DC Medical Malpractice & Patient Safety Blog

On November 17, 2009 in Washington, D.C., Consumers Union hosted a forum of patient activists, advocates, doctors, nurses and others who want to reform the dangerous safety practices in the U.S. medical industry. (I attended as a medical malpractice attorney and patient safety advocate.)

You can watch a webcast of the forum here.

The forum included a moving panel of three women -- Helen Haskell, Patty Skolnik and Lori Nerbonne -- who recounted their experiences losing loved ones and what they have done since to try to achieve more openness, honesty and safety in American medicine.

Several journalists gave their perspectives, including

* Maggie Mahar, the author of Money-Driven Medicine and the Health Beat blog,

* Charles Ornstein of Pro Publica, who headed a team of investigative writers who exposed dangerous complacency in the California Board of Nursing, which allowed known dangerous nurses to continue to practice for years.

* Cathleen Crowley, chief writer for the Hearst newspaper project, "Dead by Mistake."

I attended the forum and was both inspired at the obvious dedication of the patient safety advocates in the room, yet frustrated with the lack of traction the safety movement is having in the health care reform in Congress.

Web sites are proliferating that offer candid -- sometimes brutally so -- reviews by patients of doctors. The sites include Angie's List, RateMDs, Yelp, DrScore and Vitals.com.

Now some doctors burned by reviews are striking back. A growing number of them are asking new patients to sign up-front agreements promising not to post anything about them on-line, or in any other media, "without prior written consent," according to an article by Sandra Boodman in the Washington Post.

The ethics and legality of such "gag orders" are questionable. But to my lights, they serve a useful purpose: Any doctor who would be so sensitive to criticism that he or she would ask me to sign such an agreement is not a doctor whom I would want to trust with my life. Period.

As for the web sites themselves, they have varying amounts of useful information. RateMDs, for example, one of the biggest, covers some 200,000 physicians across the country, but most of the doctors have only one or two reviews. It's not fair to make a judgment about a doctor based on such a limited survey. I would want to see at least ten or more reviews of a doctor, and see how consistent the ratings were among the responders, before thinking this was useful information.

The popularity of these web sites is a sign of how hungry patients are for reliable information in making the important choice of a doctor. And the fact is that there is very little reliable objective information on which patients can make informed decisions. I devoted a chapter of my book, "The Life You Save," to finding a top primary care doctor, and another to finding a top surgeon. I believe there is no easy shortcut for the hard work of:

* Checking credentials to make sure the doctor is board-certified by one of the officially recognized boards (Michael Jackson's live-in doctor, for example, was not certified in anything).

* Experiencing the doctor's care, at least once, to gauge his or her listening skills and empathy. These are important not just for making patients feel good, but for making accurate diagnoses and giving patients confidence in the care plan the doctor develops.

* Making sure the doctor has adequate backup for when the doctor is out of town.

* Learning that the doctor is on staff at a good nearby hospital.

A detailed discussion of how to find top doctors and surgeons can be found in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 of "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

Patrick Malone's new book was featured on the Today show in an interview with Matt Lauer. Click here to see the video and read Chapter 2 of the book. The book is "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

Topics discussed on the Today show interview included why you need to read your own medical records, guidelines for finding a top primary care doctor, and the importance of second and third opinions at every major medical crossroads.

Many elderly patients suffer protracted, and expensive, deaths as health care providers pummel them with technological fixes for bodies that have already worn out. The dilemma is that while no doctor wants to give futile care that tortures more than it heals, no one also wants to be guilty of euthanasia or abandoning their patient.

A group of Roman Catholic nuns at a convent near Rochester, New York, has a new/old answer to this dilemma: Involve the patient in a warm and loving community where the patient's wishes are always paramount, but death is faced with realism, and care goals are clarified long before any final crisis. As Jane Gross reported in a beautiful article in the New York Times:

A convent is a world apart, unduplicable. But the Sisters of St. Joseph, a congregation in this Rochester suburb, animate many factors that studies say contribute to successful aging and a gentle death — none of which require this special setting. These include a large social network, intellectual stimulation, continued engagement in life and spiritual beliefs, as well as health care guided by the less-is-more principles of palliative and hospice care — trends that are moving from the fringes to the mainstream.

For the elderly and infirm Roman Catholic sisters here, all of this takes place in a Mother House designed like a secular retirement community for a congregation that is literally dying off, like so many religious orders. On average, one sister dies each month, right here, not in the hospital, because few choose aggressive medical intervention at the end of life, although they are welcome to it if they want.

“We approach our living and our dying in the same way, with discernment,” said Sister Mary Lou Mitchell, the congregation president. “Maybe this is one of the messages we can send to society, by modeling it.”

I recommend reading the entire article, which is one more example of a spirit that I have tried to imbue in my book, “The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care — and Avoiding the Worst.” When patients become actively involved in understanding their own health care, they can make decisions that best fit their own values.

Elderly patients are different. They are more sensitive to some drugs, less to others, have unusual presentations of common conditions, and otherwise are not that easy to diagnose and treat when the doctor is used to dealing with younger patients.

Bemoaning the lack of required geriatric training in medical schools, geriatrician Dr. Rosanne Leipzig gave this example in a recent op-ed piece she wrote in the New York Times:

Often even experienced doctors are unaware that 80-year-olds are not the same as 50-year-olds. Pneumonia in a 50-year-old causes fever, cough and difficulty breathing; an 80-year-old with the same illness may have none of these symptoms, but just seem “not herself” — confused and unsteady, unable to get out of bed.

She may end up in a hospital, where a doctor prescribes a dose of antibiotic that would be right for a woman in her 50s, but is twice as much as an 80-year-old patient should get, and so she develops kidney failure, and grows weaker and more confused. In her confusion, she pulls the tube from her arm and the catheter from her bladder.

Instead of re-evaluating whether the tubes are needed, her doctor then asks the nurses to tie her arms to the bed so she won’t hurt herself. This only increases her agitation and keeps her bed-bound, causing her to lose muscle and bone mass. Eventually, she recovers from the pneumonia and her mind is clearer, so she’s considered ready for discharge — but she is no longer the woman she was before her illness. She’s more frail, and needs help with walking, bathing and daily chores.

This shouldn’t happen.

Dr. Leipzig co-authored an article for medical educators listing 26 areas of competency in treating elderly patients that medical students should have to demonstrate before getting out of school; the list is nicknamed the "Don't Kill Granny" list.

For the rest of us, the takeaway lesson is that when we're advocating for an elderly relative with a new doctor, we need to find out if the doctor has deep experience in treating elderly folks, and if not, ask for a second opinion from a doctor who does. This can make a huge difference in quality of medical care -- and quality of health for our relatives' twilight years.

More tips on being a patient advocate can be found in Patrick Malone's new book, "The Life You Save."

In a study published this week in The Lancet, a British research team found that surgical stockings given to stroke patients for prevention of blood clots do not work, reports Sam Lister of UK’s Times.

The compression stockings provide graduated pressure and should reduce swelling in the legs. Studies have shown that, for patients immobilized after surgery, these stockings effectively reduce formation of blood clots, which can be deadly when the clots travel up to the heart or lungs and obstruct blood flow.

However, in the new Lancet paper, scientists followed 2,500 stroke patients in Britain, Italy and Australia, and found that the use of compression stockings made no significant difference in the occurrence of DVT (deep vein thrombosis, the blood clots in the deep veins of the legs that can travel to the heart or lungs). Patients who wore the stockings actually suffered additional symptoms that include skin breaks, ulcers and blisters.

