New HHS/ONC Tool Helps Consumers Access Health Records
- Read more about New HHS/ONC Tool Helps Consumers Access Health Records
- Log in or register to post comments
Not available.
Not available.
Not available.
Not available.
Abstract
Objectives: Eating disorders are common and serious conditions affecting up to 4% of the population. The
mortality rate is high. Despite the seriousness and prevalence of eating disorders in children and adolescents, no
Canadian practice guidelines exist to facilitate treatment decisions. This leaves clinicians without any guidance as to
which treatment they should use. Our objective was to produce such a guideline.
Methods: Using systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
(GRADE) system, and the assembly of a panel of diverse stakeholders from across the country, we developed high
quality treatment guidelines that are focused on interventions for children and adolescents with eating disorders.
Results: Strong recommendations were supported specifically in favour of Family-Based Treatment, and more
generally in terms of least intensive treatment environment. Weak recommendations in favour of Multi-Family
Therapy, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Adolescent Focused Psychotherapy, adjunctive Yoga and atypical
antipsychotics were confirmed.
Conclusions: Several gaps for future work were identified including enhanced research efforts on new primary and
adjunctive treatments in order to address severe eating disorders and complex co-morbidities.
Keywords: Guidelines, Adolescent, Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa, Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder
BACKGROUND:
Randomized trials have shown that initiating breast cancer screening between ages 50 and 69 years and continuing it for 10 years decreases breast cancer mortality. However, no trials have studied whether or when women can safely stop screening mammography. An estimated 52% of women aged 75 years or older undergo screening mammography in the United States.
OBJECTIVE:
To estimate the effect of breast cancer screening on breast cancer mortality in Medicare beneficiaries aged 70 to 84 years.
DESIGN:
Large-scale, population-based, observational study of 2 screening strategies: continuing annual mammography, and stopping screening.
SETTING:
U.S. Medicare program, 2000 to 2008.
PARTICIPANTS:
1 058 013 beneficiaries aged 70 to 84 years who had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, had no previous breast cancer diagnosis, and underwent screening mammography.
MEASUREMENTS:
Eight-year breast cancer mortality, incidence, and treatments, plus the positive predictive value of screening mammography by age group.
RESULTS:
In women aged 70 to 74 years, the estimated difference in 8-year risk for breast cancer death between continuing and stopping screening was -1.0 (95% CI, -2.3 to 0.1) death per 1000 women (hazard ratio, 0.78 [CI, 0.63 to 0.95]) (a negative risk difference favors continuing). In those aged 75 to 84 years, the corresponding risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.93 to 1.3) death per 1000 women (hazard ratio, 1.00 [CI, 0.83 to 1.19]).
LIMITATIONS:
The available Medicare data permit only 8 years of follow-up after screening. As with any study using observational data, the estimates could be affected by residual confounding.
CONCLUSION:
Continuing annual breast cancer screening past age 75 years did not result in substantial reductions in 8-year breast cancer mortality compared with stopping screening.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:
National Institutes of Health.
As usual, the new year brings changes in how doctors bill and get paid for the services they provide to Medicare patients. The reforms that will most affect family physicians’ pay aren’t coming until 2021, when several changes in evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment are projected to result in a 12% increase for family medicine.1 But there are still a host of things family physicians should know for 2020, including new codes to help you get paid for interacting with patients via the internet and new codes that should help make chronic care management (CCM) more financially rewarding. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is also continuing its quest to streamline documentation requirements and develop new payment models intended to reward quality instead of volume. This article summarizes the 2020 changes most relevant to family medicine. As always, private payers’ policies may differ, so consult with your billing staff to understand any important differences.
BACKGROUND:
Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment?
METHODS:
To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components.
RESULTS:
We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions.
CONCLUSION:
While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.