Willison D J, Soumerai S B, McLaughlin T J, Gurwitz J H, Gao X, Guadagnoli E, Pearson S, Hauptman P, McLaughlin B
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, Mass 02215, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1998 Sep 14;158(16):1778-83. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778.
The rapid expansion of managed care in the United States has increased debate regarding the appropriate mix of generalist and specialist involvement in medical care.
To compare the quality of medical care when generalists and cardiologists work separately or together in the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
We reviewed the charts of 1716 patients with AMI treated at 22 Minnesota hospitals between 1992 and 1993. Patients eligible for thrombolytic aspirin, beta-blockers, and lidocaine therapy were identified using criteria from the 1991 American College of Cardiology guidelines for the management of AMI. We compared the use of these drugs among eligible patients whose attending physician was a generalist with no cardiologist input, a generalist with a cardiologist consultation, and a cardiologist alone.
Patients cared for by a cardiologist alone were younger, presented earlier to the hospital, were more likely to be male, had less severe comorbidity, and were more likely to have an ST elevation of 1 mm or more than generalists' patients. Controlling for these differences, there was no variation in the use of effective agents between patients cared for by a cardiologist attending physician and a generalist with a consultation by a cardiologist. However, there was a consistent trend toward increased use of aspirin, thrombolytics, and beta-blockers in these patients compared with those with a generalist attending physician only (P<.05 for beta-blockers only). Differences between groups in the use of lidocaine were not statistically significant. The adjusted probabilities of use of thrombolytics for consultative care and cardiologist attending physicians were 0.73 for both. Corresponding probabilities were 0.86 and 0.85 for aspirin and 0.59 and 0.57 for beta-blockers, respectively.
For patients with AMI, consultation between generalists and specialists may improve the quality of care. Recent policy debates that have focused solely on access to specialists have ignored the important issue of coordination of care between generalist and specialist physicians. In hospitals where cardiology services are available, generalists may be caring for patients with AMI who are older and more frail. Future research and policy analyses should examine whether this pattern of selective referral is true for other medical conditions.
美国管理式医疗的迅速扩张引发了关于通科医生和专科医生在医疗中适当配置的更多讨论。
比较通科医生和心脏病专家单独或共同管理急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者时的医疗质量。
我们回顾了1992年至1993年间在明尼苏达州22家医院接受治疗的1716例AMI患者的病历。根据1991年美国心脏病学会AMI管理指南的标准,确定符合溶栓、阿司匹林、β受体阻滞剂和利多卡因治疗条件的患者。我们比较了主治医生为通科医生且无心脏病专家参与、通科医生有心脏病专家会诊以及仅由心脏病专家治疗的符合条件患者中这些药物的使用情况。
仅由心脏病专家治疗的患者更年轻,入院更早,男性比例更高,合并症较轻,且ST段抬高1毫米或更高的可能性比通科医生治疗的患者更大。在控制了这些差异后,由心脏病专家主治医生治疗的患者与有心脏病专家会诊的通科医生治疗的患者在有效药物使用方面没有差异。然而,与仅由通科医生主治的患者相比,这些患者使用阿司匹林、溶栓药物和β受体阻滞剂的趋势一直增加(仅β受体阻滞剂P<0.05)。各组在利多卡因使用上的差异无统计学意义。会诊治疗和心脏病专家主治医生使用溶栓药物的调整概率均为0.73。阿司匹林的相应概率分别为0.86和0.85,β受体阻滞剂的相应概率分别为0.59和0.57。
对于AMI患者,通科医生和专科医生之间的会诊可能会提高医疗质量。最近仅关注专科医生可及性的政策辩论忽略了通科医生和专科医生之间医疗协调的重要问题。在有心脏病学服务的医院,通科医生可能在治疗年龄更大、身体更虚弱的AMI患者。未来的研究和政策分析应考察这种选择性转诊模式是否适用于其他疾病。