No abstract

Objective: To better define the knowledge and attitudes of practicing physicians about genetics; specifically molecular genetics. Further, to examine differences between four practice specialties and to assess variables that affect both knowledge and attitudes. Design: A mail‐in survey was sent to a random sample of non‐geneticist physicians, with a second copy sent to non‐responders. Questions included sociodemographic variables, sources of current knowledge and education in genetics, clinical experience with genetic disease, self‐confidence in providing genetic counseling, attitudes towards referring patients to a genetic center, awareness of molecular genetic testing and attitudes towards its use in clinical practice and population screening. Setting. Responses were obtained from over 900 practicing physicians in the Canadian province of Ontario (population 10 million). Genetic services are provided through nine major and several outreach centers. Molecular diagnostic services are provided through six provincially funded laboratories. There are no direct costs to the patient for any genetic service. Participants: A random sample of family physicians, obstetricians, pediatricians and internists was surveyed from both private and hospital based practices. Results and conclusion: Responses varied by specialty, years from graduation, gender, and type of practice. Pediatricians and obstetricians were more knowledgeable about genetics, had more interaction with genetic services and were more supportive of their utility. A major proportion of physicians continue to rely upon undergraduate and medical school courses for knowledge, and the specialties showed different preferences for seeking information. A majority of physicians considered their knowledge of genetics to be adequate, but a minority were confident to provide genetic counseling for simple genetic scenarios. Relatively few had actually made use of DNA diagnostic services and there was relatively poor knowledge of what services were available.

BackgroundCanadian Emergency Medical Services annually transport 1.3 million patients with potential neck injuries to local emergency departments. Less than 1% of those patients have a c-spine fracture and even less (0.5%) have a spinal cord injury. Most injuries occur before the arrival of paramedics, not during transport to the hospital, yet most patients are transported in ambulances immobilized. They stay fully immobilized until a bed is available, or until physician assessment and/or X-rays are complete. The prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary and adds to the burden of already overtaxed emergency medical services systems and crowded emergency departments.Methods/DesignThe goal of this study is to evaluate the safety and potential impact of an active strategy that allows paramedics to assess very low-risk trauma patients using a validated clinical decision rule, the Canadian C-Spine Rule, in order to determine the need for immobilization during transport to the emergency department.This cohort study will be conducted in Ottawa, Canada with one emergency medical service. Paramedics with this service participated in an earlier validation study of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Three thousand consecutive, alert, stable adult trauma patients with a potential c-spine injury will be enrolled in the study and evaluated using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to determine the need for immobilization. The outcomes that will be assessed include measures of safety (numbers of missed fractures and serious adverse outcomes), measures of clinical impact (proportion of patients transported without immobilization, key time intervals) and performance of the Rule.DiscussionApproximately 40% of all very low-risk trauma patients could be transported safely, without c-spine immobilization, if paramedics were empowered to make clinical decisions using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. This safety study is an essential step before allowing all paramedics across Canada to selectively immobilize trauma victims before transport. Once safety and potential impact are established, we intend to implement a multi-centre study to study actual impact.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188447

No abstract