W. Eugene Broadhead

The Duke severity of illness checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity

The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) was evaluated on 414 primary care adult patients using data collected both by medical providers at the time of the patient visit and later by a chart auditor. Severity scores for individual diagnoses were determined by summing the ratings for four non-disease-specific parameters: symptom level, complications, prognosis without treatment, and expected response to treatment. Mean diagnosis severity scores (scale 0-100) among the 21 most prevalent diagnoses varied from a low of 13.9 for menopausal syndrome to a high of 43.0 for sprains and strains. An overall severity score was calculated by combining diagnosis severity scores and giving highest weights to the most severe diagnoses. Provider-generated overall severity scores (mean = 43.3) and auditor-generated overall severity scores (mean = 38.9) were significantly correlated (coefficient of agreement = 0.59, p < 0.0001). Diagnoses varied in their individual contribution to the overall severity score, from 8.9% for lipid disorder to 90.0% for sprains and strains. Separate comorbidity severity scores were calculated to measure the severity of all of each patients health problems except the diagnosis under study. For example, patients with menopausal syndrome had co-existing health problems which generated a high mean comorbidity severity score of 43.2, while patients with sprains and strains had a low mean comorbidity score of 4.7. The DUSOI Checklist can be used in the clinical setting by both providers and auditors to produce quantitative severity scores (by diagnosis, overall, and for comorbidity) which are based entirely upon clinical judgment. This method should be useful in controlling for severity of illness in clinical studies and indicating the outcome of medical care in terms of reduction in severity of illness following medical interventions.

Does a coexisting anxiety disorder predict persistence of depressive illness in primary care patients with major depression

We assessed whether a coexisting anxiety disorder predicts risk for persistent depression in primary care patients with major depression at baseline. Patients with major depression were identified in a 12-month prospective cohort study at a University-based family practice clinic. Presence of an anxiety disorder and other potential prognostic factors were measured at baseline. Persistent depressive illness (major depression, minor depression, or dysthymia) was determined at 12 months. Of 85 patients with major depression at baseline, 43 had coexisting anxiety disorder (38 with social phobia). The risk for persistent depression at 12 months was 44% greater [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.04] in those with coexisting anxiety. This risk persisted in stratified analysis controlling for other prognostic factors. Patients with coexisting anxiety had greater mean depressive severity [repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), p < 0.04] and total disability days (54.9 vs 19.8, p < 0.02) over the 12-month study. Patients with social phobia had similar increased risk for persistent depression (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.98-2.00). A coexisting anxiety disorder indicates risk for persistent depression in primary care patients with major depression. Social phobia may be important to recognize in these patients. Identifying anxiety disorders can help primary care clinicians target patients needing more aggressive treatment for depression.

Subsyndromal ("Mixed") anxiety-depression in primary care

Objective: To determine in primary care settings the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and functional status of patients who have anxious and depressive symptoms who did not meet diagnostic criteria for major mood and anxiety diagnoses.Design: Patients were screened with the General Health Questionnaire and interviewed if they exceeded the cutoff score of 5. Also, one patient whose score was below the cutoff was interviewed for every two patients whose scores were above the cutoff.Setting: Five primary care sites in the United States, France, and Australia.Patient: Two hundred sixty-seven patients presenting to their primary care physicians for general medical care and follow-up.Methods: Structured diagnostic interviews were conducted and ratings of anxiety, depression, and functional impairment were obtained by trained interviewers.Results: After adjustments for sampling, 5% of the patients had symptoms of anxiety, depression, and functional impairment, without meeting formal criteria for a major DSM-III-R mood or anxiety disorder. This was comparable to the prevalence of diagnosable DSM-III-R mood disorders but only one-fourth the prevalence of diagnosable anxiety disorders. These patients who had subsyndromal symptoms had rates of lifetime psychiatric disorders and prior psychiatric treatment comparable to those of patients meeting criteria for major mood and anxiety disorders.Conclusion: The comparable rates of symptomatic distress, functional impairment, and prior psychiatric illness and treatment suggest that patients with subsyndromal anxiety and depressive symptoms warrant clinical recognition and possibly specific treatment.

Quality of life and functional health of primary care patients

Quality of life and functional health were measured cross-sectionally for 314 adult ambulatory primary care patients in a rural clinic and found to be much better for patients with low severity of illness who required no confinement to home because of health problems, than for patients with high severity of illness who required confinement. Severity of illness was the strongest predictor for patient-reported physical health function and for patient quality of life when assessed by the health provider. Confinement was the strongest predictor for patient quality of life when assessed by the patient. There was very little agreement between patient-assessed and provider-assessed quality of life. Family stress was the strongest predictor of function in terms of mental health, social health, general health, self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. These data suggest that clinicians should direct increased attention to patient-assessed quality of life, patient-reported functional health status, and psychosocial factors such as family stress in an effort to improve medical outcomes.