The results of the study were also presented at the European Stroke Conference on May 27 in Stockholm. Researchers believe this study conclusively shows compression stockings should not be recommended to stroke patients.

When someone over age 55 develops memory problems, it is often diagnosed as Alzheimer's, or another type of dementia, or perhaps Parkinson's disease, all of which are progressive and non-reversible. But families should be aware of one condition that can masquerade as any of these but if accurately diagnosed, can be treated successfully. The condition is called normal pressure hydrocephalus, or NPH, and as Jane Brody reported in the New York Times, because it is so frequently missed, no one is sure how many people have it, but estimates are up to 375,000 people in the United States.

Hydrocephalus involves a buildup of pressure inside the brain from lack of drainage of the cerebrospinal fluid that bathes and cushions the brain and spinal cord. Every person makes about two soda cans' worth of the fluid every day, and if it is not reabsorbed into the blood stream, pressure can build and cause damage to nerves and structures inside the brain.

Typically NPH presents first with a walking disorder -- the victims walk slowly with feet wide apart. It then progresses to urinary incontinence and loss of memory. These three issues are considered a "classic triad" for NPH.

If NPH is suspected, imaging of the brain will reveal one or more enlarged ventricles, the holes inside the brain that are filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The treatment is to put a tube into the ventricle to drain off the accumulated fluid and divert it into the abdomen. This surgically implanted shunt is reported to benefit 70 to 80 percent of patients with NPH. The manufacturer of a programmable shunt has a web site with more information: www.lifenph.com.

Strokes cause more disability than just about any other disease, but they don't have to. Effective treatments are known for the most common type of stroke; delivering them to the right patients has proven to be difficult. Now a group of researchers is proposing some changes in how stroke care is organized, with the hope of matching reality to the promise and greatly improving stroke outcomes.

In 1995, a landmark study was published showing that the impact of stroke on the human brain could be greatly diminished by using clot-busting drugs to dissolve the clots that kill brain cells in ischemic stroke. (Ischemic stroke is responsible for about four of five strokes. In ischemic stroke, brain tissue dies because blood clots or narrowed blood vessels block flow of oxygen-rich blood to brain tissue. In hemorrhagic stroke, which affects about one in five stroke patients, brain tissue dies because a burst blood vessel causes bleeding in the tissue.)

Today, though, it is estimated that fewer than one in ten victims of ischemic stroke are treated with either intravenous tPA, the main clot-dissolving drug, or other effective treatments, such as breaking up the clot with a mechanical device inserted inside the blood vessel.

The accepted convention is that tPA does not work unless the i.v. is started within three hours of the onset of stroke symptoms. Most patients don't get to the hospital that quickly, and even when they do, time is eaten up by the necessity to give everyone a CT scan to make sure they are not having a bleeding stroke, for which use of the clot-dissolving drugs could be a disaster.

A new article by Drs. Reza Hakimelahi and R. Gilberto González, "Neuroimaging of Ischemic Stroke With CT and MRI: Advancing Towards Physiology-Based Diagnosis and Therapy," advocates these changes to help deliver more of these proven treatments to more patients:

* Doctors need to recognize that the three-hour window for treatment sometimes is much longer in patients who have blockages of smaller vessels in the brain with some temporary compensation through "collateral" vessels. Better imaging studies can identify these patients who have an "ischemic penumbra" that would benefit from clot-dissolving drugs.

* Many patients can benefit, even after the three hours has expired, by direct intervention with mechanical devices to break up clots from the inside of the vessels. Because this requires expertise in interventional neuroradiology, a field with only a few hundred practitioners in the United States, the authors recommend cross-training for doctors in related fields who know how to use tiny tubes inside blood vessels to deliver treatments. These include interventional cardiologists.

* Hospitals that are recognized as expert in care of acute strokes could be divided between advanced and general levels of expertise. On the general level, any such hospital needs to have 24-hour CT scanning and the ability to give clot-busting drugs in the emergency department. To qualify as an advanced stroke center, the hospital would have to have the ability to do interventional treatments inside blood vessels ("endovascular therapy"), a neuro-intensive care unit, and a team of doctors from multiple specialties that work together to decide the best treatment for each patient.

(NOTE: To read this article, you have to sign up for a free membership at Medscape.com.)

As these ideas are debated in the medical industry, the best strategy for patients is to have some advance knowledge and basic planning. Knowing how common strokes are, and how urgent the timeline is ("Time Is Brain" in stroke treatment) once stroke symptoms start, here is what I advocate:

* Know the basic symptoms of stroke, and don't rationalize your way out of a trip to the hospital if the symptoms seem mild or go away after a few minutes. Here is a basic list from the American Stroke Association:
* Sudden numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, especially on one side of the body
* Sudden confusion, trouble speaking or understanding
* Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes
* Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance or coordination
* Sudden, severe headache with no known cause

* Know which hospital in your area has advanced stroke treatment staff and machines. Ask if they have a multi-disciplinary team. (It should include both neurosurgeons and endovascular therapists.) Ask if they have a neuro-intensive care unit (an ICU that treats only patients with brain or spinal cord problems).

* If a loved one suffers stroke symptoms, do not let the rescue squad take them to the nearest emergency room UNLESS the same hospital has advanced stroke treatment abilities.

* A multi-disciplinary team is important because conflicts of interest can drive doctors to advocate for therapy they can do when a safer, more effective treatment might be available from a doctor with different training. Having doctors work together to help the patient and family decide treatment is the best approach.

In his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, Patrick Malone discusses one tragic case in which a patient needed a teamwork approach to her neurological problem but didn't get it because the hospital had no effective team in place. The book discusses the questions to ask to make sure your doctors are working together and not as competitors for your health care business.

An Institute of Medicine report released on April 28, 2009, denounces the adverse effects that the health care system suffers from the free gifts regularly pumped into hospitals, medical schools, and doctors’ offices, writes New York Times’ Gardiner Harris. The report strongly advises doctors to stop accepting the gifts. The report says that accepting gifts would “create conflicts of interest, threaten the integrity of their missions and their reputations, and put public trust in jeopardy.”

When doctors accept gifts from drug companies – which may be money, drug samples, office supplies or food – they change their prescribing habits. This change may or may not be conscious, but the “reciprocity instinct” that prompts people to return a favor is part of human nature that has been recognized by psychologists and anthropologists. And when this happens, the patients are the real victims: their doctors may prescribe new drugs that are yet to be tested for their safety or effectiveness, or drugs that patients can easily replace with diet or lifestyle changes.

In his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care – and Avoiding the Worst, Patrick Malone discusses steps patients can take to avoid being victims of such conflicts of interest. He also explains how an average patient can dissect statistics on drug performance to determine if a particular drug is really as effective as it’s marketed to be.

On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a warning for consumers to immediately stop using dietary supplements containing Hydroxycut, which has been linked to dozens of serious health problems including jaundice and liver damage. The dietary supplement is also responsible for one death from liver failure. Other reported health problems include seizures, muscle damage and cardiovascular disorders.

Patients who reported health problems were taking recommended dosage of Hydroxycut products, dietary supplements for weight loss. Therefore, the FDA urges consumers to stop taking Hydroxycut products immediately to avoid risks, many of which can involve permanent damage to your health.

The agency also advises consumers to consult a doctor if they experience these symptoms: jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes), brown urine, nausea, vomiting, light-colored stools, excessive fatigue, weakness, stomach or abdominal pain, itching and loss of appetite.

Manufacturer of the dietary supplement, Iovate Health Sciences of Ontario, agreed to recall the products.

