Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

MPORTANCE JAMA Dermatology Practice Gaps commentaries are intended to aid in the interpretation of the literature to make it more practical and applicable to daily patient care. Practice Gaps commentaries have had an impact on physician clinical practice and dermatology residency curricula. OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of JAMA Dermatology Practice Gaps commentaries on dermatology residency training programs in the United States, including journal club discussions and local quality improvement activities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS A web-based questionnaire of 17 questions was sent via e-mail to US dermatology residency program directors PDs in February 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Program director report of incorporating Practice Gaps themes and discussions into resident journal club activities, clinical practice, quality improvement activities, or research projects in the residency programs, as a result of a Practice Gaps commentary. RESULTS Of the 114 surveys distributed to US dermatology residency PDs, 48 were completed 42% response rate. Sixty percent of PDs reported familiarity with the Practice Gaps section of JAMA Dermatology, and 56% discuss these commentaries during resident journal club activities. Quality improvement and research projects have been initiated as a result of Practice Gaps commentaries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Practice Gaps commentaries are discussed during most dermatology residency journal club activities. Practice Gaps have had an impact on physician practice and dermatology residency curricula and can serve as a tool for enhanced continuing medical education and quality improvement initiatives.

via Measuring Impact of JAMA Dermatology Practice … [JAMA Dermatol. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI.

BACKGROUND:
Screening for lung cancer by low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCTS) has been demonstrated to reduce lung cancer-specific and overall mortality rates in high-risk individuals. From trial to clinical practice, it is crucial to obtain an accurate level of knowledge of the physicians who will recruit patients for a screening program. The actual current practice and knowledge of practitioners are unknown. This could be critical to develop dedicated continuous medical education programs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Three groups of French physicians-pulmonologists (PUs), thoracic oncologists (TOs), and general practitioners (GPs)-were surveyed through a dedicated questionnaire on lung cancer screening.
RESULTS:
A total of 242 physicians answered the questionnaire; 81% of TOs knew that LDCTS showed efficacy for screening lung cancer compared with 52% of PUs and 18% of GPs (P < .0001). Approximately one third of physicians recommended lung cancer screening in daily practice at the time of the survey, including 53% of PUs, 34% of TOs, and 20% of GPs (P < .001). However, 94% of GPs, 44% of PUs, and 33% of TOs used inappropriate tests, mainly chest radiography. Most GPs proposed screening for all smokers, whereas PUs and TOs reserved screening for heavy smokers (P = .040). Most PUs and TOs recommended annual LDCTS (76%), whereas the majority of GPs sent patients for screening tests every 3 to 5 years (93%; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS:
These results highlight the interest of physicians for lung cancer screening; meanwhile, our data stress the need for appropriate medical education and recommendations based on available evidence.

via Physicians’ Knowledge and Practice of Lung … [Clin Lung Cancer. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI.