This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (15)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Health Policy  • Law and Medicine  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Descriptive Study of 19 Integrative Health Care Centers in the United States

Michael H. Cohen, JD; Andrea Hrbek; Roger B. Davis, ScD; Steven C. Schachter, MD; David M. Eisenberg, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:289-295.

Background  Little is known about policies governing the integration of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies and providers.

Methods  To document emerging approaches in 19 US hospitals regarding credentialing, malpractice liability, and pharmacy policies governing integration of CAM therapies and providers into conventional medical settings, we surveyed 21 academic medical centers and 13 non–academically affiliated hospitals that are nationally visible and are integrating CAM therapies into conventional medical settings. Of the 19 respondents, 11 were tertiary care hospitals, 6 were community hospitals, 1 was a freestanding center associated with a community-based hospital, and 1 was a university-based rehabilitation hospital.

Results  Institutions had no consistent approach to provider mix and authority within the integrative care team, and minimum requirements for professional liability insurance, informed consent disclosure, and hiring status. Less than a third had a formal (stated) policy concerning dietary supplements; those selling supplements in their pharmacy lacked consistent, evidence-based rationales regarding which products and brands to include or exclude. Although many hospitals confiscated patient supplements on admission, institutions had inconsistent criteria regarding allowance of home supply.

Conclusions  Hospitals are using heterogeneous approaches to address licensure, credentialing, scope of practice, malpractice liability, and dietary supplement use in developing models of integrative care. The environment creates significant impediments to the delivery of consistent clinical care and multisite evaluations of the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness (or lack thereof) of CAM therapies (or integrative models) as applied to management of common medical conditions. Consensus policies need to be developed.

Author Affiliations: Harvard Medical School Osher Institute and the Division for Research and Education in Complementary and Integrative Medical Therapies, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Literature Review of Health Care Professional Attitudes Toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Sewitch et al.
Complementary Health Practice Review 2008;13:139-154.
ABSTRACT  

Dietary Supplements: Inpatient Policies in US Children's Hospitals
Gardiner et al.
Pediatrics 2008;121:e775-e781.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

National survey of dietary supplement policies in acute care facilities
Bazzie et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:65-70.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Can Claims, Misleading Information, and Manufacturing Issues Regarding Dietary Supplements Be Improved in the United States?
Gibson and Taylor
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2005;314:939-944.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT