Lowe J, Candlish P, Henry D, Wlodarcyk J, Fletcher P
Department of General Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Aug;12(4):339-45. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339.
The debate on the respective roles of medical specialists and generalists has tended to portray them as alternatives, rather than seeking ways to build on the complementary skills of these professional groups.
We wished to evaluate the impact of a selective admitting policy that attempts to exploit the complementary strengths of specialists and generalists.
Prospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with congestive heart failure.
Public hospital in New South Wales, Australia.
Subjects aged 60 years or more with congestive heart failure defined by the Framingham criteria (see Appendix).
A selective admission policy which referred patients with identifiable single system disorders to the relevant subspecialist, while patients with multiple medical problems were admitted under a general physician.
Length of hospital stay, survival, quality of life and satisfaction with care.
Two-hundred and seventy-five patients with congestive heart failure were followed up from admission to 1 year after discharge from hospital. Of these, 102 were cared for by cardiologists and 154 by generalists. The patients under the generalists were older, had greater co-morbidity, but appeared to have less severe cardiac disease than those cared for by cardiologists. The use of cardiac drugs and investigations was similar in the two groups. The generalists' patients had a longer length of hospital stay, but the cardiologists' patients had a higher mortality during the early follow-up period. There were no differences in levels of satisfaction with care or in health-related quality of life between the two groups of patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that any differences in outcomes between the two groups of patients were due to the severity of underlying disease, and co-morbidity, rather than the quality of care that was provided by the physicians.
It is possible to implement a hospital admission policy that selectively refers patients with congestive heart failure to specialists or generalists, according to the presence of co-morbid conditions, without adversely affecting the outcomes of care. Such a policy should represent optimum use of the complementary skills of these professional groups.
关于医学专科医生和全科医生各自作用的争论往往将他们描绘成相互替代的角色,而不是寻求利用这些专业群体互补技能的方法。
我们希望评估一项选择性收治政策的影响,该政策试图利用专科医生和全科医生的互补优势。
对因充血性心力衰竭入院的患者进行前瞻性队列研究。
澳大利亚新南威尔士州的公立医院。
年龄在60岁及以上、符合弗雷明汉标准(见附录)定义的充血性心力衰竭患者。
一项选择性收治政策,将患有可识别单一系统疾病的患者转诊给相关亚专科医生,而患有多种医疗问题的患者由全科医生收治。
住院时间、生存率、生活质量和对护理的满意度。
275例充血性心力衰竭患者从入院到出院后1年进行了随访。其中,102例由心脏病专家护理,154例由全科医生护理。全科医生护理的患者年龄更大,合并症更多,但与心脏病专家护理的患者相比,心脏病似乎不太严重。两组使用心脏药物和进行检查的情况相似。全科医生护理的患者住院时间更长,但心脏病专家护理的患者在早期随访期间死亡率更高。两组患者对护理的满意度水平或与健康相关的生活质量没有差异。多变量分析表明,两组患者结局的任何差异是由于基础疾病的严重程度和合并症,而不是医生提供的护理质量。
可以实施一项医院收治政策,根据合并症情况将充血性心力衰竭患者选择性地转诊给专科医生或全科医生,而不会对护理结局产生不利影响。这样的政策应该代表了对这些专业群体互补技能的最佳利用。