Nitin J Patel

Publications (2)4.46 Total impact

• Article: Resident physicians' perspectives on health care reform.

  Paul C Frake, Alex Y Cheng, Rebecca J Howell, Nitin J Patel
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: To investigate the perspectives of resident physicians, in otolaryngology and other specialties, with respect to various health care reform proposals. Also, to determine if these opinions vary between residents training to become general medical doctors versus surgeons and specialists and between those with various levels of educational debt. Survey of resident physicians across the United States. Opinions of participants were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Of the 1576 respondents, the majority agreed that tort reform and electronic medical records would improve quality of care and help contain health care costs. However, few residents agreed that bundling of services (BOS), hospital-acquired conditions penalties (HACP), and quality-based reimbursement (QBR) would improve the quality of care. Specialists and surgeons, in comparison to generalists, were (1) less likely to agree that BOS, HACP, or QBR would improve the quality of care; (2) more likely to agree that tort reform would help contain health care costs; and (3) more likely to believe that BOS, HACP, or QBR would decrease physician compensation. Higher educational debt burden was also an independent predictor of increased skepticism about health care reforms effects on physician compensation. Residents in general medicine and surgery/specialty training programs agreed that tort reform and electronic medical records would help improve the quality of health care and help contain costs. However, both groups expressed strong concern that certain elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would not achieve these goals.
  Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 07/2011; 145(1):30-4. · 1.72 Impact Factor
• Article: Professional perceptions of plastic and reconstructive surgery: what primary care physicians think.

  Neil Tanna, Nitin J Patel, Hamdan Azhar, Jay W Granzow
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The great breadth of the specialty of plastic surgery is often misunderstood by practitioners in other specialties and by the public at large. The authors investigate the perceptions of primary care physicians in training toward the practice of different areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery. A short, anonymous, Web-based survey was administered to residents of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics training programs in the United States. Respondents were asked to choose the specialist they perceived to be an expert for six specific clinical areas, including eyelid surgery, cleft lip and palate surgery, facial fractures, hand surgery, rhinoplasty, and skin cancer of the face. Specialists for selection included the following choices: dermatologist, general surgeon, ophthalmologist, oral and maxillofacial surgeon, orthopedic surgeon, otolaryngologist, and plastic surgeon. A total of 1020 usable survey responses were collected. Respondents believed the following specialists were experts for eyelid surgery (plastic surgeon, 70 percent; ophthalmologist, 59 percent; oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 15 percent; dermatologist, 5 percent; and otolaryngologist, 5 percent); cleft lip and palate surgery (oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 78 percent; plastic surgeon, 57 percent; and otolaryngologist, 36 percent); facial fractures (oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 88 percent; plastic surgeon, 36 percent; otolaryngologist, 30 percent; orthopedic surgeon, 11 percent; general surgeon, 3 percent; and ophthalmologist, 2 percent); hand surgery (orthopedic surgeon, 76 percent; plastic surgeon, 52 percent; and general surgeon, 7 percent); rhinoplasty (plastic surgeon, 76 percent; otolaryngologist, 45 percent; and oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 18 percent); and skin cancer of the face (dermatologist, 89 percent; plastic surgeon, 35 percent; oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 9 percent; otolaryngologist, 8 percent; and general surgeon, 7 percent). As the field of plastic surgery and other areas of medicine continue to evolve, additional education of internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice physicians and trainees in the scope of plastic surgery practice will be critical.
  Plastic and reconstructive surgery 04/2010; 126(2):643-50. · 2.74 Impact Factor