PubMed · 8868844
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N J Kerr. What example do we set?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.1996.tb00490.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
To gain a better understanding of senior medical students who perceive high-technology medicine as the desirable form of medical practice, we developed and evaluated a structural equation model. Intolerance to clinical uncertainty, Machiavellianism, and authoritarianism characterized students who scored higher on reliance on high-technology medicine. High scorers also tended to have a negative orientation toward patients' psychological problems and were unlikely to choose careers in primary care medicine. Students who perceive high technology as a panacea in clinical medicine share personal traits and attitudes toward patients that are not conducive to achieving the national goal of a 50:50 ratio between primary and non-primary care physicians.
BACKGROUND: Critical care nurses and physicians usually care for those patients whose condition progresses to brain death and are also often responsible for requesting organ donation from the family of a brain-dead patient. We hypothesized that staff support, knowledge, and training levels would be significantly associated with organ donation rates. OBJECTIVE: To assess the readiness of critical care staff to successfully handle requests for organ donation. METHODS: A total of 1061 critical care staff from 28 hospitals in four separate regions of the United States completed a questionnaire that assessed (1) factual knowledge about organ donation, (2) understanding of brain death, (3) previous training in procedures for requesting donations, and (4) comfort levels with the donation process. RESULTS: Staff training in effective procedures for requesting organ donations was significantly correlated with hospitals' donation rates. Less than a third of respondents, however, had received training in explaining brain death to and requesting organ donation from a grieving family. In hospitals with high rates of organ donation, 52.9% of staff had received training; in hospitals with low rates of organ donation, 23.5% of staff had received training. Levels of factual knowledge about organ donation and brain death were unexpectedly low but were not significantly related to hospitals' rates of organ donation. CONCLUSIONS: Training of critical care nurses and physicians in effective procedures for requesting organ donation is significantly associated with higher rates of organ donation, yet two thirds of critical care staff report no relevant training. Consequently, critical care staff cannot be considered ready to effectively handle requests for organ donation.
CONTEXT: Nearly all managed care plans rely on a physician "gatekeeper" to control use of specialty, hospital, and other expensive services. Gatekeeping is intended to reduce costs while maintaining or improving quality of care by increasing coordination and prevention and reducing duplicative or inappropriate care. Whether gatekeeping achieves these goals remains largely unproven. OBJECTIVE: To assess physicians' attitudes about the effects of gatekeeping compared with traditional care on administrative work, quality of patient care, appropriateness of resource use, and cost. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians SETTING: Outpatient facilities in metropolitan Boston, Mass. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians who served as both primary care gatekeepers and traditional Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers for the employees of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Of the 330 physicians surveyed, 202 (61%) responded. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Physician ratings of the effects of gatekeeping on 21 aspects of care, including administrative work, physician-patient interactions, decision making, appropriateness of resource use, cost, and quality of care. RESULTS: Physicians reported that gatekeeping (compared with traditional care) had a positive effect on control of costs, frequency, and appropriateness of preventive services and knowledge of a patient's overall care (P<.001). They also felt that gatekeeping increased paperwork and telephone calls and negatively affected the overall quality of care, access to specialists, ability to order expensive tests and procedures, freedom in clinical decisions, time spent with patients, physician-patient relationships, and appropriate use of hospitalizations and laboratory tests (P<.001). Overall, 32% of physicians rated gatekeeping as better than traditional care, 40% the same, 21% gatekeeping as worse, and 7% were of mixed opinion. Positive ratings of gatekeeping were associated with fewer years in clinical practice, generalist training, and experience with gatekeeping and health maintenance organization plans. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians identified both positive and negative effects of gate-keeping. Overall, 72% of physicians thought gatekeeping was better than or comparable to traditional care arrangements.