Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Private Practitioners (private + practitioner)
Selected AbstractsSeeing America,diary of a drug-focused study tour made in 1967ADDICTION, Issue 6 2010Griffith Edwards ABSTRACT In 1965 the British government was forced to admit that the country had an escalating heroin problem, with the supply coming mainly from prescribing by private practitioners. Within the official responses to what was seen at that time as a very worrying public health situation was the decision to fund the setting-up of the Addiction Research Unit (ARU) at the Institute of Psychiatry, London. The US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) generously sponsored a study tour for the nominated director of the ARU shortly before the opening of the British research centre. Extensive contemporaneous diary notes of a visit included contact with administrators, researchers, clinicians, parish priests, narcotic agents and addicts themselves. From a mass of often conflicting advice, some insights could be derived. In particular, these included the need for an awareness of any country's way of dealing with drug problems as a dynamic, multi-factorial total system,a holistic ,national response'. A further conclusion was to see policy itself as a complex subject for analysis: drug policy should be as much an issue for research as drug taking. Besides these broad conclusions, the experience provided many specific leads to development of a British addiction research programme, and fostered professional friendships of immeasurable worth. [source] Using patient-focused research in evaluating treatment outcome in private practiceJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 10 2002Ted P. Asay The increasing emphasis on therapist accountability and empirical demonstration of psychotherapeutic treatment effectiveness points to the need for practicing therapists to integrate treatment evaluation methods into routine clinical practice. Unfortunately, most private practitioners have little involvement in carrying out evaluation procedures. In this study we demonstrate how patient-focused research was used to track the progress and outcome of patients seen by a clinical psychologist in private practice. Twenty-nine adults and 40 children/adolescents were evaluated on a weekly basis to assess the number of sessions required to reach improvement (reliable change) and recovery (clinically significant change). Dose-response survival analysis results indicated that 50% of adults reached clinically significant change in 54 sessions, and 50% of youth met the same standard in 14 sessions. These results were compared with outcome in large-scale studies. Implications of this study for integrating treatment evaluation methods into clinical practice are discussed. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 58: 1213,1225, 2002. [source] Private Practice of Prosthodontists: Current Conditions of Practice in the United StatesJOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 3 2010Kent D. Nash PhD Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this article is to examine data and results from the 2008 Survey of Prosthodontists. Survey results are used to examine current trends and characteristics of prosthodontists in private practice. Materials and Methods: Characteristics of prosthodontists and conditions of private practice are based on surveys conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2008 sponsored by the American College of Prosthodontists. Survey results are used to estimate several characteristics including age, gender, number of patient visits, hours in the practice, employment of staff, referral sources, and financial conditions (gross receipts, expenses of the practice, and net income of prosthodontists). Results: The average age of a private-practicing prosthodontist reached 51 years in 2007; 12.3 is the number of years in the current practice; and most prosthodontists (71%) are solo private practitioners. The average amount of time per week by prosthodontists in the practice averaged 36.1 hours, and prosthodontists treated an average of 44.1 patient visits per week. The largest source of patient referrals is the patient themselves. The largest percentage of a prosthodontist's treatment time is spent rendering procedures in fixed prosthodontics, but this percentage has declined since 2001. In 2007, the average gross billings of a practicing prosthodontist reached $805,675; average total practice expenses were $518,255; the mean net earnings of practitioners were $268,930. Conclusion: In 2007, prosthodontists in private practice paid out about $1.4 billion in practice expenses to provide $2.2 billion dollars in prosthodontic care. Based on survey results from 2007 and the previous 6 years, specialization in prosthodontic care continues to be an economically attractive and productive healthcare profession in the United States. [source] Prosthodontists in Private Practice: Current and Future Conditions of Practice in the United States (Part I)JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 4 2007Kent D. Nash PhD Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use data from surveys of prosthodontists to examine the current conditions and characteristics of prosthodontists in private practice in the United States. Materials and Methods: Characteristics of prosthodontists and conditions of practice are based on the 2002 Survey of Prosthodontists and the 2005 Survey of Prosthodontists. Both surveys were conducted by the American College