Suppr超能文献

不稳定型心绞痛:实践指南实施过程中的专业相关差异

Unstable angina: specialty-related disparities in implementation of practice guidelines.

作者信息

Reis S E, Holubkov R, Zell K A, Edmundowicz D, Shapiro A H, Feldman A M

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

Clin Cardiol. 1998 Mar;21(3):207-10. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960210314.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) has published practice guidelines to improve the quality of care patients with unstable angina. Prior to publication, studies demonstrated that when compared with cardiologists, internists were less likely to use effective pharmacologic therapies or revascularization in patients with unstable angina.

HYPOTHESIS

The study was undertaken to determine whether the AHCPR guideline publication abolished specialty-related disparities in care.

METHODS

We performed a chart review of consecutive patients hospitalized at a university-affiliated institution with an admission diagnosis of chest pain in the absence of myocardial infarction and a noncardiac etiology. Treatment and diagnostic cardiac testing were compared between risk-stratified patients cared for by a generalist (n = 125) and those whose care was guided by a cardiologist (n = 211).

RESULTS

In those with low-risk unstable angina, generalists were less likely to prescribe recommended aspirin (71 vs. 88%, p < 0.01) and beta blockers (9 vs. 37%, p < 0.001), and heparin (20 vs. 49%, p < 0.001), and to perform a recommended diagnostic stress test or cardiac catheterization (28 vs. 60%, p < 0.001). In those with at least intermediate risk, generalists were less likely to prescribe beta blockers (19 vs. 52%, p < 0.001), heparin (19 vs. 66%, p < 0.001), and nitrates (77 vs. 96%, p < 0.001), and to refer for diagnostic testing (19 vs. 65%, p < 0.001). Generalists' care was associated with significantly lower hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCPR guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of unstable angina are implemented more effectively, but not uniformly, by cardiologists at our institution. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the barriers to implementation of the AHCPR guidelines.

摘要

背景

医疗保健政策与研究机构(AHCPR)已发布实践指南,以提高不稳定型心绞痛患者的护理质量。在指南发布之前,研究表明,与心脏病专家相比,内科医生在治疗不稳定型心绞痛患者时,使用有效药物治疗或血运重建的可能性较小。

假设

本研究旨在确定AHCPR指南的发布是否消除了护理中与专业相关的差异。

方法

我们对一所大学附属医院收治的连续患者进行了病历审查,这些患者入院诊断为胸痛,但无心肌梗死和非心脏病因。对由全科医生治疗的风险分层患者(n = 125)和由心脏病专家指导治疗的患者(n = 211)的治疗和诊断性心脏检查进行了比较。

结果

在低风险不稳定型心绞痛患者中,全科医生开具推荐的阿司匹林(71%对88%,p < 0.01)、β受体阻滞剂(9%对37%,p < 0.001)和肝素(20%对49%,p < 0.001)以及进行推荐的诊断性负荷试验或心导管检查(28%对60%,p < 0.001)的可能性较小。在至少具有中度风险的患者中,全科医生开具β受体阻滞剂(19%对52%,p < 0.001)、肝素(19%对66%,p < 0.001)和硝酸盐(77%对96%,p < 0.001)以及进行诊断性检查(19%对65%,p < 0.001)的可能性较小。全科医生的治疗费用显著较低。

结论

我院心脏病专家更有效地实施了AHCPR不稳定型心绞痛评估和治疗指南,但实施并不统一。有必要进行进一步研究以评估AHCPR指南实施的障碍。

相似文献

4
Clinical practice guidelines in unstable angina improve clinical outcomes by assuring early intensive medical treatment.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Nov 15;34(6):1689-95. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00405-2.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验