Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate patient expectations, concerns, and satisfaction during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) inpatient hospitalization. Patients were also asked to comment on what resources might benefit them during their stay. DESIGN: More than 150 PM&R patients were asked to fill out a self-administered survey in a cross-sectional design. Patients receiving care under 5 other specialties (general medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, orthopedics, and neurology) also were surveyed to determine whether qualitative differences existed between PM&R and other departments. In all, more than 1100 patients were given surveys to complete. Patients rated how concerned they were with more than 20 elements of their hospitalization, ranging from quality of food to pain management. Questions were divided into 2 sections: retrospectively before hospitalization and during current admission. SETTING: This study was completed in a large tertiary care PM&R facility with an adjoining medical center in an urban area. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were given the option to complete this survey in an anonymous fashion during their hospital stay. All those who did so were included in this analysis. Six different specialties were represented in the final tally, but the emphasis was on the PM&R department. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The survey itself included more than 20 questions regarding the details of patients' hospital stays and how concerned they were with them. These categories included plans after discharge, duration of hospitalization, pain management, follow-up of medical issues, cost, insurance, and familiarity with diagnosis, physician, and medications. Other outcomes included patient input into what interventions they thought would most benefit them as well as a global satisfaction rating. RESULTS: Data analysis was performed with SPSS. Tukey tests provided comparison information across specialties. The response rate within PM&R was 68% (n = 128), whereas for all specialties combined it was 54% (n = 606). Multiple factors were found to be significant when examining expectations versus actual admission concerns. Most prominently within PM&R, patients indicated that they were less concerned during their admission than they thought they would be about potential duration of hospitalization (P < .001), understanding of diagnosis (P < .04), follow-up of medical issues (P < .01), and plan of care (P < .001), among others. However, patient expectations in other areas did not change or were negatively affected, such as help at home (P < .05), plans for discharge (P < .001), family involvement at home (P < .01), and future pain management at home (P < .05). Furthermore, qualitative comparisons among other specialties demonstrated differences in many areas. CONCLUSION: Results support the idea that the multidisciplinary approach inherent in PM&R positively alters many patient expectations related to outcomes. This has direct relevance to patient satisfaction and outcomes and warrants further investigation. The authors offer some potential interventions for future improvement in this area

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of implementing a peer review evaluation system on residents' attitudes and perceptions of professionalism, a core competency of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), in a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) program. DESIGN: Four classes of residents were divided prospectively into a control and an intervention group. All residents were asked to complete a survey regarding their attitudes and perceptions on both peer review and professionalism. Only 2 of these classes participated in a newly adopted peer review evaluation system, after which time all participants were again asked to fill out the surveys. SETTING: Residents were from a PM&R residency program at an urban tertiary care medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All residents who completed the entire survey preintervention and postintervention were included. METHODS: The intervention was the introduction of peer review into residents' evaluation assessments. All residents filled out a survey with questions relating to peer review and professionalism before and after this intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes include understanding how residents perceive various attributes of professionalism, peer review, and the interconnection of the 2. RESULTS: Data analysis using SPSS was performed using survey scores for 46 residents preintrodution and postintroduction of a peer review evaluation system. Analysis revealed that residents who participated in the peer review process were more likely to agree that certain aspects of daily patient care, behaviors, and concepts were components of professionalism. However, they continued to believe that residents are ultimately not responsible for their colleagues' professionalism and that peer review might be harmful to a residency program. CONCLUSION: This study introduces an interesting dichotomy. Peer review clearly influences resident outlook on professionalism and yet there is a high suspicion regarding its implementation. If appropriately implemented, peer review may be a potent method of enhancing the education of this ACGME requirement

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, improves treadmill and community-based walking ability and health-related quality of life (HQL) in patients with intermittent claudication resulting from peripheral arterial disease (PAD). DESIGN: Retrospective meta-analysis of data pooled from six Phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized studies. SETTING: Patients were recruited from outpatient ambulatory medical care facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Patients' (n = 1,751) mean age +/- standard deviation was 65 +/- 9, and they had a history of PAD for 6 months or longer and an ankle brachial index (ABI) of 0.90 or less. INTERVENTION: Cilostazol 50 mg bid or 100 mg bid for 12, 16, or 24 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: ABI; maximal walking distance (MWD); pain-free walking distance on a graded and constant-load treadmill; and HQL, measured using the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). RESULTS: Maximal treadmill walking distance improved more in both cilostazol groups than in the placebo group (both P <.0001). WIQ and SF-36 physical summary scores improved significantly more with cilostazol than with placebo (for instance, WIQ distance score, P <.0001 and SF-36 physical summary score, P <.0001, comparing persons taking cilostazol with controls). Improved MWD correlated with improvements in WIQ (correlation with distance score, r = 0.34, P <.0001) and SF-36 physical summary scores (r = 0.29, P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with cilostazol was associated with greater improvements in community-based walking ability and HQL in patients with intermittent claudication than treatment with placebo. These improvements correlated with increased MWD. This analysis of effects of cilostazol on improving walking ability in persons with claudication is the first cilostazol study focused on community-based measures of functional status and HQL. Questionnaires assessing walking ability and HQL provide important patient-based information about clinical outcomes of claudication therapy