Suppr超能文献

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的决策制定:一项调查。

Decision-making in percutaneous coronary intervention: a survey.

作者信息

Rahilly-Tierney Catherine R, Nash Ira S

机构信息

Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology and Research Information Center (MAVERIC), Boston VA Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 25;8:28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few researchers have examined the perceptions of physicians referring cases for angiography regarding the degree to which collaboration occurs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision-making. We sought to determine perceptions of physicians concerning their involvement in PCI decisions in cases they had referred to the cardiac catheterization laboratory at a major academic medical center.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was mailed to internal medicine faculty members at a major academic medical center. The survey elicited whether responders perceived that they were included in decision-making regarding PCI, and whether they considered such collaboration to be the best process of decision-making.

RESULTS

Of the 378 surveys mailed, 35% (133) were returned. Among responding non-cardiologists, 89% indicated that in most cases, PCI decisions were made solely by the interventionalist at the time of the angiogram. Among cardiologists, 92% indicated that they discussed the findings with the interventionalist prior to any PCI decisions. When asked what they considered the best process by which PCI decisions are made, 66% of non-cardiologists answered that they would prefer collaboration between either themselves or a non-interventional cardiologist and the interventionalist. Among cardiologists, 95% agreed that a collaborative approach is best.

CONCLUSION

Both non-cardiologists and cardiologists felt that involving another decision-maker, either the referring physician or a non-interventional cardiologist, would be the best way to make PCI decisions. Among cardiologists, there was more concordance between what they believed was the best process for making decisions regarding PCI and what they perceived to be the actual process.

摘要

背景

很少有研究人员调查过将病例转诊进行血管造影的医生对于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)决策过程中协作程度的看法。我们试图确定医生对于他们参与其转诊至一家大型学术医疗中心心脏导管实验室的病例的PCI决策的看法。

方法

向一家大型学术医疗中心的内科教员邮寄了一份匿名调查问卷。该调查询问了受访者是否认为他们被纳入了PCI决策,以及他们是否认为这种协作是最佳的决策过程。

结果

在邮寄的378份调查问卷中,35%(133份)被返还。在回复的非心脏病专家中,89%表示在大多数情况下,PCI决策是由介入专家在血管造影时独自做出的。在心脏病专家中,92%表示他们在做出任何PCI决策之前会与介入专家讨论检查结果。当被问及他们认为做出PCI决策的最佳过程是什么时,66%的非心脏病专家回答说他们更倾向于自己或非介入性心脏病专家与介入专家之间的协作。在心脏病专家中,95%同意协作方法是最佳的。

结论

非心脏病专家和心脏病专家都认为让另一个决策者参与,无论是转诊医生还是非介入性心脏病专家,将是做出PCI决策的最佳方式。在心脏病专家中,他们认为的PCI最佳决策过程与他们所感知的实际过程之间的一致性更高。

相似文献

1
Decision-making in percutaneous coronary intervention: a survey.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 25;8:28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-28.
2
Patients' and cardiologists' perceptions of the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease.
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Sep 7;153(5):307-13. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-5-201009070-00005.
5
Why physicians favor use of percutaneous coronary intervention to medical therapy: a focus group study.
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Sep;23(9):1458-63. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0706-x. Epub 2008 Jul 10.
9
Cardiologists' use of percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease.
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1604-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.15.1604.
10
Influence of operator experience and PCI volume on transfemoral access techniques: A collaboration of international cardiovascular societies.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Mar;19(2):143-150. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.12.013. Epub 2017 Dec 27.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1503-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070829. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
3
Angioplasty, bypass surgery or medical treatment: how should we decide?
Heart. 2002 Nov;88(5):451-2. doi: 10.1136/heart.88.5.451.
5
Effect of physician specialty on treatment recommendation to patients with coronary artery disease.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Winter;16(1):190-8. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300161161.
6
Generalists and specialists caring for patients with heart disease: united we stand, divided we fall.
Am J Med. 2000 Feb 15;108(3):259-61. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00455-6.
8
Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness.
Health Policy. 1996 Sep;37(3):139-52. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(96)90021-4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验