Diet supplements are promoted for their health benefits. Their “natural” ingredients are supposedly safer for a host of benefits like losing weight and gaining energy. The truth is that for most supplements, the benefits are unproven and untested, and the safety of these products is questionable.

Under federal law, diet supplements, unlike drugs, do not have to prove their safety and effectiveness before being sold to consumers. The supplement manufacturers are supposed to keep track of their own safety with very little government oversight until tragedy strikes.

Ironically, though, the diet supplements contain ingredients that mimic the actions of drugs and in some cases even contain actual prescription drug ingredients. Spiking a supplement with any prescription drug is illegal, and the FDA has been on a campaign to identify these products. Since December 2008, it has listed 70 brands of supplements that contained hidden and potentially dangerous drugs.

Another problem is that once reports start coming in of consumers sickened or injured after taking a supplement, it is often hard for safety officials to pin down what ingredient of the supplement was the culprit. Hydroxycut, for example, has a blend of a number of substances, the formula of which has changed over time. And for any of these products, because they are derived from plant materials, the strength can vary from batch to batch.

The best advice for consumers: Don’t be fooled by “natural.” When you’re taking a diet supplement, you are really ingesting a bunch of pharmacologically active substances, some of which won’t hurt you but won’t necessarily help you either. And sometimes, as with Hydroxycut, you can be hurt.

Getting a loved one home from the hospital is always a relief for both patient and family, but the weeks immediately after hospital discharge are fraught with peril, as many families don't discover until the patient has to be readmitted for a new problem. This is especially common with Medicare patients: an alarming one in five Medicare patients are back in the hospital within thirty days, and one in three are readmitted within ninety days. Fully half of the non-surgical patients who have to be readmitted in the first month after going home had no followup visit with any doctor during that same month. That means the patients were basically set adrift to fend for themselves. These numbers come from an analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine, as reported in an editorial in the New York Times.

Leaders in the health care field freely admit that hospital readmissions come about from poor discharge planning and inadequate communication with family members about what they need to do to keep the patient healthy. The president of the American Hospital Association said in a letter to The Times about the editorial: "Most unplanned readmissions can be traced back to our fragmented delivery system, and to the lack of social support programs for many elderly and sick patients."

What is the answer?

Family members who are assigned by hospitals to take care of a loved one at home need to be very clear on what they are supposed to do. Do not let a family member be dumped on your lap without a clear, written list of everything they need, including medications, therapies, and appointments for return visits. Family members need a lifeline they can call on when things don't seem to be going right.

The leaders of our health care system are talking about extending Medicare benefits so that nurse managers can coordinate the transition from hospital to home, or teams of caregivers can conduct house calls on recently discharged patients. These are promising ideas, but what is needed right now is for anyone who has a family member coming home from the hospital to speak up and insist on clear instructions and advice. Being forceful and clear can help the caregivers help you to make sure there is a well thought out plan and that you can realistically carry it out.

Patrick Malone's new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, has a chapter on how family members can become effective patient advocates when they have someone in the hospital. The chapter includes a list of key checkoff points that you need to understand when a loved one is discharged to your care. You need to have at a minimum:

* A written set of discharge instructions.

* A specific appointment with the doctor in charge for a followup visit.

* A list of bad things to watch out for, and the contact person to relay this information to.

* Written lists of all medications that need to be taken, when and how; plus all therapies that need to be done with similar detailed instructions.

In a newly released Thomson Reuters survey, one in five respondents say they have delayed medical care, and one in four of those who did listed financial cost as the primary reason, reports Maggie Fox of Reuters. The survey also predicted that in the next three months, one in every five adults in America will have difficulty paying for health insurance or health care.

The data show a significantly higher number of Americans putting off healthcare than in 2006, when the same question was asked in a survey. Leaders of the study associate this increase with growing number of Americans losing employer-sponsored health insurance.

The study leader Gary Pickens predicted that America’s “collective well-being” will be hurt if people continue to delay necessary treatments.

If you find yourself unable to afford healthcare or health insurance, check with your state and local agencies to see if you are eligible for Medicaid or other forms of financial assistance. Pharmaceutical companies often have programs for uninsured patients. Additional resources may be available: Walgreens, for example, recently announced that its Take Care program will offer free routine clinic services for the uninsured and unemployed.

One of the true pioneers of modern medicine is Dr. Thomas Sarzl, who performed the first liver transplant and who developed many of the procedures that have made transplantation a safe lifesaving treatment for thousands of people.

Dr. Sarzl is still active at age 83. He was interviewed recently by another transplant surgeon, Dr. Pauline Chen, for her column in the New York Times.

From his many years of experience, Dr. Starzl gave three nuggets of advice to patients, which I am reprinting because I think he is right on target:

"As for the patients," he told Dr. Chen, "I would give this advice — I followed it myself. That is to get a practitioner of general medicine to take care of you, somebody who is not a narrow specialist. And have that person take care of yourself and the people you care for most, your family. The second is to be constantly learning so you can be informed and have some judgment about advice you are given. And then the third item would be to get a second opinion if some really significant thing happens that requires drastic therapy. Those decisions are so important that I think you should get a second opinion if you come to a point where you need the treatment required for cancer or transplantation or catastrophic indications."

My new book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst," makes some of these same points. For example, Step Three of my "nine steps" says: "Team up with the best primary care doctor you can find." And Chapter 9 is titled: "The Second Opinion: Always Your First Choice."

Everybody knows that close friendships can be wonderful, and medical researchers are now coming up with tangible evidence that friendship can pay off in longer and healthier lives as well.

"Friendship has a bigger impact on our psychological well-being than family relationships," says sociologist Rebecca Adams of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. She was quoted in an article by Tara Parker-Pope in the New York Times.

Ms. Parker-Pope's article was inspired by a book, "The Girls from Ames: A Story of Women and a 40-Year Friendship." Author Jeffrey Zaslow documents how eleven childhood friends from Iowa continued to nurture and sustain each other, including two of them who recently learned they had breast cancer.

Researchers have found that friendship has an even greater effect on health than being married or having family members nearby. No one is quite sure what it is about friendship that sustains people, but perhaps what we all take heart from is the idea that "we're all in this together."

If you are pregnant and experiencing fatigue, dry skin, sleep loss, or weight loss, it may be worthwhile to find out whether you are a candidate for a thyroid test – these symptoms, while common in pregnant women, may be caused by underactivity (hypothyroidism) or overactivity (hyperthyroidism) of the thyroid gland.

If untreated during pregnancy, both conditions have been shown to result in higher risks for miscarriage, premature birth, preeclampsia, and even impaired intelligence in the child (in the case of hypothyroidism). But does such risk necessarily warrant a universal recommendation for thyroid tests in pregnant women? Ingfei Chen explores an ongoing debate on this issue in a New York Times article.

The thyroid gland produces hormones that regulate many important aspects of our bodies, including metabolism, body weight and heart rate. When there is too much of this thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), the pregnant woman suffers from hyperthyroidism and experience poor sleep, weight loss, and nervousness after giving birth. On the other hand, when the thyroid gland is underactive, the resulting hypothyroidism causes fatigue, weight gain and dry skin. Both conditions are manifested in very subtle symptoms but are risk factors for dangerous pregnancy complications.

While both an overactive and an underactive thyroid spell trouble for pregnant women, hypothyroidism is the more common and worrisome condition. Hypothyroidism, affecting 10 to 20% of women of childbearing age, is often undiagnosed but hampers fetal brain development. A study done 10 years ago reports that 19% of children born to women with untreated hypothyroidism had an IQ of 85 or lower, whereas the same measure was only 5% for those born to mothers with a healthy thyroid.

