Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
General Medical Patients (general + medical_patient)
Selected AbstractsVariations on the CAGE Alcohol Screening Questionnaire: Strengths and Limitations in VA General Medical PatientsALCOHOLISM, Issue 10 2001Katharine A. Bradley Background: Several variations on the CAGE alcohol screening questionnaire have been recommended. This report evaluates modifications and additions to the CAGE. Methods: Alcohol screening questionnaires were evaluated in male VA general medicine patients (n= 227; mean age, 65.8). Mailed questionnaires included two scoring options for the CAGE (standard and last-year time frames), questions about quantity and frequency of drinking, two questions about episodic heavy drinking, and the question "Have you ever had a drinking problem?" Main analyses compared alcohol screening questions, at various cut-points, to a gold standard of hazardous drinking during the past year (,14 drinks/week or ,5 drinks on an occasion) and/or DSM-III-R alcohol abuse or dependence, based on standardized interviews. Results: The CAGE questionnaire with a past-year time frame was much less sensitive (0.57 vs. 0.77) but more specific (0.82 vs. 0.59) than the standard CAGE for detecting hazardous drinking during the past year and/or DSM-III-R alcohol abuse or dependence. An eight-item questionnaire that included the standard CAGE was most sensitive (0.92) but had low specificity (0.50). A single question about the frequency of drinking ,6 drinks on an occasion, included in the eight-item questionnaire, was both relatively sensitive (0.77) and specific (0.83). Conclusion: The CAGE questionnaire with a past-year time frame was an insensitive alcohol-screening test. An eight-item augmented version of the standard CAGE was the most sensitive. A question about the frequency of drinking ,6 drinks on an occasion performed better than the standard CAGE, which made it the optimal brief screening test for at-risk drinking. [source] Subthreshold depression as a risk indicator for major depressive disorder: a systematic review of prospective studiesACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 5 2004P. Cuijpers Objective:, In order to examine whether the incidence of major depressive disorder (MDD) is increased in subjects with subthreshold depression, or sD (clinically relevant depressive symptoms, without meeting criteria for a full-blown MDD), we conducted a review of prospective studies examining the incidence of MDD in subjects with sD. Method:, A systematic literature search was conducted. For all studies, the relative risk of developing MDD was calculated, based on person-years. Results:, Twenty studies (23 comparisons) were found, based on community samples, general medical patients and high-risk subjects. Most comparisons showed that subjects with sD had a consistently larger chance of developing MDD. The studies differed considerably in the definition of sD, the recency (occurrence of the last sD) and the in-/exclusion of lifetime MDD. Conclusion:, The incidence of MDD in subjects with sD is larger than in subjects without sD. Otherwise, the concept of sD is too broad to be used. In future studies, some consensus should be reached regarding the definition of sD. [source] Outcomes-based trial of an inpatient nurse practitioner service for general medical patientsJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2001Mathilde H. Pioro MD Abstract Although teaching hospitals are increasingly using nurse practitioners (NPs) to provide inpatient care, few studies have compared care delivered by NPs and housestaff or the ability of NPs to admit and manage unselected general medical patients. In a Midwest academic teaching hospital 381 patients were randomized to general medical wards staffed either by NPs and a medical director or medical housestaff. Data were obtained from medical records, interviews and hospital databases. Outcomes were compared on both an intention to treat (i.e. wards to which patients were randomized) and actual treatment (i.e. wards to which patients were admitted) basis. At admission, patients assigned randomly to NP-based care (n = 193) and housestaff care (n = 188) were similar with respect to demographics, comorbidity, severity of illness and functional parameters. Outcomes at discharge and at 6 weeks after discharge were similar (P > 0.10) in the two groups, including: length of stay; charges; costs; consultations; complications; transfers to intensive care; 30-day mortality; patient assessments of care; and changes in activities of daily living, SF-36 scores and symptom severity. However, after randomization, 90 of 193 patients (47%) assigned to the NP ward were actually admitted to housestaff wards, largely because of attending physicians and NP requests. None the less, outcomes of patients admitted to NP and housestaff wards were similar (P > 0.1). NP-based care can be implemented successfully in teaching hospitals and, compared to housestaff care, may be associated with similar costs and clinical and functional outcomes. However, there may be important obstacles to increasing the number of patients cared for by NPs, including physician concerns about NPs' capabilities and NPs' limited flexibility in managing varying numbers of patients and accepting off-hours admissions. [source] | ||||||||||