Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure

Julia Lowe, Paula Candlish, David Henry, John Wlodarcyk, Peter Fletcher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context. The debate on the respective roles of medical specialists and generalists has tended to portray them as alternatives, rather than seeking ways to build on the complementary skills of these professional groups. Objective. We wished to evaluate the impact of a selective admitting policy that attempts to exploit the complementary, strengths of specialists and generalists. Design. Prospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with congestive heart failure. Setting. Public hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Patients. Subjects aged 60 years or more with congestive heart failure defined by the Framingham criteria (see Appendix). Intervention. A selective admission policy which referred patients with identifiable single system disorders to the relevant subspecialist, while patients with multiple medical problems were admitted under a general physician. Main outcome measures. Length of hospital stay, survival, quality, of life and satisfaction with care. Results. Two-hundred and seventy-five patients with congestive heart failure were followed up from admission to 1 year after discharge from hospital. Of these, 102 were cared for by cardiologists and 154 by generalists. The patients under the generalists were older, had greater co-morbidity but appeared to have less severe cardiac disease than those cared for by cardiologists. The use of cardiac drugs and investigations was similar in the two groups. The generalists' patients had a longer length of hospital stay, but the cardiologists' patients had a higher mortality during the early follow-up period. There were no differences in levels of satisfaction with care or in health-related quality of life between the two groups of patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that any differences in outcomes between the two groups of patients were due to the severity of underlying disease, and co-morbidity, rather than the quality of care that was provided by the physicians. Conclusions. It is possible to implement a hospital admission policy that selectively refers patients with congestive heart failure to specialists or generalists, according to the presence of co-morbid conditions, without adversely affecting the outcomes of care. Such a policy should represent optimum use of the complementary skills of these professional groups.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)339-345
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Heart Failure
comorbidity
Group
Length of Stay
quality of life
physician
medical specialist
Disease
multivariate analysis
Quality of Life
mortality
Morbidity
Physicians
drug
South Australia
New South Wales
Quality of Health Care
Public Hospitals
health
Heart Diseases

Cite this

@article{1cd9fcb9036745d68a28ef858b5bbdfc,
title = "Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure",
abstract = "Context. The debate on the respective roles of medical specialists and generalists has tended to portray them as alternatives, rather than seeking ways to build on the complementary skills of these professional groups. Objective. We wished to evaluate the impact of a selective admitting policy that attempts to exploit the complementary, strengths of specialists and generalists. Design. Prospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with congestive heart failure. Setting. Public hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Patients. Subjects aged 60 years or more with congestive heart failure defined by the Framingham criteria (see Appendix). Intervention. A selective admission policy which referred patients with identifiable single system disorders to the relevant subspecialist, while patients with multiple medical problems were admitted under a general physician. Main outcome measures. Length of hospital stay, survival, quality, of life and satisfaction with care. Results. Two-hundred and seventy-five patients with congestive heart failure were followed up from admission to 1 year after discharge from hospital. Of these, 102 were cared for by cardiologists and 154 by generalists. The patients under the generalists were older, had greater co-morbidity but appeared to have less severe cardiac disease than those cared for by cardiologists. The use of cardiac drugs and investigations was similar in the two groups. The generalists' patients had a longer length of hospital stay, but the cardiologists' patients had a higher mortality during the early follow-up period. There were no differences in levels of satisfaction with care or in health-related quality of life between the two groups of patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that any differences in outcomes between the two groups of patients were due to the severity of underlying disease, and co-morbidity, rather than the quality of care that was provided by the physicians. Conclusions. It is possible to implement a hospital admission policy that selectively refers patients with congestive heart failure to specialists or generalists, according to the presence of co-morbid conditions, without adversely affecting the outcomes of care. Such a policy should represent optimum use of the complementary skills of these professional groups.",
author = "Julia Lowe and Paula Candlish and David Henry and John Wlodarcyk and Peter Fletcher",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "339--345",
journal = "International Journal for Quality in Health Care",
issn = "1353-4505",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure. / Lowe, Julia; Candlish, Paula; Henry, David; Wlodarcyk, John; Fletcher, Peter.