Although risks of an imbalanced level of TSH are known, the medical field is currently split on whether there is sufficient existing evidence for the benefits of treating the condition, and subsequently, of recommending universal screening. Studies are underway to track pregnant women with healthy and underactive thyroids, and their children will be tested for IQ. Until scientists arrive at conclusive results, the general clinical policy is to recommend a thyroid test to high-risk women (for example, a woman with family history of thyroid problems). However, more doctors have begun recommending the test to normal-risk expecting mothers, and many think that evidence for universal screening will soon be available, according to Dr. Stagnaro-Green, an endocrinologist at Touro University College of Medicine in New Jersey.

Many people nowadays have never seen a bed bug, a blood-sucking insect assumed to exist only in underdeveloped countries and impoverished neighborhoods. However, more and more Americans are now finding themselves aghast with the sight of real bed bugs infesting their homes. An article published in the Journal of American Medical Association in April discusses the consequences of bed bug bites, and ways to prevent them, Jane Brody writes in the New York Times.

Authors of the newly published article attribute the resurgence of bed bugs in developed countries to “international travel, immigration, changes in pest control practices, and insecticide resistance.” The critters hitchhike with travelers from continent to continent, resulting in significantly higher numbers of infestations in the United States, Canada, and Australia in recent years.

While most victims of bed bugs do not react, about 30 percent of those bitten will have “small, pink, itchy bumps” that resemble mosquito bites. These bumps can be treated with oral or topical anti-itch product, such as antihistamine or calamine lotion. More sensitive people may develop intense itching and infections. Other more extreme reactions include asthma, generalized hives and a life-threatening allergy that should be treated immediately.

So how should we prevent these bugs from entering our homes? Authors of the article suggest careful inspection before buying second-handed mattresses, sofas, cushioned chairs and similar furnishings. They also advise against picking up discarded furnitures. And if you must take the clothes left out by your neighbors, you should wash them immediately in hot water or have them dry cleaned. Travelers should also be vigilant when packing and unpacking, searching for bugs that may have climbed into their luggages.

Lastly, if your home has already been infested by bed bugs, it’s recommended that you hire a professional exterminator, which costs more than home remedies but is much more effective in warding off the pests.

As if there is not already a multitude of problems awaiting those who lead an inactive lifestyle, researchers recently found yet another inactivity-related condition that threatens human health, a condition called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to Medical News Today.

In an article published in The Journal of Physiology, Dr. John Thyfault of the University of Missouri reports his research group’s findings that established a link between low aerobic fitness level and fatty liver disease. His group carefully bred two groups of rats of different levels of intrinsic aerobic capacity, so that after 17 generations the rats in the “fit” group can run 1500 meters, whereas the “unfit” rats can undertake only 200 meters.

Rats in the “fit” group normally live healthy lives, even though they are not more active than those in the unfit group. However, those in the “unfit” group often display clear symptoms of NAFLD, including fibrosis, which is a form of liver damage seen in alcohol abuse patients.

Fatty liver disease causes fat deposit in patients’ livers and elevated levels of fat in their blood. The “unfit” rats in Thyfault’s study also were found to have poor fat processing power. These effects together result in high fat retention in patients, making them prone to obesity and its related risks of heart disease, strokes and diabetes.

Salmonella, which causes serious gastrointestinal illnesses that can be life-threatening, was found in pistachios last week, according to the Los Angeles Times. The FDA has issued warnings for consumers to stop eating all foods containing pistachios, while investigations are underway.

Although salmonella contamination in pistachios is yet to be confirmed, Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella Inc., the nation’s second-largest pistachio processor, has voluntarily recalled more than 2 million pounds of nuts that it shipped out last fall. Kraft Foods Inc. and Kroger have also recalled some of their pistachio products.

Consumers are advised to stop eating pistachio products and monitor the investigations as more reports become available.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of the pharmaceutical industry in promoting its products to the American public. The latest example: The "Real Age" questionnaire that millions of people have filled out on the Internet, to tell them if their "real age," based on lifestyle and family history, is younger or older than their chronological age.

It turns out that the company that sponsors the Real Age web site sells to pharmaceutical companies the detailed information it receives from patients who fill out the 150 questions in its survey. The actual names and email addresses of patients do not get transmitted to the drug companies, but Real Age sends emails to patients on behalf of the drug companies, and these emails are targeted to what a drug company thinks that patient might be interested in, based on the patient's responses to the Real Age questions.

All this happens, according to a report by Stephanie Clifford in the New York Times, whenever a patient clicks "yes" to the multiple opportunities offered during the Real Age questionnaire to "become a member" of the Real Age community. Once a patient says yes to membership, his information becomes part of a database that is then combed to see what pharmaceutical drugs might appeal to the patient.

"It's free," as the Real Age web site keeps reminding people.

But is it really? Patients who are drawn toward a drug by "direct to consumer" pitches like this are likely to sign on for a prescription they may not really need, and every prescription drug carries side effects that may outweigh the drug's benefits. In the early years of a drug's marketing, when manufacturers are most keen on pushing their products, the risks are not fully known to the medical community. That's because the studies done on drugs to win FDA approval are usually limited to a few thousand carefully selected patients.

The safest approach to using prescription drugs is explored by Patrick Malone in his new book, The Life You Save. See chapter 7.

The PSA screening test for prostate cancer causes far more men to undergo unnecessary and harmful treatment than it saves lives, according to two large new studies. As reported by Gina Kolata in the New York Times, one study that followed 77,000 American men for a decade found zero benefit in lowered death rates, while the other study, which followed 182,000 Europeans for nine years, found that only seven lives were saved for every 10,000 men screened with the blood test.

And for every one of those saved lives, forty-eight men were told they had cancer and underwent unnecessary treatment. That treatment can cause impotence or incontinence if it involves surgery, or problems with bowel elimination if it involves radiation.

The problem is not so much the test but the disease. Prostate cancer is usually very slow to grow, and in the cases where it is aggressive, it may already be too late to save the patient when it is discovered.

Both studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The same issue, on a less dramatic scale, applies to mammography screening for breast cancer. According to Dr. Michael Barry, who wrote an editorial in the NEJM accompanying the research studies, about ten women receive a diagnosis of breast cancer and undergo needless treatment for every one woman whose life is saved after having a mammogram. Breast cancer is much more dangerous than prostate cancer, so screening can still be warranted.

What doctors need, and still do not have, is a way to sort out cancers that would be deadly without treatment from those that would not.

The bottom line for patients is to ask careful questions of your doctor and understand the numbers before you decide whether cancer screening is right for you. Patrick Malone's new book, The Life You Save, has a chapter that helps patients sort through the statistics of cancer screening.

A study published in February 2009 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports that low levels of alcohol consumption may be responsible for about 5% of cancers in American women (or 30,000 cases a year), Thomas Maugh writes in a Los Angeles Times story. This newfound risk of low or moderate consumption of alcohol may offset its cardiovascular benefits.

For more than seven years, the British-led research followed more than 1 million women between ages of 45 and 75. That is one in every four U.K. women in their age group. The study found that “[h]aving a daily drink was associated with 11 additional breast cancers per year per 1,000 women, one additional cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, one additional cancer of the rectum, and 0.7 additional cases each for esophageal, laryngeal and liver cancers.” Two drinks a day doubles the cancer rates, and a third drink triples the figure.

Leader of this research, Naomi E. Allen of the University of Oxford, thinks it’s too soon to draw a conclusion on whether women should abandon their daily drinks. Allen is working on a separate study of potential cardiovascular benefits using the same group of study subjects, which she and other scientists hope will bring the overall benefits and risks of alcohol consumption to light.

