Background: Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethical approval from an appropriate committee and how consent was obtained from participants when research involves human participants. Objective: To assess the reporting of these protections for several study designs in general medical journals. Design: A consecutive series of research papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine between February and May 2003 were reviewed for the reporting of ethical approval and patient consent. Ethical approval, name of approving committee, type of consent, data source and whether the study used data collected as part of a study reported elsewhere were recorded. Differences in failure to report approval and consent by study design, journal and vulnerable study population were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Ethical approval and consent were not mentioned in 31% and 47% of manuscripts, respectively. 88 (27%) papers failed to report both approval and consent. Failure to mention ethical approval or consent was significantly more likely in all study designs (except case-control and qualitative studies) than in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Failure to mention approval was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in The New England Journal of Medicine. Failure to mention consent was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in all other journals. No significant differences in approval or consent were found when comparing studies of vulnerable and non-vulnerable participants. Conclusion: The reporting of ethical approval and consent in RCTs has improved, but journals are less good at reporting this information for other study designs. Journals should publish this information for all research on human participants.

No abstract

Ongoing concerns over the rising cost of health care are driving large-scale changes in the way that health care is practiced and reimbursed in the United States. To effectively implement and thrive within this new health care delivery environment, academic medical institutions will need to modify financial and business models and adapt institutional cultures. In this paper, we review the expected features of the new health care environment from the perspective of academic radiology departments. Our review will include background on Accountable Care Organizations, identify challenges associated with the new managed care model, and outline key strategies—including expanding the use of existing information technology infrastructure, promoting continued medical innovation, balancing academic research with clinical care, and exploring new roles for radiologists in efficient patient management—that will ensure continued success for academic radiology.

The importance of safe, effective, and cost-effective prescribing habits can hardly be overstated in the current pay-for-value environment. The prescribing process taught in most medical curricula focuses primarily on accurate medical indications. While this may be of utmost importance from the clinician’s perspective, it falls short of addressing the other key elements of highly effective prescribing. These other elements are often paramount in the minds of patients. A patient-centric framework that associates and incorporates the necessary components of optimal prescribing is overdue. Building this framework into medical curricula will foster increased teamwork among providers and enhance shared decision making between patients and clinicians. In addition to establishing accurate medical indications, prescribing teams need to assure every prescribed medication is desired, effective, affordable, and safe for patients who receive them. Prescription writing is an honorable prerogative, and doing so safely, effectively, and cost-effectively requires both teamwork and technology. Highly effective prescribing teams can implement the IDEAS (Indicated, Desired, Effective, Affordable, Safe) framework through appropriate and deliberate delegation. By empowering members of the care team to support and educate patients, this framework will allow physicians to focus on ensuring appropriate indications and real-world effectiveness. This novel IDEAS framework serves as an important mental model for medical trainees and reinforces sound prescribing habits among seasoned clinicians. High-touch and high-tech partnerships have the potential to maximize the triple aim (i.e., improving the patient’s experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of health care). In an era when costs overwhelm quality, providing a fiduciary framework to instill responsibility for optimal prescribing, especially among young physician–leaders, is invaluable.