CONTEXT: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings. RESULTS: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.

PURPOSE: Outpatients with cancer receive complicated medication regimens in the clinic and home. Medication errors in this setting are not well described. We aimed to determine rates and types of medication errors and systems factors associated with error in outpatients with cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records from visits to three adult and one pediatric oncology clinic in the Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, and Northwest for medication errors using established methods. Two physicians independently judged whether an error occurred (kappa = 0.65), identified its severity (kappa = 0.76), and listed possible interventions. RESULTS: Of 1,262 adult patient visits involving 10,995 medications, 7.1% (n = 90; 95% CI, 5.7% to 8.6%) were associated with a medication error. Of 117 pediatric visits involving 913 medications, 18.8% (n = 22; 95% CI, 12.5% to 26.9%) were associated with a medication error. Among all visits, 64 of the 112 errors had the potential to cause harm, and 15 errors resulted in injury. There was a range in the rates of chemotherapy errors (0.3 to 5.8 per 100 visits) and home medication errors (0 to 14.5 per 100 visits in children) at different sites. Errors most commonly occurred in administration (56%). Administration errors were often due to confusion over two sets of orders, one written at diagnosis and another adjusted dose on the day of administration. Physician reviewers selected improved communication most often to prevent error. CONCLUSION: Medication error rates are high among adult and pediatric outpatients with cancer. Our findings suggest some practical targets for intervention, including improved communication about medication administration in the clinic and home.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our study was to examine cardiologists' and organizational leaders' interest in clinical trial participation and perceived barriers and facilitators to participation within ten diverse non-profit healthcare delivery systems. Trials play a pivotal role in advancing knowledge about the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular interventions and tests. Although cardiovascular trials successfully enroll patients, recruitment challenges persist. Community-based health systems could be an important source of participants and investigators, but little is known about community cardiologists' experiences with trials. METHODS: We interviewed 25 cardiology and administrative leaders and mailed questionnaires to all 280 cardiologists at 10 U.S. healthcare organizations. RESULTS: The survey received a 73% response rate. While 60% of respondents had not participated in any trials in the past year, nearly 75% wanted greater participation. Cardiologists reported positive attitudes toward trial participation; more than half agreed that trials were their first choice of therapy for patients, if available. Almost all leaders described their organizations as valuing research but not necessarily trials. Major barriers to participation were lack of physician time and insufficient skilled research nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiologists have considerable interest in trial participation. Major obstacles to increased participation are lack of time and effective infrastructure to support trials. These results suggest that community-based health systems are a rich source for cardiovascular research but additional funding and infrastructure are needed to leverage this resource.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of using administrative data for epidemiologic studies of gout by examining the validity of gout diagnoses in claims data. METHODS: From a population of approximately 800,000 members from 4 managed care plans, we identified patients who had at least 2 ambulatory claims for a diagnosis of gout between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. From this group, a random sample of 200 patients was chosen for medical record review. Trained medical record reviewers abstracted gout-related clinical, laboratory, and radiologic data from the medical records. Two rheumatologists independently evaluated the abstracted information and assessed whether the gout diagnosis was probable/definite or unlikely/insufficient information. Discordant physician ratings were adjudicated by consensus. Based on record reviews, patients were also classified according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), Rome, and New York gout criteria and these results were compared with the physician global assessments. RESULTS: There were 121 patients rated as having probable/definite gout by physician consensus, leading to a positive predictive value of >or=2 coded diagnoses of gout of 61% (95% confidence interval 53-67). There was low concordance between physician assessments and established gout criteria including ACR, Rome, and New York criteria (kappa = 0.17, 0.16, and 0.20, respectively). CONCLUSION: Use of administrative data alone in epidemiologic and health services research on gout may lead to misclassification. Medical record reviews for validation of claims data may provide an inadequate gold standard to confirm gout diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the characteristics, evaluation and treatment of women with gout. OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiological differences and differences in treatment between men and women in a large patient population. METHODS: The data from approximately 1.4 million people who were members of seven managed care plans in the USA for at least 1 year between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2003 were examined. Adult members who had pharmacy benefits and at least two ambulatory claims specifying a diagnosis of gout were identified. In addition, men and women who were new users of urate-lowering drugs (ULDs) were identified to assess adherence with recommended surveillance of serum urate levels within 6 months of initiating urate-lowering treatment. RESULTS: A total of 6133 people (4975 men and 1158 women) with two or more International Classification of Disease-9 codes for gout were identified. As compared with men with gout, women were older (mean age 70 (SD 13) v 58 (SD 14), p<0.001) and had comorbidities and received diuretics more often (77% v 40%; p<0.001). Only 37% of new users of urate-lowering treatment had appropriate surveillance of serum urate levels post-initiation of urate-lowering treatment. After controlling for age, comorbidities, gout treatments, number of ULD dispensings and health plan, women were more likely (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.67) to receive the recommended serum urate level testing. CONCLUSIONS: Women with gout were older, had greater comorbidities and more often used diuretics and received appropriate surveillance of serum urate levels, suggesting that the factors leading to gout as well as monitoring of treatment are very different in women and men.