Chang, Yu‐Hui

ABSTRACT The diagnosis of coccidioidomycosis relies heavily on serologic test results in addition to clinical history, physical examination, and radiographic findings. Use of the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) has increased because it is rapidly performed and does not require referral to a reference laboratory, as do complement fixation and immunodiffusion tests. However, interpretation of immunoglobulin M (IgM) reactivity by EIA in the absence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reactivity has been problematic. We conducted a retrospective medical record review of all patients with such IgM reactivity at our institution to identify situations where the finding was more likely to be clinically specific for coccidioidal infection. From 1 January 2004 through 31 December 2008, a total of 1,117 patients had positive EIA coccidioidal serology or EIA IgM-only reactivity; of these, 102 patients (9%) had EIA IgM-only reactivity. Among the 102 patients with EIA IgM-only reactivity, 60 were tested to evaluate symptomatic illness, 13 for follow-up of previously abnormal serology, and 29 for screening purposes. Of the 102 patients, 80 (78%) had positive serologic findings by other methods or had positive culture or histology. Fifty-four (90%) of the 60 patients whose serology was performed to evaluate symptomatic illness had coccidioidal infection, whereas 13 (45%) of 29 patients whose serology was performed for screening purposes had coccidioidal infection. Of the 102 patients with isolated IgM reactivity by EIA, 12 later seroconverted to IgG and IgM reactivity. The use of EIA for screening in 29 asymptomatic persons was associated with unconfirmable results in 13 (45%). Although the majority of patients in our study with isolated IgM reactivity by EIA had probable or confirmed coccidioidomycosis, this result must be interpreted with caution for asymptomatic patients.

AbstractObjectivesPatient perception of healthcare quality is of growing interest. It has been shown that patient satisfaction is associated with compliance with medical advice and clinical outcome. The 3‐fold purpose of this study was to identify which attributes of the patient–physician interaction most strongly correlated with patients' perceptions of provider quality of care, to identify key drivers that move patients' perception of overall provider quality from “very good” to “excellent,” and to identify features of the pain clinic experience that were most important to patients but were simultaneously perceived as lacking.MethodsRandomized patient satisfaction survey conducted via telephone approximately 3 weeks after the patient's pain clinic visit.ResultsA total of 999 patients participated in the survey over 5 years (estimated response rate 60.2%). Thoroughness, listening, and time spent with the provider were the 3 attributes most strongly associated with the patients' perceptions of provider quality of care, while thoroughness, listening, punctuality, and clear instructions were the drivers of “very good” vs. “excellent” patient perceived overall provider quality. Areas identified for clinic improvement include thoroughness, providing adequate explanations and instructions, and including patient preferences in decision making.ConclusionsThese results may guide pain clinic physicians as they seek to improve patient perceptions of their care and ultimately patient outcomes.