It's always intimidating to undergo an MRI scan or CT scan. The machines are loud and enormous and seem to swallow your body. For all the trouble and expense, patients deserve the very latest scanning equipment and should have their images read by only the most highly qualified doctors. Alas, there is a quiet scandal in the $100 billion/year medical imaging industry. Patients cannot count on the best unless they insist on it.

As quoted by Gina Kolata in the New York Times, radiology leaders say, in the words of one: "The system is just totally, totally broken." That from Dr. Vijay Rao, chair of radiology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. One big problem is that insurers pay standard rates for scans, even if a scan on a 10-year-old machine produces a blurry image and results in patients undergoing unnecessary surgery or missing a diagnosis. There is also no financial incentive for scanning facilities to have the images interpreted by sub-specialists with more expertise in the body part being studied. But there is a big financial incentive for doctors to own their own scanning equipment, and that results in many unnecessary referrals for scans when the doctor's judgment about the patient's needs is clouded by financial conflicts of interest.

Wise patients should ask pointed questions before submitting to any imaging scan. Here is a list, adapted from Patrick Malone's new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, available at Amazon.

1. Is the scanning machine the latest generational available? If not, is there another facility nearby that has the latest generation? (In MRI scans for example, the stronger magnets on newer machines make for crisper images.)

2. Does the doctor who wants me to have this scan own the scanning equipment or the scanning facility? (If so, get an opinion from another doctor with no financial interest about whether you need the scan at this facility.)

3. Who will interpret the images? Is that doctor a sub-specialist in what's being studied? (Examples of radiology sub-specialties include musculo-skeletal, neuroradiology (brain and spine), abdominal and chest.) If not, can we get a second reading from a sub-specialist?

4. Is the scanning facility accredited by the American College of Radiology? (This ensures that basic standards are met, such as the technologist who runs the scanning machine being certified and the machine being regularly inspected for proper functioning.)

Involved patients will also want to sit down with the doctor and look at the images together. You will notice how much more detail comes out when the scan has been done on an up-to-date machine by well-trained personnel. In the New York Times article, you can see in a knee scan how the ligament is blurry on the left-side image but comes out clearly in the image on the right -- a slanting striated structure that connects the middle of the top of the tibia to the back of the femur.

Watch for this buzzword to become important in health care quality and safety over the next few years: "Comparative effectiveness research."

The $787 billion economic stimulus package that was signed into law in February 2009 will fund federal research on comparative effectiveness of treatment options, according to The New York Times’ Robert Pear. The research is aimed at saving money; health care in America totaled $2.2 trillion in 2007. But it could also provide a big boost toward higher quality health care.

Too few studies have been done to compare different treatments for a given illness, and as a result, doctors don’t really have solid information about what works for which patients. The gap in evidence translates into patients’ risk of getting ineffective or unnecessary treatments at billions of dollars each year. The new research projects will seek the most efficient and cost-effective treatments available to patients, and, in the process, reduce Americans’ spending on health care.

This new government effort in healthcare reform is a step toward improving quality of care. The studies of medical effectiveness already done have punctured many myths about medical treatments, proving over and over that what seems logical and reasonable does not always translate into proven benefits for patients.

One small example from the Patrick Malone law firm's experience shows how tragic injuries can come from unnecessary medical treatment. Our 13-year-old client suffered a head injury when she fell off her bicycle. She developed bleeding on the surface of the brain which was successfully drained by drilling a small hole in her skull. She was on her way toward uneventful and complete recovery when her neurosurgeon prescribed, on her way home from the hospital, a six-month course of Dilantin to prevent possible seizures. Over the course of the next several weeks, she developed a severe allergic reaction to the Dilantin that caused permanent damage to the corneas of both eyes, leaving her legally blind. When we investigated the case, we discovered that researchers had published a comprehensive study in one of the leading medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, proving that Dilantin is ineffective in preventing seizures after head injury in patients who don't spontaneously develop seizures in the first place. The surgeon was following traditional practice when he prescribed the drug to our client and was simply not aware of this research showing that the drug just didn't work. (The study showed that when patients after a head injury were randomly assigned to either receive Dilantin or a dummy pill, the ones who got the Dilantin actually had a few more seizures in the following months than the ones on the dummy pill.)

With the government behind a push to expand effectiveness research and give more publicity to the results of such research, patients will benefit by receiving only treatments that are proven to work and not those that are dangerous because they are worthless and come with side effects such as the one our young client experienced.

Do large doses of vitamins really help ward off health problems, including insomnia, fatigue, digestive disorders, and impaired immune system? A number of recent scientific studies challenge the long-held popular belief in the disease-preventing power of vitamin pills, which cost Americans $23 billion a year, Tara Parker-Pope reports in a New York Times article.

A study published last October showed that taking vitamin E or selenium does not prevent prostate cancer. In a separate study in November, scientists found that neither vitamin E nor vitamin C reduces the risk for cardiovascular diseases for men. Most recently, Women’s Health Initiative released a report in February 2009 that found no connection between vitamin usage and prevention of cancer or heart disease in women.

Not only have scientists discovered that, contrary to public belief, vitamins generally do not prevent or treat diseases, they found harmful effects of vitamin pills – beta carotene users are at greater risk for lung cancer, and those who take folic acid are more likely to have precancerous polyps than those who don’t.

If high doses of vitamin pills aren’t proven to prevent diseases and can potentially be harmful to our health, where else do we turn to avoid vitamin deficiency? Dr. Peter Gann, professor and director of research at the University of Illinois at Chicago, suggests a healthful and balanced diet that includes whole fruits or vegetables, since “[there] may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits.”

The American public should not throw out their vitamins just yet. Researchers are still studying the benefits of high doses of some promising vitamin extracts, for example, Vitamin D’s potential in reducing risks for cancer. But they again warn that “[w]e should wait for large-scale clinical trials before jumping on the vitamin bandwagon and taking high doses.”

In a recent initiative against contaminated weight-loss products, the FDA finds 69 drugs to be contaminated with prescription drugs and chemicals, and expects the list of brands to grow even longer in the next few weeks, reports Natasha Singer of the New York Times. A complete list of the tainted drugs found so far is available on FDA’s website.

One of the best known drugs on FDA’s list is StarCaps, endorsed by many celebrities, which was found to be tainted with bumentanide, a powerful diuretic that can give rise to serious side effects. FDA’s Michael Levy said that many of the products “either contain dangerous undeclared ingredients or…have no effect at all.”

These weight-loss products are not only illegal – FDA considers a supplement unapproved if it contains an undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredient – they also pose dangerous risks for consumers. For one thing, the ingredients on their own can cause problems like elevated blood pressure or seizures. Worse, the hidden ingredients can have toxic interactions with other medications, making it difficult for doctors to diagnose patients or manage their illnesses.

Although many of the distributors of these 69 drugs have voluntarily recalled the products, others continue to sell them on the internet. Consumers taking weight-loss supplements should monitor FDA’s growing list of products they should avoid and consult their doctors for a healthy and safe weight management plan.

One of the less common forms of cancer, oral cancer was diagnosed in about 35,300 Americans last year and caused the death of 7,600 people. Although oral cancer is one of the easiest to detect and diagnose, the five-year survival rate is only 59%, and more than 60% of cases are diagnosed in the late, incurable stages – which may be a result of people not regularly visiting their dentists or not asking to have visual exams, reports Laurie Tarkan of the New York Times.

