Osteoporosis screening of adults ages 40 to 60 who attended community-based adult training centers was conducted utilizing dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements of the calcaneus. Valid measurements were obtained on 107 individuals, a response rate of 94%. One fifth of the sample (21%) had osteoporosis and 34% had osteopenia. On multiple regression analysis, the most significant predictors of BMD were Down syndrome, mobility status, and race. Future studies involving larger samples of middle-age adults with mental retardation/developmental disabilities will clarify the need and optimum age for osteoporosis screening.

Patients arrive at emergency departments in distress. Physical needs are addressed, but less pressing emotional and social needs often go unrecognized. Although patients may not articulate their concerns, they may later feel dissatisfaction if needs were unmet. This study determined whether emergency department patients and nurses have similar perceptions of patients' needs, and which needs patients identify as most important. A convenience sample of patients and nurses in a two-hospital system was selected. Study results indicate that nurses may not always perceive accurately patients' needs or the strength of those needs. Institutions that place a high value on patient satisfaction with care must treat patient-centeredness as a priority--at all institutional levels.

Background: Cancer risk assessment begins in the primary care clinician's office. Essential components of that process include: 1) documentation of personal and family cancer information; 2) identification of families at increased risk for cancer; 3) modification of cancer screening recommendations according to degree of risk; 4) referral of high-risk individuals to cancer genetics clinics. The purpose of this study was to examine these 4 components of primary care cancer risk assessment using data abstracted from patient records at an academic family medicine center.Methods: Ambulatory records of 734 patients were reviewed in their entirety for information relevant to cancer risk assessment. Detail of cancer information was categorized as comprehensive, adequate, or inadequate. Patient records were categorized as suggestive of average, moderate, or high genetic risk for cancer. For patients with a family history of colorectal cancer, modification of colon cancer screening to reflect degree of cancer risk was assessed. Finally, the frequency of cancer genetic referral in high-risk individuals was noted.Results: The presence or absence of a family history of cancer was documented in 97.8% of records. There was insufficient information to adequately assess risk in 69.5% of charts. Detail of family cancer documentation was associated with personal history of cancer (P ‫؍‬ .001), patient age (P ‫؍‬ .001), and physician training status (P ‫؍‬ .042), but not with patient or physician gender, duration of care, or completion of a genogram. For persons with a family history of colorectal cancer, compliance with cancer screening individualized to degree of risk was achieved in 50% of patients. Ten patients met criteria for moderate or high genetic risk for cancer. None had been offered cancer genetics consultation.Conclusions: Nearly all records documented the presence or absence of a family history of cancer. However, in those with a positive family history, the detail of information was insufficient to permit risk assessment in over two thirds of individuals; risk-stratified colon cancer screening was not achieved in half of the patients with a family history of colorectal cancer; individuals at moderate or high cancer risk were not identified as such; and those at high risk were not offered cancer genetics referral. In addition to collecting adequate family cancer information, family physicians need to adopt explicit risk assessment criteria to identify, and to optimally care for, those at increased genetic risk for cancer.