of Prosthodontists. Several characteristics of private practice/practitioners are estimated including age, gender, number of patient visits, hours in the practice, employment of staff, and financial conditions (gross receipts, expenses of the practice, and net income of prosthodontists) Results: In 2004, the average age of private practitioners was 50 years. Years since graduation from dental school averaged 23.4 years, and years since completion of residency was 18.3 years. Prosthodontists spent an average of 35.7 hours per week in the office and 29.5 hours treating patients. In 2004, the average gross revenue per owner of a private practice reached $782,130, and mean net income was $258,490. The largest percentage of prosthodontist time was spent providing six procedures including fixed prosthodontics, implant services, complete dentures, operative care, diagnosis, and partial dentures. Conclusion: The United States spends about $1.8 billion on prosthodontic services provided by prosthodontists in private practice. Prosthodontists spend $1.1 billion dollars in expenses and treat an estimated 1.1 million patients per year. [source] Canadian Dentists' Opinions on Publicly Financed Dental CareJOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY, Issue 2 2009Carlos R. Quiñonez DMD Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to inform policy leaders of the opinions of Canada's major dental care service provider regarding publicly financed dental care. Methods: Using provincial/territorial dental regulatory authority listings, a 26-item questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of Canadian dentists (n = 2219, response rate = 45.8 percent). Descriptive statistics were produced, and bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to assess what predicts dentists' responses. Results: Canadian dentists support governmental involvement in dental care, preferring investments in prevention to direct delivery. The majority of dentists have less than 10 percent of their practice represented by publicly insured patients, with a small minority having greater than 50 percent. The majority would accept new publicly insured patients, preferring fee for service remuneration. Dentists generally appear dissatisfied with public forms of third-party financing. Conclusions: Dentists prefer a targeted effort at meeting public needs and are influenced in their opinions largely in relation to ideology. In order to move forward, policy leaders will need to devote some attention to the influence and complexity of public and private tensions in dentistry. At the very least, public and private practitioners must come to appreciate each other's challenges and balance public and private expectations in public programming. [source] Dentine hypersensitivity , Australian dentists' perspectiveAUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 2 2010N Amarasena Abstract Background:, Dentine hypersensitivity is a frequent clinical presentation though inadequately comprehended by dentists. The objective of this study was to describe Australian dentists' perception on the occurrence, predisposing factors, triggers, diagnosis and management of dentine hypersensitivity. Methods:, Eight hundred dentists were randomly selected using the Australian Dental Association membership list and invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey. Results:, Out of 295 responding dentists, 284 private practitioners were included in the final analysis. Most dentists perceived that the occurrence of dentine hypersensitivity was <20% and commonest among 30,49 year olds. According to them, abrasion and gingival recession were the main predisposing factors whilst cold stimuli were the commonest trigger. A differential diagnosis-based approach was adopted by a majority to diagnose dentine hypersensitivity although routine screening was resorted to by a few. Most dentists were aware of the current mechanisms underlying dentine hypersensitivity whereas the majority perceived that ongoing predisposing factors was the main reason for dentine tubules to remain exposed. The commonest management strategy employed by most dentists was to prescribe desensitizing agents for home use. Conclusions:, Australian dentists' perception of dentine hypersensitivity is generally consistent with the current scientific consensus on this subject. [source] Issues regarding nonattendance at a paediatric dermatology centreCLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY, Issue 8 2002K. L. Hon Summary Nonattendance in paediatric dermatology clinics is a significant problem. We reviewed the charts of all 400 new referrals to the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) paediatric dermatology clinic in the year 2000. Sixty-six patients (17%) did not attend. The mean age ± SD of attenders (7.5 ± 5.1 years) and nonattenders (7.7 ± 4.5 years) did not differ significantly. Forty-eight per cent of the referrals were females, 50% of the attenders were females and 67% of the nonattenders were male. Males were 2.1-fold more likely not to attend clinic relative to females (95% confidence interval 1.14,3.71, P = 0.010). Nonattendance was significantly higher among referrals from the PWH emergency department, compared with referrals by private practitioners (P = 0.05) and referrals by other clinics in the PWH. Data in this retrospective study confirm that there is a gender disparity in hospital nonattendance. More dermatological referrals but more nonattendance were associated with the male patients. [source] | ||||||||||