We assessed the quality of life of 859 patients undergoing dialysis or transplantation, with the goal of ascertaining whether objective and subjective measures of the quality of life were influenced by case mix or treatment. We found that 79.1 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to function at nearly normal levels, as compared with between 47.5 and 59.1 per cent of the patients treated with dialysis (depending on the type). Nearly 75 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to work, as compared with between 24.7 and 59.3 per cent of the patients undergoing dialysis. On three subjective measures (life satisfaction, well-being, and psychological affect) transplant recipients had a higher quality of life than patients on dialysis. Among the patients treated with dialysis, those undergoing treatment at home had the highest quality of life. All quality-of-life differences were found to persist even after the patient case mix had been controlled statistically. Finally, the quality of life of transplant recipients compared well with that of the general population, but despite favorable subjective assessments, patients undergoing dialysis did not work or function at the same level as people in the general population.

Female physicians are underrepresented in rural areas. What impact might the increasing proportion of women in medicine have on the rural physician shortage? To begin addressing this question, we present data describing the geographic distribution of female physicians in the United States. We examine the geographic distribution of all active U.S. allopathic physicians recorded in the October 1996 update of the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Percentages and numbers of female physicians by professional activity, specialty type, and geographic location are reported. Findings reveal there were fewer than 7,000 female allopathic physicians practicing in rural America in 1996. The proportion of generalist female physicians who practice in rural settings was significantly lower than the proportion who practice in urban locations. Although members of the most recent 10-year medical school graduation cohort of female generalist physicians were slightly more likely to practice in rural areas than members of earlier cohorts, female physicians remained significantly underrepresented in rural areas. States varied dramatically in rural female generalist underrepresentation. Should female generalists continue to be underrepresented in rural locations, the rural physician shortage will not be resolved quickly. Effective strategies to improve rural female physician placement and retention need to be identified and implemented to improve rural access to physician care.

This study describes how graduates of the University of Washington Family Medicine Residency Network who practice in rural locations differ from their urban counterparts in demographic characteristics, practice organization, practice content and scope of services, and satisfaction. Five hundred and three civilian medical graduates who completed their residencies between 1973 and 1990 responded to a 27-item questionnaire sent in 1992 (84% response rate). Graduates practicing outside the United States in a specialty other than family medicine or for fewer than 20 hours per week in direct patient care were excluded from the main study, leaving 116 rural and 278 urban graduates in the study. Thirty percent of graduates reported practicing in rural counties at the time of the survey. Rural graduates were more likely to be in private and solo practices than urban graduates. Rural graduates spent more time in patient care and on call, performed a broader range of procedures, and were more likely to practice obstetrics than urban graduates. Fewer graduates in rural practice were women. A greater proportion of rural graduates had been defendants in medical malpractice suits. The more independent and isolated private and solo practice settings of rural graduates require more practice management skills and support. Rural graduates' broader scope of practice requires training in a full range of procedures and inpatient care, as well as ambulatory care. Rural communities and hospitals also need to develop more flexible practice opportunities, including salaried and part-time positions, to facilitate recruitment and retention of physicians, especially women.

Ambulatory care, accounting for over half a billion visits to physicians per year, is a major component of the health-care system and is the core of primary health care. This study uses data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to describe the most common problems seen in an ambulatory-care setting, to identify the medical specialties that provide the greater part of this care, and to characterize the major specialties in terms of the diagnoses in the patients who constitute their ambulatory practice. Fifteen diagnosis clusters account for 50 per cent of all ambulatory-care visits; only 8 of the 28 specialties account for a substantial amount (more than 25 per cent) of the ambulatory care rendered to patients with any of these 15 diagnoses. General and family physicians, general internists, and general pediatricians account for 65.9 per cent of all outpatient visits to physicians for the 15 most common problems; general and family physicians alone are responsible for more than half this total. The individual specialties differ markedly in the diagnostic and demographic variety of their outpatient workload. These differences have important implications for the training of physicians and the organization of their practices.

Surgical services are an important part of modern health care, but providing them to isolated rural citizens is especially difficult. Public policy initiatives could influence the supply, training, and distribution of surgeons, much as they have for rural primary care providers. However, so little is known about the proper distribution of surgeons, their contribution to rural health care, and the safety of rural surgery that policy cannot be shaped with confidence. This study examined the volume and complexity of inpatient surgery in rural Washington state as a first step toward a better understanding of the current status of rural surgical services. Information about rural surgical providers was obtained through telephone interviews with administrators at Washington's 42 rural hospitals. The Washington State Department of Health's Commission Hospital Abstract Recording System (CHARS) data provided a count of the annual surgical admissions at rural hospitals. Diagnosis-related group (DRG) weights were used to measure complexity of rural surgical cases. Surgical volume varied greatly among hospitals, even among those with a similar mix of surgical providers. Many hospitals provided a limited set of basic surgical services, while some performed more complex procedures. None of these rural hospitals could be considered high volume when compared to volumes at Seattle hospitals or to research reference criteria that have assessed volume-outcome relationships for surgical procedures. Several hospitals had very low volumes for some complex procedures, raising a question about the safety of performing them. The leaders of small rural hospitals must recognize not only the fiscal and service benefits of surgical services--and these are considerable--but also the potentially adverse effect of low surgical volume on patient outcomes. Policies that encourage the proper training and distribution of surgeons, the retention of basic rural surgical services, and the rational regionalization of complex surgery are likely to enhance the convenience and safety of surgery for rural citizens.