Nationally representative data on the quality of care for obese patients in US-ambulatory care settings are limited. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2005 and 2006 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). We examined obesity screening, diagnosis, and counseling during adult visits and associations with patient and provider characteristics. We also assessed performance on 15 previously published ambulatory quality indicators for obese vs. normal/overweight patients. Nearly 50% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46–54%) of visits lacked complete height and weight data needed to screen for obesity using BMI. Of visits by patients with clinical obesity (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²), 70% (66–74%) were not diagnosed and 63% (59–68%) received no counseling for diet, exercise, or weight reduction. The percentage of visits not being screened (48%), diagnosed (66%), or counseled (54%) for obesity was also notably higher than expected even for patients with known obesity comorbidities. Performance (defined as the percentage of applicable visits receiving appropriate care) on the quality indicators was suboptimal overall. In particular, performance was no better than 50% for eight quality indicators, which are all related to the prevention and treatment of obesity comorbidities, e.g., coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, asthma, and depression. Performance did not differ by weight status for any of the 15 quality indicators; however, poorer performance was consistently associated with lack of height and weight measurements. In conclusion, many opportunities are missed for obesity screening and diagnosis, as well as for the prevention and treatment of obesity comorbidities, in office-based practices across the United States, regardless of patient and provider characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to human diseases. Most common diseases are influenced by a large number of genetic and environmental factors, most of which individually have only a modest effect on the disease. Though genetic contributions are relatively well characterized for some monogenetic diseases, there has been no effort at curating the extensive list of environmental etiological factors.

RESULTS: From a comprehensive search of the MeSH annotation of MEDLINE articles, we identified 3,342 environmental etiological factors associated with 3,159 diseases. We also identified 1,100 genes associated with 1,034 complex diseases from the NIH Genetic Association Database (GAD), a database of genetic association studies. 863 diseases have both genetic and environmental etiological factors available. Integrating genetic and environmental factors results in the "etiome", which we define as the comprehensive compendium of disease etiology. Clustering of environmental factors may alert clinicians of the risks of added exposures, or synergy in interventions to alter these factors. Clustering of both genetic and environmental etiological factors puts genes in the context of environment in a quantitative manner.

CONCLUSION: In this paper, we obtained a comprehensive list of associations between disease and environmental factors using MeSH annotation of MEDLINE articles. It serves as a summary of current knowledge between etiological factors and diseases. By combining the environmental etiological factors and genetic factors from GAD, we computed the "etiome" profile for 863 diseases. Comparing diseases across these profiles may have utility for clinical medicine, basic science research, and population-based science.

Fuchs argues that health reform must encompass the Four Cs in order to succeed: coverage, cost control, coordinated care and choice. While details are certainly important, Fuchs writes, Congress and the Obama Administration must remember that "God is in the essentials." Without the essentials, no reform plan can succeed.

Background: Effective disaster preparedness requires coordination across multiple organizations. This article describes a detailed framework developed through the BioNet program to facilitate coordination of bioterrorism preparedness planning among military and civilian decision makers.

Methods: The authors and colleagues conducted a series of semistructured interviews with civilian and military decision makers from public health, emergency management, hazardous material response, law enforcement, and military health in the San Diego area. Decision makers used a software tool that simulated a hypothetical anthrax attack, which allowed them to assess the effects of a variety of response actions (eg, issuing warnings to the public, establishing prophylaxis distribution centers) on performance metrics. From these interviews, the authors characterized the information sources, technologies, plans, and communication channels that would be used for bioterrorism planning and responses. The authors used influence diagram notation to describe the key bioterrorism response decisions, the probabilistic factors affecting these decisions, and the response outcomes.

Results: The authors present an overview of the response framework and provide a detailed assessment of two key phases of the decision-making process:

1. pre-event planning and investment and
   
2. incident characterization and initial responsive measures.
   

The framework enables planners to articulate current conditions; identify gaps in existing policies, technologies, information resources, and relationships with other response organizations; and explore the implications of potential system enhancements.

Conclusions: Use of this framework could help decision makers execute a locally coordinated response by identifying the critical cues of a potential bioterrorism event, the information needed to make effective response decisions, and the potential effects of various decision alternatives. Key words: bioterrorism, decision making, organization and administration, regional health planning

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare alternative approaches of measuring preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in treatment-experienced HIV patients and evaluate their association with health status and clinical variables. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: Twenty-eight Veterans Affairs hospitals in the United States, 13 hospitals in Canada, and 8 hospitals in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS: Three hundred sixty-eight treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients enrolled in the Options in Management with Antiretrovirals randomized trial.

