You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | RSS | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 157 No. 5, 10 MARCH 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (20)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Differences in Clinical Decision Making Between Internists and Cardiologists

Peter A. Glassman, MBBS, MSc; Richard L. Kravitz, MD, MSPH; Laura P. Petersen, MS; John E. Rolph, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(5):506-512.


Abstract



Background
Whether cardiologists or internists use discretionary tests differently for noncritical cardiological presentations is unclear.

Objective
To explore differences in decision making for 3 common scenarios.

Methods
We asked 318 cardiologists and 598 internists to manage scenario patients presenting with (1) uncomplicated syncope, (2) nonanginal chest pain, and (3) nonspecific electrocardiographic changes. Participants also estimated baseline clinical risk for each scenario and answered questions on uncertainty, malpractice concerns, and cost consciousness. We used {chi}2 analysis, analysis of variance, and t tests to compare management choice and test ordering. Response rate was 50%.

Results
Initial management choices (ie, admit or discharge, allow or delay surgery) were similar but subsequent testing differed substantially. For a 50-year-old woman with uncomplicated syncope, cardiologists more often recommended cardiological tests such as exercise treadmill tests (37% vs 18%, 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 10%-28%) and signal-averaged electro-cardiograms (13% vs 4%, 95% CI for difference: 3%-15%) but less often requested neurological tests (29% vs 37%, 95% CI for difference: —17% to 1%). For a 42-year-old man with nonanginal chest pain, cardiologists more frequently ordered exercise tests (70% vs 51%, 95% CI for difference: 10%-28%). For a 53-year-old woman with nonspecific electrocardiographic changes, equal proportions of cardiologists and internists ordered exercise tests (56%) but cardiologists recommended thallium studies more often (73% vs 47%, 95% CI for difference: 10%-36%). For all scenarios, average charges for diagnostic evaluations by cardiologists and internists were similar.

Conclusions
In 3 noncritical cardiology scenarios, discretionary test use by cardiologists and internists differed substantially, although this was not reflected in dollar resources. Internists tended toward a broader diagnostic evaluation while cardiologists tended to focus on cardiological tests. The potential effect on clinical outcomes is unknown.

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:506-512



Author Affiliations



From the Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif (Dr Glassman); RAND, Santa Monica, Calif (Drs Glassman and Kravitz); UCLA School of Medicine (Dr Glassman) and Department of Health Services, School of Public Health (Ms Petersen), University of California, Los Angeles; Department of Medicine and the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, University of California, Davis (Dr Kravitz); and School of Business Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Dr Rolph).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Comparison of Vignettes, Standardized Patients, and Chart Abstraction: A Prospective Validation Study of 3 Methods for Measuring Quality
Peabody et al.
JAMA 2000;283:1715-1722.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.