The most effective way to screen for oral cancer is to carefully look for it. The dentist or dental hygienist should examine the cheeks, the gums, the floor of the mouth, the area behind the teeth, the palate and the tonsil area (pulling the tongue forward), and should feel the lymph nodes of the neck. Such visual exams are found to reduce mortality by 34% in a study done in India. Emerging on the market are alternative tests and devices that may be more sensitive than the traditional visual exams. However, no decisive study has been done to prove that the more expensive tests are necessarily better.

Dentists encourage patients to get a thorough visual exam every year, and they recommend it not only to the high-risk groups (smokers and heavy drinkers) but to every adult, because oral cancer has recently been linked to oral HPV, which is transmitted through oral sex.

An international research team has shown that death and complication rates from surgery can be dramatically improved by using simple checklists to make sure that safety measures are taken before, during and after each operation.

The research project, involving nearly 8,000 patients at eight hospitals around the world, was done as part of the World Health Organization's program called Safe Surgery Saves Lives. The results were published in January 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

When the surgical teams at the hospitals used the checklists, they found that death rates were cut in half and non-fatal complications by one-third.

The nineteen items on the surgical safety checklist include basic items like verifying that the team has the correct patient and the correct surgical site, making sure the pulse oximeter (which measures oxygen in the blood) is working, making sure antibiotics have been given within one hour before the start of the surgery to prevent infection, and confirming that x-rays needed for the case are on display in the operating room. One other item on the checklist is to have all members of the surgical team introduce themselves by name and role; this is intended to give permission to lower-status team members to speak up at a later time if they notice something wrong. Click here for the entire checklist from the WHO (which is part of the United Nations).

The Patrick Malone law firm has prosecuted many lawsuits against hospitals where these basic preventive steps were not done and their absence led to tragedy. Examples include non-functioning pulse oximeters, surgery done on the wrong body part, and failing to prepare for known possible risks like heavy bleeding.

Patrick Malone discusses steps that patients can take to make sure their surgeons follow safe practices in his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, available at Amazon.

The convenience of the Internet allows consumers to evaluate and compare their experiences with anything from piercings and dog walking to a visit to their doctor’s office. Although the website ratings may be helpful in an initial survey of local doctors, patients should not look to them as their sole source of information when determining to whom they’ll entrust their health care, says Dr. Pauline W. Chen in a New York Times article.

Dr. Chen noted that on a particular consumer reviews website, doctors are evaluated in five categories (price, quality, responsiveness, punctuality and professionalism) and given a grade according to user input. She found that doctors who are “warm, concerned and focused” receive A’s or B’s, whereas the less friendly may be given failing grades.

While these ratings correctly reflect the fact that patients feel more at ease with compassionate and caring doctors, one would be hard-pressed to find in these report cards an evaluation of the doctors’ medical skills. Such is not the case in consumers’ evaluation of other trades, such as roofing or body piercing, where they are quick to comment on the quality of services or craftsmanship.

Dr. Chen suggests that, instead of simply relying on some generic grades that could very well be a mere personality assessment, patients should find out about their doctor’s “training, board certification, experience, membership in a respected professional society, safety records and hospital affiliations.”

The American College of Surgeons found this year that more than a third of patients did not review the credentials of the surgeons who operated on them, but on average they spend 10 hours researching a job change or 8 hours on a new car.

Patients should not blindly trust their doctors. “[M]edicine and surgery are team sports,” said Dr. Thomas Russell, executive director of the American College of Surgeons. Patients make the ultimate decisions about who will give them health care and, in that capacity, they have an important role in the team. They should be diligent in educating themselves.

Dr. Russell’s book, “I Need an Operation…Now What? A Patient’s Guide to a Safe and Successful Outcome,” encourages patients to equip themselves with knowledge of their illnesses and doctors and be more effectively involved in their own treatment plan.

Patrick Malone has written a book on how consumers can be pro-active in their medical care. The book is: The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care and Avoiding the Worst. Read about the book here. It can be pre-ordered here on Amazon. Several chapters detail the steps needed to find both top primary care doctors as well as specialists.

A torn meniscus that shows up on the MRI scan may not be the reason why your knee is hurting. For Cheryl Westein, who demanded an MRI and saw a torn cartilage on the scan, the culprit behind her painful knee was actually arthritis. Gina Kolata in a New York Times article reports recent scientific findings that further support what many physicians already believe: radiological imaging is a presurgical tool and “does not help with a diagnosis.”

Dr. Felson and Dr. Modic, in their separate studies, found that abnormalities in scans are common and are not conclusive evidence of a diagnosis. For example, 60 percent of healthy people who do not complain of back pain will turn out to have degenerative changes in their spines. Many abnormalities go away on their own in a few months, requiring no medical intervention.

Relying on scans for diagnoses can lead referring physicians to recommend “unnecessary or sometimes even harmful treatments, including surgery.” If the root cause of the knee pain is arthritis and not the torn meniscus, the pain will return even after a surgery repairing the meniscus, as the arthritic bones continue to wear down the cartilage.

It is important for patients to know that getting radiological imaging is often not the best way to find out what is causing their discomfort. More importantly, since scans reveal abnormalities that may not be “catastrophic findings”, doctors could be misled to recommend harmful regimens that result in extra expenses.

Seroquel is an atypical antipsychotic drug used to treat mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. But patients who take Seroquel are 70% more likely to become diabetic than those who don’t take this drug, a risk that the drug manufacturer AstraZeneca was aware of as early as 2000. Joe Schneider and Margaret C. Fisk of Bloomberg.com report AstraZeneca’s release of its internal studies that suggested causal links between Seroquel and “diabetes and related conditions.”

Not only should patients watch out for the increased risk of diabetes that Seroquel and similar drugs (they are in a class called “atypical antipsychotics,” including Abilify, Zyprexa, and others), they need to be aware of the mental illnesses that these drugs are approved to treat. A Reuters article reports that an AstraZeneca sales representative marketed Seroquel as a depression-treating drug to a physician, which is an unapproved use of the drug. Although it is not clear from the article what dangers are associated with treating depression with Seroquel, it is safest to limit use of these powerful drugs to what they're approved to treat.

Despite reforms in medical training, many resident doctors are still sleep-deprived and therefore more likely to make mistakes than well-rested doctors in training, according to an Institute of Medicine study, as reported by Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times.

In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education capped resident doctors’ working hours at 80 per week. Before that, young medical school graduates could average 110 hours a week. But even now, with the hours capped at 80 hours a week, the Institute of Medicine report reveals that there are common violations of the 80-hour cap, although residents rarely complain. Eighty hours itself is a demanding routine even without the excess hours.

Consequences of sleep deprivation are many – including irritability, impaired judgment, and inability to concentrate – and each of these can debilitate the doctors in performing and thinking through their tasks. For better patient care and the health of the resident doctors, the Institute of Medicine recommends allowing an uninterrupted nap time for up to five hours.

It's not clear from this latest study how reform will be instituted and who will pay for it. Leaders in the field acknowledge that it will be expensive to put in place the same kind of mandatory rest periods that workers in other industries, like truck drivers, have.

Millions of people with normal cholesterol levels in their blood could be started on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs based on a new research study, but if patients understood the numbers behind the study, they might not move so fast to put statins in their medicine cabinet. Every patient can benefit from a closer understanding of how statistics work in medicine to push people toward treatments that they may or may not really benefit from.

The latest study involves people who were put on cholesterol-lowering statins because they had a high result on a blood test called C-Reactive Protein, even though the same people did not have high cholesterol.

As reported by Tara Parker-Pope in the New York Times' "Well" blog, here are the key numbers:

* The researchers reported an impressive sounding 50 percent reduction in heart attacks in the group treated with statins, as compared to patients in the same study who got a sugar pill (placebo) instead.

