PubMed · 14602242
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2003. Screening programmes "Gagged".. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14602242/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of penile wetness among STI clinic attenders in London. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 480 consecutive men were examined clinically to detect whether penile wetness, defined as the clinical observation of a uniform diffuse layer of moisture on the surface of the glans and coronal sulcus, was present. RESULTS: Penile wetness was observed in 30 (6.3%), including 29 (8.3%) of uncircumcised and 1 (0.8%) of circumcised men (Relative risk 10.54 (95% CI 1.45-76.6, P = <0.001) (Fisher's Exact test) and in 14/34 (41.2%) of men with balanitis. Penile wetness was observed in 9.2% Asian, 7% Caucasian, 3% of black men, and 6.3% of homosexuals, and in 14/34 (8.2%) of men with clinical balanitis compared with 8/244 (3.3%) with no STI diagnosis (P = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of penile wetness was low in this population of STI clinic attenders in London, much lower than in Durban, South Africa. Further studies of male genital hygiene are warranted.
Patients who miss endoscopy appointments cause inefficient utilization of medical resources. Because national nonattendance rates are as high as 27% and reasons for nonattendance have not been well studied, we sought to quantitate nonattendance at our tertiary care institution. We conducted a retrospective records review of the institutional database to identify patients who did not attend a scheduled endoscopy appointment between January 2000 and December 2003. Nonattendance was defined as either not showing up for an appointment or canceling it on the day it was scheduled. At our institution, patient care assistants contact such patients to document their reasons in the database. Of 36,480 patients scheduled for outpatient endoscopy, 1,490 (4.1%) did not show up because of either facility-related (44.3%; e.g., scheduling errors) or patient-related (55.7%; e.g., noncancellation, illness, or hospitalization) reasons. Our 4.1% nonattendance rate over 4 years is considerably lower than that reported by other endoscopy centers.
This interim final rule with comment period revises the rural health clinic (RHC) regulations to revert to those provisions set forth in regulations before publication of the December 24, 2003 RHC final rule. That final rule implemented certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 to establish a process and criteria for disqualifying from the RHC program clinics that no longer meet basic location requirements (rural and medically underserved), and to require RHCs to establish quality assessment and performance improvement programs. That rule also prohibited "commingling" (the use of the space, professional staff, equipment, and other resources) of an RHC with another entity. [In addition, it addressed comments on the February 28, 2000 proposed rule. Since the publication of the RHC final rule exceeded the 3-year timeline for finalizing proposed rules set by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, we are suspending the effectiveness of the current provisions by removing the RHC provisions set forth in the December 2003 final rule and reverting to those RHC provisions previously in effect.] We intend to reissue new proposed and final RHC rules to reinstate the current provisions. However, these revisions do not impact the effectiveness of the self-implementing provisions of the BBA or any provisions we had previously implemented or enforced through program memoranda.