No abstract

The Genetics in Primary Care (GPC) project is a USA national faculty development initiative with the goal of enhancing the training of medical students and primary care residents by developing primary care faculty expertise in genetics. Educational strategies were developed for the project by an executive committee with input from an advisory committee, comprising individuals with primary care, medical education and genetics expertise. These committees identified the key issues in genetics education for primary care as (1) considering inherited disease in the differential diagnosis of common disorders; (2) using appropriate counseling strategies for genetic testing and diagnosis, and (3)  understanding the implications of a genetic diagnosis for family members. The group emphasized the importance of a primary care perspective, which suggests that the clinical utility of genetic information is greatest when it has the potential to improve health outcomes. The group also noted that clinical practice already incorporates the use of family history information, providing a basis for discussing the application of genetic concepts in primary care. Genetics and primary care experts agreed that educational efforts will be most successful if they are integrated into existing primary care teaching programs, and use a case-based teaching format that incorporates both clinical and social dimensions of genetic disorders. Three core clinical skills were identified: (1) interpreting family history; (2) recognizing the variable clinical utility of genetic information, and (3) acquiring cultural competency. Three areas of potential controversy were identified as well: (1) the role of nondirective counseling versus shared decision-making in discussions of genetic testing; (2) the intrinsic value of genetic information when it does not influence health outcomes, and (3) indications for a genetics referral. The project provides an opportunity for ongoing discussion about these important issues.

In June 1998, there were 1.8 million inmates in correctional facilities for adults; 1.2 million in state and federal prisons and 600,000 in municipal/county jails (668 persons per 100,000 U.S. population). Rates of TB, AIDS, mental illness, and substance abuse are 2-13 times higher in persons living in jails and prisons. This study was designed to assess the level of training offered to residents in seven medical specialties in the care of addicted incarcerated persons. The study design involved two stages. The first entailed a mailed survey to 1,831 residency directors in family medicine, internal medicine, osteopathic medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, and emergency medicine. The second stage was a telephone interview, about substance use disorders, of faculty listed by the residency directors as teaching residents. The mailed survey was completed by 1,205 residency directors (66%). The 769 faculty from those identified programs, who participated in the telephone interview, reported that only 14% of their residency programs offered lectures or conferences on the care of incarcerated persons, yet 44% of the programs had residents caring for incarcerated persons with substance abuse problems, in a clinical setting. Only 22% offered clinical experiences for residents in a correctional facility.We recognize that our survey of correctional health and substance abuse training is limited, but as such, a greater number of respondents to our survey do not teach residents addiction medicine topics pertaining to prevention, evaluation, intervention, and management of the addicted criminal offender/patient in a correctional setting or give adequate clinical exposure to this special population. The data suggests a need to develop and implement educational programs on medical care for this high-risk and expanding population.

While the findings confirm positive changes, the amount of curricula time and the number of faculty having expertise in substance abuse education do not compare well with the amounts of time and numbers of faculty involved in clinical problems of similar prevalence, such as cancer and heart disease.

How pulmonary edema affects lung tissue and airway properties is not clear. From measurements of airway pressure and flow, we measured lung elastance (EL) and resistance (RL) in 5 anesthetized-paralyzed open-chested dogs during sinusoidal forcing in the frequency (f) and tidal volume (VT) ranges of normal breathing. RL was divided into its tissue (Rti) and airway (Raw) components from measurements of alveolar pressure through capsules glued to the lung surface. After induction of severe pulmonary edema by injection of oleic acid into the right atrium, forcing was repeated at the same mean airway pressure (Paw) as in control animals (11 cmH2O) and at a higher Paw (14 cmH2O), as would occur in closed-chested dogs during edema (G. M. Barnas, D. Stamenovic, and K. R. Lutchen. J. Appl. Physiol. 73: 1040-1046, 1992). Edema increased EL, and this increase was greater at Paw = 14 cmH2O (P < 0.05). The f dependences of EL and Rti were increased by edema (P < 0.05), and there was a large negative dependence of EL on VT at Paw = 14 cmH2O. Edema increased RL (P < 0.05), but this increase depended on f, VT, and Paw. The increase in RL was due largely to increases in Rti at Paw = 14 cmH2O and to increases in Raw at Paw = 11 cmH2O. We conclude that the functional effects of oleic acid-induced pulmonary edema on RL are due mostly to changes in lung tissue.