* But the real numbers of actual patients helped by the statins were only around nine in every 1,000 people treated -- less than one percent.

How do those numbers fit together? In the placebo group, 18 of every 1,000 patients suffered a heart attack or some other serious heart event during the study. In the group taking the statin drug, nine of every 1,000 patients had a serious heart event. That's how the researchers could report that the risk had been cut in half -- from eighteen to nine -- although the actual numbers of patients were few. Comparing eighteen to nine is called a relative risk ratio. Comparing 18/1,000 to 9/1,000 is called comparing the absolute risk. The absolute risk number is usually more meaningful.

Another important number for patients to understand in figuring out if a new medicine is for them is called the "number needed to treat." How many patients need to be treated with the new drug for one patient to benefit?

According to a New England Journal of Medicine editorial which analyzed the new study, 120 patients would need to be treated with statins over two years for just one of those patients to benefit.

That number might be enough to persuade some patients to take the drug. But it's a lot different than fifty percent. Bottom line: to make intelligent choices about treatments, patients need to understand how many patients like them are really expected to benefit from the treatment.

Tara Parker-Pope recently wrote two articles discussing fundamental rules for doctors and for patients.

The rules for doctors can be boiled down to respect for the patient's feelings and understanding that they did not come to the office in order to waste the doctor's time for the sheer pleasure of it. Dr. Robert Lamberts, who blogs under the name of "Dr. Rob," is the physician who initially invented the rules for doctors quoted by Parker-Pope. His original article can be found on his blog, Musings of a Distractible Mind.

Dr. Lamberts also wrote the rules for patients, which mostly focus on the importance of being honest and open with your doctor, maintaining the lines of communication between you and the doctor and finding a doctor you can trust.

Both lists are worth reading in their entirety.

It is instructive and interesting to read about Senator Edward Kennedy's treatment for his brain tumor.

The linked article describes the change in direction between May 20th of this year, when Kennedy's brain cancer was first disclosed and surgery was not discussed as a possible treatment, and two weeks later, when neurosurgeons performed a "successful" surgery on his brain.

Why the change? From the article:

Precisely why Mr. Kennedy’s treatment course changed is not known; he and his doctors are not talking to reporters.

What is known is that a few days after Mr. Kennedy learned he had a malignant brain tumor in the left parietal lobe, he invited a group of national experts to discuss his case.

The meeting on May 30 was extraordinary in at least two ways.

One was the ability of a powerful patient — in this case, a scion of a legendary political family and the chairman of the Senate’s health committee — to summon noted consultants to learn about the latest therapy and research findings.

The second was his efficiency in quickly convening more than a dozen experts from at least six academic centers. Some flew to Boston. Others participated by telephone after receiving pertinent test results and other medical records.

As the article notes, Senator Kennedy called similar conferences of experts when one of his children was diagnosed with bone cancer and the other with lung cancer. He has been known to advise his colleagues in the Senate to use this method when dealing with an illness in the family.

Obviously, powerful senators can do things the rest of us cannot. Again, from the article:

Mr. Kennedy can tap leading doctors for answers in a way few patients could. His celebrity status aside, he has spent a career promoting insurance and other ways to improve the health of Americans. And he has had a track record of being thorough and diligent in researching medical options when relatives or friends have fallen ill.

Nevertheless, despite Kennedy's power and influence, there are ways in which the average person can imitate his example and seek second and third opinions on their medical care:

Several doctors not connected with Mr. Kennedy’s case said in interviews that they admired his resourcefulness in getting more opinions simultaneously. At the same time, these doctors said many average patients gained competent advice, without a command performance, by sending pertinent records to experts for their opinions.

Many patients search the Internet for medical information and ask that their scans and other data be sent electronically or by overnight services.

Then such patients visit, call or write the consultant.

The potential negative consequence of all this opinion-shopping is that people may focus on what they want to hear and disregard everything else. This is partly why the doctors quoted in the article strongly recommend actually meeting physicians whose advise you intend to take (rather than just sending records and receiving written responses). That way the physician can make sure your expectations are realistic and address your specific concerns.

Tara Parker-Pope recently had an article on how fewer and fewer patients trust their doctors.

About one in four patients feel that their physicians sometimes expose them to unnecessary risk, according to data from a Johns Hopkins study published this year in the journal Medicine. And two recent studies show that whether patients trust a doctor strongly influences whether they take their medication.

The distrust and animosity between doctors and patients has shown up in a variety of places. In bookstores, there is now a genre of “what your doctor won’t tell you” books promising previously withheld information on everything from weight loss to heart disease.

What are the reasons for this new distrust? Several factors appear to be involved:

(1) Patients often don't understand what is going on with their health care because doctors and nurses are too rushed to explain things to them. Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, cardiologist and author of Intern: A Doctor's Initiation, is quoted in the article with a story of a patient who was transferred from one hospital to another with no explanation for why. He blamed a "broken system" for such failures to communicate.

(2) There has been greater coverage in the news of medical error, the power of the drug industry and the flaws in health care administration.

(3) The Internet makes information much more available, so patients can be informed skeptics. Drug companies also market directly to patients, so they come into the doctor's office with their own desires and opinions on what medications they should take. The upside to this is that patients have the information to challenge a doctor's errors. The downside is that many end up taking a drug commercial, for instance, at face value and will not listen to a doctor's reservations about the efficacy of a drug.

Again, from the article:

“Doctors used to be the only source for information on medical problems and what to do, but now our knowledge is demystified,” said Dr. Robert Lamberts, an internal medicine physician and medical blogger in Augusta, Ga. “When patients come in with preconceived ideas about what we should do, they do get perturbed at us for not listening. I do my best to explain why I do what I do, but some people are not satisfied until we do what they want.”

The whole article is worth reading. In addition, the article's page also has an embedded video clip of interviews with people discussing their attitudes to their doctors.

Starting October 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer pay for eight hospital-acquired conditions that could be prevented if hospitals followed the proper guidelines.

Those eight conditions are bed sores, objects left inside the patient during surgery, falls that occur when the patient is in the hospital, blood incompatibility, air embolism, mediastinitis (infection of the area between the lungs, which can happen after a heart bypass surgery), catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and certain bloodstream infections. In addition, several other conditions have been proposed as additions to the list.

The purpose of this change is to provide an incentive for hospitals and health care providers to avoid errors and prevent neglect of patients. If both Medicare and the patient refuse to pay for treatment of a hospital-acquired condition, then the hospital is stuck with the costs, and most hospitals would obviously wish to avoid that.

This is a long-overdue incentive for hospitals to reduce the incidence of these events and injuries which should never happen.

Tara Parker-Pope discusses a New England Journal of Medicine study that compared a Mediterranean diet, an Atkins diet and a diet with about thirty percent fat based on American Heart Association Guidelines.

The study had obese participants, who lost (on average) only 6 to 10 pounds over two years. From the article:

The biggest weight loss happened in the first five months of the diet — low-fat and Mediterranean dieters lost about 10 pounds, and low-carbohydrate dieters lost 14 pounds.

By the end of two years, all the dieters had regained some, but not all, of the lost weight. The low-fat dieters showed a net loss of six pounds, and the Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate dieters both lost about 10 pounds.

Researchers said the results sound modest, but they said the small weight loss had resulted in improvements in cholesterol and other health markers.

The obvious lesson to take from this study is that diets are not very effective when it comes to significant weight loss, but have good consequences for health overall. A focus on weight loss may lead people to ignore other important elements of health. The whole article is worth reading, as the study has many nuances.