MEASUREMENTS: Baseline sociodemographic and clinical indicators and baseline HRQoL using the Medical Outcome Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV), the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS), the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), and standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques. RESULTS: The mean (SD) baseline HRQoL scores were as follows: MOS-HIV physical health summary score 41.70 (11.16), MOS-HIV mental health summary score 44.76 (11.38), EQ-5D 0.77 (0.19), HUI3 0.59 (0.32), EQ-5D VAS 65.94 (21.71), SG 0.75 (0.29), and TTO 0.80 (0.31). Correlations between MOS-HIV summary scores and EQ-5D, EQ-5D VAS, and HUI3 ranged from 0.60 to 0.70; the correlation between EQ-5D and HUI3 was 0.73; and the correlation between SG and TTO was 0.43. Preference-based HRQoL scores were related to physical, mental, social, and overall health as measured by MOS-HIV. Concomitant medication use, CD4 cell count, and HIV viral load were related to some instruments' scores.

CONCLUSIONS: On average, preference-based HRQoL for treatment-experienced HIV patients was decreased relative to national norms but also highly variable. Health status and clinical variables were related to HRQoL.

BACKGROUND: Concern about patient safety has promoted efforts to improve safety climate. A better understanding of how patient safety climate differs among distinct work areas and disciplines in hospitals would facilitate the design and implementation of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To understand workers' perceptions of safety climate and ways in which climate varies among hospitals and by work area and discipline. RESEARCH DESIGN: We administered the Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations survey in 2004-2005 to personnel in a stratified random sample of 92 US hospitals. SUBJECTS: We sampled 100% of senior managers and physicians and 10% of all other workers. We received 18,361 completed surveys (52% response). MEASURES: The survey measured safety climate perceptions and worker and job characteristics of hospital personnel. We calculated and compared the percent of responses inconsistent with a climate of safety among hospitals, work areas, and disciplines. RESULTS: Overall, 17% of responses were inconsistent with a safety climate. Patient safety climate differed by hospital and among and within work areas and disciplines. Emergency department personnel perceived worse safety climate and personnel in nonclinical areas perceived better safety climate than workers in other areas. Nurses were more negative than physicians regarding their work unit's support and recognition of safety efforts, and physicians showed marginally more fear of shame than nurses. For other dimensions of safety climate, physician-nurse differences depended on their work area. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among and within hospitals suggest that strategies for improving safety climate and patient safety should be tailored for work areas and disciplines.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most common childhood behavioral condition, is one that pediatricians think they should identify and treat/manage. OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to explore the relationships between pediatricians' self-reports of their practice behaviors concerning usually inquiring about and treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and (1) attitudes regarding perceived responsibility for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and (2) personal and practice characteristics. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 59th Periodic Survey of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the 447 respondents who practice exclusively in general pediatrics. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were used to identify attitudes and personal and practice characteristics associated with usually identifying and treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. RESULTS: A total of 67% reported that they usually inquire about and 65% reported that they usually treat/manage attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Factors positively associated with usually inquiring about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adjusted multivariable analyses include perceived high prevalence among current patients, attendance at a lecture/conference on child mental health in the past 2 years, having patients who are assigned or can select a specific pediatrician, practicing in suburban communities, practicing for > or =10 years, and being female. Pediatricians' attitudes about responsibility for identification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were not associated with usually inquiring about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Attitudes about treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were significantly associated with usually treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Those who perceived that pediatricians should be responsible for treating/managing had almost 12 times the odds of reporting treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, whereas those who believe physicians should refer had threefold decreased odds of treating/managing. Other physician/practice characteristics significantly associated with the odds of usually treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder include belief that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is very prevalent among current patients, seeing patients who are assigned or can select a specific pediatrician, and practice location. CONCLUSIONS: Taking responsibility for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and practice characteristics seem to be important correlates of pediatrician self-reported behavior toward caring for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Any close examination of the epidemiologic trends in childhood suggests 2 fundamental findings. First, pediatrics has been among the most successful specialties in the history of medicine. Second, pediatrics must change. At the heart of this seeming paradox is the recognition that pediatrics has so altered the clinical threats to the well-being ofthe past 50 years that new structures of care will be required. The pride in pediatrics' remarkable record of impact and at the same time defend the status quo. modern children over epidemiology presents a ruthless logic: one cannot take

The challenge to the pediatrics community is to ensure that the changes that will inevitably come are exquisitely focused on meeting the needs of children. We must craft strategies that can protect what remains essential in pediatric practice and yet embrace a historic opportunity to craft requisite reforms. It is in this context that the recent initiatives by the American Board of Pediatrics [Editor's note: also see related supplement titled "Residency Review and Redesign in Pediatrics: New (and Old) Questions" with this issue of Pediatrics.] and the American Academy of Pediatrics to consider new training and practice needs should be welcomed. However, the nature and scale of the challenge will require a new level of direct engagement from pediatricians and a renewed progressive commitment to speak with a stronger and more coherent collective voice.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guidance statement to present the available evidence on screening for HIV in health care settings. METHODS: This guidance statement is derived from an appraisal of available guidelines on screening for HIV. Authors searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse to identify guidelines on screening for HIV in the United States and used the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) instrument to evaluate guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: ACP recommends that clinicians adopt routine screening for HIV and encourage patients to be tested. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: ACP recommends that clinicians determine the need for repeat screening on an individual basis.