Wood R W, Diehr P, Wolcott B W, Slay L, Tompkins R K
Med Care. 1979 Jul;17(7):767-79. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197907000-00007.
The ability of non-physician providers to collect the data required by an algorithm for upper respiratory illness management, and the appropriateness of resulting key management decisions, were studied by comparing non-physician data and management decisions on 426 patients with those of internists. The internists, blinded to Amosists' findings and plans, evaluated the same patients and indicated management without using the algorithm (AM-MD) study). To control for variability of internists' data collecting and illness management, 171 additional patients were evaluated and managed consecutively by two internists, each also kept unaware of the other's findings and plans (MD-MD study). Overall AM-MD agreement on history and physical findings (90 per cent and 81 per cent) and on the need for tests (84 per cent) and treatment (87 per cent) was as high as MD-MD aggrement (91 per cent, 80 per cent, 88 per cent, and 75 per cent, respectively). In both studies, there was significantly more agreement on history data than on physical findings, evaluation, and therapy.
通过比较426例患者的非医师数据及管理决策与内科医生的数据及决策,研究了非医师提供者收集算法所需的上呼吸道疾病管理数据的能力,以及由此产生的关键管理决策的适当性。内科医生在对阿莫西斯研究结果和计划不知情的情况下,对相同患者进行评估,并指出不使用该算法的管理方式(AM-MD研究)。为控制内科医生数据收集和疾病管理的变异性,另外171例患者由两名内科医生连续进行评估和管理,每位医生同样对对方的结果和计划不知情(MD-MD研究)。总体而言,AM-MD在病史和体格检查结果(分别为90%和81%)、检查需求(84%)和治疗需求(87%)方面的一致性与MD-MD的一致性(分别为91%、80%、88%和75%)一样高。在两项研究中,病史数据的一致性显著高于体格检查结果、评估和治疗方面的一致性。