Unsurprisingly, there are wide global disparities in survival rates of cancer patients. This is partly because of the relative wealth of different countries. However, there are huge disparities within the United States as well:

In the United States, the lowest survival rates are in New York City, except for rectal cancer in women, where Wyoming scores worse. The best survival rate for cancer in the United States is in Hawaii, the researchers found.

Idaho also has a high survival rate for rectal cancer, and Seattle has the highest survival rate for prostate cancer.

But, there's a big disparity in cancer survival rates between whites and blacks in the United States, and it favors whites. The differences range from 7 percent for prostate cancer to 14 percent for breast cancer. This disparity is most likely due to differences in the stage of cancer when it is diagnosed, the researchers said.

We have discussed the impact of race and region on health care quality before on this blog. Unfortunately, not everyone can count on getting the appropriate kind of service from their health care providers depending on their circumstances, as this new study re-affirms.

The American College of Sports Medicine suggested at a recent conference that walking is the most effective form of exercise because of its accessibility and simplicity.

From the article:

"There are certainly many forms of cardiovascular exercise that improve health and fitness, such as running, cycling, and swimming," said Catrine Tudor-Locke, Ph.D., FACSM, one of the session leaders. "But from the perspective of finding a great exercise program for the most number of people, walking is the best bang for your buck."

A good way to keep track of how much you walk, the article points out, is using a reasonably-priced pedometer. One of the greatest barriers to exercise is cost and convenience: maintaining a gym membership and making the time to go to the gym is expensive and can be inconvenient. Walking eliminates the cost problem, if not the issue of time.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the recent decision of some scientists to refuse payments from the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. From the article:

No longer will they be paid for speaking at meetings or for sitting on advisory boards. They may still work with companies. It is important, they say, for knowledgeable scientists to help companies draw up and interpret studies. But the work will be pro bono.

The scientists say their decisions were private and made with mixed emotions. In at least one case, the choice resulted in significant financial sacrifice. While the investigators say they do not want to appear superior to their colleagues, they also express relief. At last, they say, when they offer a heartfelt and scientifically reasoned opinion, no one will silently put an asterisk next to their name.

The entire article is worth a read. If more and more scientists do this, then patients researching their conditions and curious laypeople will have one less cause for skepticism about what they're being told.

What is Anesthesia Awareness, also known as Unintended Awareness? It is when a patient wakes up during surgery. When this happens, the patient experiences extreme pain but cannot move or cry out. The patient often also remembers parts of the surgery. This can have long-term emotional and psychological effects.

A new study shows that Anesthesia Awareness is more common than experts had previously thought. What can be done about this? From the article:

The position of the anesthesiologists group has been that brain wave monitoring should not be done routinely, but may be helpful for certain patients at high risk of awareness. Widespread use would be very costly.

Patients should talk to their doctors to determine their risk, if any, of awareness.

Out of nineteen industrialized nations, the U.S. has the most deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely, effective medical care.

Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine performed the study, looking at deaths before the age of seventy-five caused by numerous diseases and complications. They found that France performed the best by this measure--though France, and other countries that ranked higher than the U.S., spends less money on health care than the U.S. does.

Not only was the U.S. the worst in these rankings, but we Americans are also ranked four places lower than we were in the last study (which covered 1997 and 1998). We are getting worse and spending more money.

If you're accustomed to taking many pain-killers for your headaches, and if your headaches have been increasing in frequency and intensity, then over-medication might be the cause.

At any given time, more than three million Americans are suffering from headaches they are inflicting on themselves, according to Dr. Stephen D. Silberstein, a professor of neurology and director of the Jefferson Headache Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. “If a patient’s headaches have grown markedly worse or more frequent, the problem is almost always medication overuse,” Dr. Silberstein said.

The pattern seems to be that a patient starts getting headaches, takes too many pills to cope and as a result keeps getting more headaches thanks to the side-effects of the pills.

Which head-ache medications are causing this? Those that include caffeine and butalbital. The worst offenders seem to be those that contain both, Aspirin, caffeine and butalbital is the generic common combination of drugs found in many headache treatments--Fiorinal, for example, or Floricet. But, as the doctors cited in the articles note, any pain-killer can be taken to excess. It may be difficult for headache sufferers to cut back on pain-killers but research suggests that doing so will reduce tension headaches in the long run.

Other resources on the subject of these treatments and their side-effects:

Medline: Aspirin, caffeine and butalbital

RxList: Floricet and Floricet Side-effects

Medicine.net: Side-effects of butalbital/acetaminophen/caffeine

The President's Cancer Panel--consisting of Lance Armstrong, Dr. Margaret Kripke and Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall--says, in its new report, that the U.S. government should be doing more to promote environments and lifestyles that prevent cancer and other diseases.

Part of the report's argument is that most federal funding for cancer research goes towards genetic and microbiological solutions, and that macro-solutions involving environmental and social factors are neglected. This is part of a general problem in the philosophy of health care in the U.S., the report says: we are overly focused on treatment rather than prevention.

Of course treatments are important, but the report is right in its criticism of the neglect of the concept of a healthy lifestyle in U.S. health care. Making such lifestyles possible would require social changes as well as personal changes--which may be one reason why the government and our society finds it more convenient to focus on treatment, as treatment will not require systemic overhaul of society. It is more tempting to try and simply patch people up with treatments rather than take the time and effort to ensure that fewer people get sick in the first place.

Here are some examples of environmental and social factors that the report considers responsible for poor American health: lack of fresh food access, lack of access to healthy food in general (for those in poorer socioeconomic conditions), large subsidies to producers of corn and so which are processed into foods that contribute to various diseases, lack of opportunity to exercise and lack of health insurance.

A diagnosis of cancer puts a patient in an extremely frightening and vulnerable position. Unfortunately, there is often little aid for people in this situation. Instead, they are presented with bureaucratic hurdles and confusion about whose advice to follow.

For an example, one could look at the July 29th, 2007 New York Times Magazine section which had an article describing the story of one such cancer patient named Karen Pasqualetto.

There are several insights that can be gleaned from such experiences. First, there is the need for patients to seek second and third opinions—a need that usually goes unfulfilled because most people do not have the insurance or financial resources to cover this.

Second, patients need to educate themselves on standards of care, because otherwise they probably will not be getting it—particularly if they are not white or are low-income. See the National Healthcare Disparities Report from 2005 for disparities related to race and socioeconomic status. The ScienceDaily also has an article about racial bias resulting in poorer treatment for African-American patients.

Third, there are enormous advantages to having a team of doctors who speak to each other rather than a bunch of disconnected specialists who offer competing and contradictory advice. Patients should encourage communication between doctors as much as possible.

Fourth, visiting centers for the study of particular kinds of cancer can be extremely helpful, especially when dealing with the more obscure varieties of the disease. These centers have the aid and cooperation of several doctors, so the opinions given there are more likely to reflect a consensus of experts.

A recent Millennium Research Group analysis found that medical errors cause up to 98,000 deaths annually, making them the fifth-leading cause of death in the U.S. The findings are described in Medical News Today.

A senior analyst at MRG says that miscommunication, transcription errors and incomplete patient records are often the causes of such mistakes.

According to MRG, this has resulted in increased demands for patient safety improvements. Clearly such improvements are badly needed.

The FDA also has information on the issue of medical errors, including the factors that prevent improvement in the system. One such factor is the culture of secrecy that leads medical personnel to cover up errors rather than admit to them, even when the stakes are extremely high.

For more details, check out the 2000 Report to the President on Medical Error by the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force.