Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: This project sought to describe unmet needs among patients reported with hepatitis C in New York City. DESIGN: From the New York City Health Department's hepatitis C surveillance database, we randomly selected patients whose positive hepatitis C test was in April or May 2005. In 2006, we interviewed patients by telephone and collected information from their clinicians or by medical record review. SETTING: New York City. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 180 of the 387 eligible patients and collected information from clinicians for 145 of the 180 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These included whether patients had understood their clinicians' explanation of their hepatitis C diagnosis, if they had been counseled about not drinking alcohol, information about support group attendance, vaccination against hepatitis A and B, health status, treatment, and other factors. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients, 7% stated that they had not understood their clinicians' explanation of their hepatitis C diagnosis, and 26% said that they had not been counseled about avoiding alcohol. Among the 90% of patients who had not attended a hepatitis support group, 31% were interested in attending. Among the 145 patients with information from clinicians, at least 28% were susceptible to hepatitis A and 18% to hepatitis B. CONCLUSIONS: This hepatitis C surveillance project, with information from patients and clinicians, illustrates a valuable use of a chronic hepatitis C surveillance system. The patients described here had several unmet needs, including hepatitis A and B vaccination, basic information about the virus, support groups, and counseling about preventing further liver damage and preventing transmission to others. Relatively simple and affordable health department activities can address these needs, improving quality of life and decreasing the likelihood of liver disease progression.

Physicians in residency training will be the referring physicians of tomorrow. We sought to determine the current surgical and medical trainees' perception of vascular surgery's endovascular qualifications and capabilities. An anonymous survey was sent to all general surgery and internal medicine residents at a single academic institution. Respondents answered the question 'Which specialty is the most qualified to perform (1) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion; (2) angiograms, angioplasty, and stenting of the carotid arteries; (3) renal arteries; (4) aorta; and (5) lower extremity arteries?' For each question, respondents chose one response, either vascular surgery, interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, or do not know. One hundred respondents completed the survey (general surgery, n=50; internal medicine, n=50). There was a significant difference in the attitudes of surgery and medicine residents when choosing the most qualified endovascular specialist (p<0.05). Surgery residents chose vascular surgery as the most qualified specialty for each listed procedure: carotid (80%, n=40), IVC (56%, n=28), aorta (100%, n=50), extremity (86%, n=43), renal (78%, n=39). Medicine residents chose vascular surgery as the most qualified specialty less frequently: carotid (66%, n=33), IVC (6%, n=3), aorta (88%, n=44), extremity (72%, n=36), renal (16%, n=8). There was no significant difference in specialty selection based on postgraduate year. There is a large discrepancy between surgical and medical trainees' perception of vascular surgery's endovascular abilities, particularly regarding IVC placement and renal artery interventions. If our own institution mirrors the nation, each passing year a significant portion of the 21,722 graduating internal medicine residents go into practice viewing vascular surgeons as second-tier endovascular providers. A concerted campaign should be undertaken to educate medical residents regarding the skills and capabilities of vascular surgeons