In: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, p. 339-345.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Specialist or generalist care? A study of the impact of a selective admitting policy for patients with cardiac failure

AU - Lowe, Julia

AU - Candlish, Paula

AU - Henry, David

AU - Wlodarcyk, John

AU - Fletcher, Peter

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Context. The debate on the respective roles of medical specialists and generalists has tended to portray them as alternatives, rather than seeking ways to build on the complementary skills of these professional groups. Objective. We wished to evaluate the impact of a selective admitting policy that attempts to exploit the complementary, strengths of specialists and generalists. Design. Prospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with congestive heart failure. Setting. Public hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Patients. Subjects aged 60 years or more with congestive heart failure defined by the Framingham criteria (see Appendix). Intervention. A selective admission policy which referred patients with identifiable single system disorders to the relevant subspecialist, while patients with multiple medical problems were admitted under a general physician. Main outcome measures. Length of hospital stay, survival, quality, of life and satisfaction with care. Results. Two-hundred and seventy-five patients with congestive heart failure were followed up from admission to 1 year after discharge from hospital. Of these, 102 were cared for by cardiologists and 154 by generalists. The patients under the generalists were older, had greater co-morbidity but appeared to have less severe cardiac disease than those cared for by cardiologists. The use of cardiac drugs and investigations was similar in the two groups. The generalists' patients had a longer length of hospital stay, but the cardiologists' patients had a higher mortality during the early follow-up period. There were no differences in levels of satisfaction with care or in health-related quality of life between the two groups of patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that any differences in outcomes between the two groups of patients were due to the severity of underlying disease, and co-morbidity, rather than the quality of care that was provided by the physicians. Conclusions. It is possible to implement a hospital admission policy that selectively refers patients with congestive heart failure to specialists or generalists, according to the presence of co-morbid conditions, without adversely affecting the outcomes of care. Such a policy should represent optimum use of the complementary skills of these professional groups.

AB - Context. The debate on the respective roles of medical specialists and generalists has tended to portray them as alternatives, rather than seeking ways to build on the complementary skills of these professional groups. Objective. We wished to evaluate the impact of a selective admitting policy that attempts to exploit the complementary, strengths of specialists and generalists. Design. Prospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with congestive heart failure. Setting. Public hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Patients. Subjects aged 60 years or more with congestive heart failure defined by the Framingham criteria (see Appendix). Intervention. A selective admission policy which referred patients with identifiable single system disorders to the relevant subspecialist, while patients with multiple medical problems were admitted under a general physician. Main outcome measures. Length of hospital stay, survival, quality, of life and satisfaction with care. Results. Two-hundred and seventy-five patients with congestive heart failure were followed up from admission to 1 year after discharge from hospital. Of these, 102 were cared for by cardiologists and 154 by generalists. The patients under the generalists were older, had greater co-morbidity but appeared to have less severe cardiac disease than those cared for by cardiologists. The use of cardiac drugs and investigations was similar in the two groups. The generalists' patients had a longer length of hospital stay, but the cardiologists' patients had a higher mortality during the early follow-up period. There were no differences in levels of satisfaction with care or in health-related quality of life between the two groups of patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that any differences in outcomes between the two groups of patients were due to the severity of underlying disease, and co-morbidity, rather than the quality of care that was provided by the physicians. Conclusions. It is possible to implement a hospital admission policy that selectively refers patients with congestive heart failure to specialists or generalists, according to the presence of co-morbid conditions, without adversely affecting the outcomes of care. Such a policy should represent optimum use of the complementary skills of these professional groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033846233&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339

DO - 10.1093/intqhc/12.4.339

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 339

EP - 345

JO - International Journal for Quality in Health Care

JF - International Journal for Quality in Health Care

SN - 1353-4505

IS - 4

ER -