stroke prevention care. Nevertheless, there are many opportunities for providers, managed care organizations, and government to close the evidence-practice gap that exists for stroke prevention services. These opportunities exist in both the inpatient and outpatient setting, and depend on the neurologist taking a leading role in emphasizing the critical importance of risk factor identification and modification in all patients at risk for stroke.

Critical Pathways↗