Importance Physicians' views about health care costs are germane to pending policy reforms. Objective To assess physicians' attitudes toward and perceived role in addressing health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants A cross-sectional survey mailed in 2012 to 3897 US physicians randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile. Main Outcomes and Measures Enthusiasm for 17 cost-containment strategies and agreement with an 11-measure cost-consciousness scale. Results A total of 2556 physicians responded (response rate = 65%). Most believed that trial lawyers (60%), health insurance companies (59%), hospitals and health systems (56%), pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (56%), and patients (52%) have a “major responsibility” for reducing health care costs, whereas only 36% reported that practicing physicians have “major responsibility.” Most were “very enthusiastic” for “promoting continuity of care” (75%), “expanding access to quality and safety data” (51%), and “limiting access to expensive treatments with little net benefit” (51%) as a means of reducing health care costs. Few expressed enthusiasm for “eliminating fee-for-service payment models” (7%). Most physicians reported being “aware of the costs of the tests/treatments [they] recommend” (76%), agreed they should adhere to clinical guidelines that discourage the use of marginally beneficial care (79%), and agreed that they “should be solely devoted to individual patients' best interests, even if that is expensive” (78%) and that “doctors need to take a more prominent role in limiting use of unnecessary tests” (89%). Most (85%) disagreed that they “should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services to certain patients because resources should go to other patients that need them more.” In multivariable logistic regression models testing associations with enthusiasm for key cost-containment strategies, having a salary plus bonus or salary-only compensation type was independently associated with enthusiasm for “eliminating fee for service” (salary plus bonus: odds ratio [OR], 3.3, 99% CI, 1.8-6.1; salary only: OR, 4.3, 99% CI, 2.2-8.5). In multivariable linear regression models, group or government practice setting (β = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.45, P = .004; and β = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.79, P = .01, respectively) and having a salary plus bonus compensation type (β = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.33; P = .002) were positively associated with cost-consciousness. Finding the “uncertainty involved in patient care disconcerting” was negatively associated with cost-consciousness (β = -1.95; 95% CI, -2.71 to -1.18; P < .001). Conclusion and Relevance In this survey about health care cost containment, US physicians reported having some responsibility to address health care costs in their practice and expressed general agreement about several quality initiatives to reduce cost but reported less enthusiasm for cost containment involving changes in payment models.

Dysphagia, which is a geriatric syndrome affecting 10% to 33% of older adults, is commonly seen in older adults who have experienced a stroke or neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer or Parkinson disease. Patients diagnosed as having dysphagia can experience malnutrition, pneumonia, and dehydration. Patients can also experience increased rates of mortality and long-term care admission. Providers can identify the specific type of dysphagia for treatment in approximately 80% of patients by asking 5 questions in the patient's history: What happens when you try to swallow? Do you have trouble chewing? Do you have difficulty swallowing solids, liquids, or both? Describe the symptom onset, duration, and frequency? What are the associated symptoms? Providers can then request a videofluoroscopic swallow study or a fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for further evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia. If providers are diagnosing esophageal dysphagia, barium esophagraphy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be used as part of the assessment. Patients can be treated for oropharyngeal dysphagia by using compensatory interventions, including behavioral changes, oral care, dietary modification, or rehabilitative interventions such as exercises and therapeutic oral trials. Providers often address treatment of esophageal dysphagia by managing the underlying etiology, which could include removal of caustic medications or using EGD as a therapeutic modality for esophageal rings. High-quality, large research studies are necessary to further manage the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of this growing geriatric syndrome.

No abstract

BackgroundClinicians’ satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.MethodsWe searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.ResultsTwenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians’ satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.ConclusionDecision aids can improve clinicians’ satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians’ perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.