Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction

Implications for quality of care

Donald J. Willison, Stephen B. Soumerai, Thomas J. McLaughlin, Jerry H. Gurwitz, Xiaoming Gao, Edward Guadagnoli, Steven Pearson, Paul Hauptman, Barbara McLaughlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: 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. Objective: 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). Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1716 patients with AMI treated at 22 Minnesota hospitals between 1992 and 1993. Patients eligible for thrombolytic aspirin, β-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. Results: 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 β-blockers in these patients compared with those with a generalist attending physician only (P<.05 for β-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 β- blockers, respectively. Conclusions: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1778-1783
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume158
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 14 1998

Fingerprint

Quality of Health Care
Referral and Consultation
Myocardial Infarction
Physicians
Aspirin
Lidocaine
Hospital Cardiology Service
Cardiologists
Policy Making
Managed Care Programs
Proxy
Comorbidity
Guidelines

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Willison, D. J., Soumerai, S. B., McLaughlin, T. J., Gurwitz, J. H., Gao, X., Guadagnoli, E., ... McLaughlin, B. (1998). Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction: Implications for quality of care. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1778-1783. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778

Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction : Implications for quality of care. / Willison, Donald J.; Soumerai, Stephen B.; McLaughlin, Thomas J.; Gurwitz, Jerry H.; Gao, Xiaoming; Guadagnoli, Edward; Pearson, Steven; Hauptman, Paul; McLaughlin, Barbara.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 158, No. 16, 14.09.1998, p. 1778-1783.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Willison, DJ, Soumerai, SB, McLaughlin, TJ, Gurwitz, JH, Gao, X, Guadagnoli, E, Pearson, S, Hauptman, P & McLaughlin, B 1998, 'Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction: Implications for quality of care', Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 158, no. 16, pp. 1778-1783. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778
Willison, Donald J. ; Soumerai, Stephen B. ; McLaughlin, Thomas J. ; Gurwitz, Jerry H. ; Gao, Xiaoming ; Guadagnoli, Edward ; Pearson, Steven ; Hauptman, Paul ; McLaughlin, Barbara. / Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction : Implications for quality of care. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 158, No. 16. pp. 1778-1783.
@article{f5750b2a9df94061a0cae1d033af9e3e,
title = "Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction: Implications for quality of care",
abstract = "Background: 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. Objective: 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). Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1716 patients with AMI treated at 22 Minnesota hospitals between 1992 and 1993. Patients eligible for thrombolytic aspirin, β-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. Results: 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 β-blockers in these patients compared with those with a generalist attending physician only (P<.05 for β-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 β- blockers, respectively. Conclusions: 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.",
author = "Willison, {Donald J.} and Soumerai, {Stephen B.} and McLaughlin, {Thomas J.} and Gurwitz, {Jerry H.} and Xiaoming Gao and Edward Guadagnoli and Steven Pearson and Paul Hauptman and Barbara McLaughlin",
year = "1998",
month = "9",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "158",
pages = "1778--1783",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction

T2 - Implications for quality of care

AU - Willison, Donald J.

AU - Soumerai, Stephen B.

AU - McLaughlin, Thomas J.

AU - Gurwitz, Jerry H.

AU - Gao, Xiaoming

AU - Guadagnoli, Edward

AU - Pearson, Steven

AU - Hauptman, Paul

AU - McLaughlin, Barbara

PY - 1998/9/14

Y1 - 1998/9/14

N2 - Background: 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. Objective: 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). Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1716 patients with AMI treated at 22 Minnesota hospitals between 1992 and 1993. Patients eligible for thrombolytic aspirin, β-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. Results: 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 β-blockers in these patients compared with those with a generalist attending physician only (P<.05 for β-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 β- blockers, respectively. Conclusions: 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.

AB - Background: 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. Objective: 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). Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1716 patients with AMI treated at 22 Minnesota hospitals between 1992 and 1993. Patients eligible for thrombolytic aspirin, β-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. Results: 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 β-blockers in these patients compared with those with a generalist attending physician only (P<.05 for β-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 β- blockers, respectively. Conclusions: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032517062&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032517062&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778

DO - 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1778

M3 - Article

VL - 158

SP - 1778

EP - 1783

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 16

ER -