Social support and the cancer patient. Implications for future research and clinical care

This review assesses past progress, current practices, and future needs in research and clinical practice involving the social support needs of cancer patients. A review is given of the various conceptualizations of the social support/stress paradigm and of the state of the art of measuring social support. Then the current work in the field of social support and cancer is considered and an argument is made for the use of social support measures, which are relevant to the experiences of the cancer patient. Potential adaptations of an existing instrument (the Duke‐UNC Functional Social Support Scale) are demonstrated, and a taxonomy of stages of cancer that would require additional types of social support measures and interventions is outlined. Interventions are discussed in terms of the traditional support groups as well as interventions by the oncologist and primary care physician. An argument is made for the inclusion of quality of life or functional measures as outcomes in clinical trials and the care of the cancer patient. Finally, the need to address the existential, philosophic, or religious issues surrounding cancer and its treatment is discussed.

Anxiety and depressive symptom identification using the Duke Health Profile

Duke Health Profile (DUKE) subscales were compared for their ability to identify anxiety and depressive symptoms as measured by the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in 413 primary care patients. The seven-item Duke Anxiety-Depression Scale (DUKE-AD) was the best symptom identifier, with sensitivities and specificities greater than 70% for high scores on both the SAI and CES-D. Also, baseline DUKE-AD scores predicted five clinical outcomes during an 18-month follow-up period, with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas ranging from 57.1 to 58.7%. Patients shown by DUKE-AD scores to be at high risk (>30, scale 0-100) for symptoms of anxiety and/or depression were more often women, less well-educated, not working, and with lower socioeconomic status. The severity of illness was higher than that of low-risk patients. Although the providers did not know which patients were at high risk, they made a clinical diagnosis of anxiety or depression more often in high-risk patients.

Recognition of emotional distress in physically healthy primary care patients who perceive poor physical health

This study examines the recognition and treatment of emotional distress in physically healthy primary care patients who perceive themselves to be in fair or poor physical health. Patients (N = 892) from three private primary care practices completed a mental health screening form prior to their medical visit which included an overall assessment of their physical health (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor). Following the visit, their physicians completed a questionnaire that included the same physical health assessment item. The study group, physically healthy patients who perceive poor physical health (HPPPH), included those patients who rated their physical health as 2 or 3 points more impaired than it was rated by their physician. HPPPH (N = 39) were significantly more likely than other patients (N = 853) to report a prior psychiatric hospitalization (p < 0.05), marital difficulties (p < 0.01), recent missed work due to a mental health problem (p < 0.001), and a range of anxiety, depressive, and psychosomatic symptoms. However, HPPPH were also significantly more likely than other patients to receive excellent emotional health ratings (p < 0.001) from their physicians and were less likely to receive mental health treatment (p < 0.05). Detection of emotional distress may be particularly difficult in physically healthy patients who have low physical health perceptions. Identification of pessimistic physical health perceptions may serve as an indicator for underlying emotional distress.

The impact of an ambulatory rotation on medical student interest in internal medicine

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To determine whether students who take ambulatory rotations in internal medicine are more likely to choose internal medicine careers. DESIGN: National survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The intended sample was 1,650 senior U.S. medical students from 16 medical schools, of whom 1,244 (76%) responded. Representative schools nationwide were selected using a stratified, random-sampling method. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of the ambulatory rotation, perceptions of internal medicine, and factors influencing students toward or away from an internal medicine career. RESULTS: Ambulatory rotations were taken by 543 students (43%). Of these rotations, 73% were required, 74% were during the fourth year, 77% were in general internal medicine, 73% provided continuity of care, and 19% were during the medicine clerkship. Overall, 24% of the students chose careers in general (9%) or subspecialty internal medicine (15%). Thirty percent of the students who did ambulatory rotations planned internal medicine careers, compared with 19% of the students who had no rotation [odds ratio (OR)=1.8,95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.4, p=0.0001]. This association was of similar magnitudes for students completing required rotations (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.2, p=0.002) and for students completing rotations before or in proximity to when they chose careers (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4, p=0.01). Ninety percent of the 543 students who had ambulatory rotations were satisfied with the experience. Thirty-eight percent of the highly satisfied students chose internal medicine careers, compared with 21% of the students who had low or moderate satisfaction (p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: An ambulatory rotation is strongly associated with positive perceptions of, attraction to, and choice of a career in internal medicine. Research is needed to determine specific components of an effective rotation. Further development of ambulatory rotations could help attract more students to internal medicine.

Postdischarge, postoperative nosocomial infection surveillance using random sampling

Nosocomial infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospital patients. Nosocomial infections, defined as infections that occur in patients after hospital admission and that were not present or incubating at the time of admission,’ have been estimated to occur in 5% to 6% of hospital patients.’ Nosocomial infection rates are highest on surgical services in all types of hospitals, with the urinary tract the most frequent site, followed by surgical wounds and the lower respiratory tract.L.3 These three sites account for more than 70% of surgical service nosocomial infections.’ Nosocomial infections prolong hospital stays, increase rehospitalization rates, and significantly increase health care costs.’ A retrospective study of 16 literature reports between 1933 and 1975 revealed that hospital stays were prolonged from 1.3 to 26.3 days as a result of nosocomial infections.3 More recent studies have demonstrated that. the average surgical wound infection prolongs the hospital stay by 7.4 days.3 Postoperative nosocomial infections may not be detected until after the patient has been discharged from the hospital. The Centers for Disease Control have suggested at a category III level (to be considered but not recommended for widespread adoption) that discharged patients be contacted 30 days after surgery to determine whether nosocomial infections had oc-