Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 1997
Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hirshberg A J, Holliman C J, Wuerz R C, Chapman D M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physician assistants' (PAs') and primary care physicians' (PCPs') case management for 5 common primary care medical problems is similar to that of emergency physicians (EPs).
METHODS: An anonymous survey was used to compare PAs, PCPs, and EPs regarding intended diagnostic and treatment options for hypothetical cases of asthma, pharyngitis, cystitis, back strain, and febrile child. Published national practice guidelines were used as a comparison criterion standard where available. The participants stated that they treated all of the patients and responded to all of the cases to be included in the survey. The responses of the PA and PCP groups were compared with those of the EP group, and financial charges for care by each group were analyzed.
RESULTS: The EPs tended to follow treatment guidelines closer than did other primary care specialists. The management of PCPs and PAs differed from that of EPs, as follows: [table: see text]
CONCLUSION: The EPs more closely followed clinical guidelines than did the PAs and PCPs for these standardized clinical scenarios. Although the relationship of such theoretical practice to actual practice remains unknown, use of these clinical scenarios may identify intended practice patterns warranting attention.
METHODS: An anonymous survey was used to compare PAs, PCPs, and EPs regarding intended diagnostic and treatment options for hypothetical cases of asthma, pharyngitis, cystitis, back strain, and febrile child. Published national practice guidelines were used as a comparison criterion standard where available. The participants stated that they treated all of the patients and responded to all of the cases to be included in the survey. The responses of the PA and PCP groups were compared with those of the EP group, and financial charges for care by each group were analyzed.
RESULTS: The EPs tended to follow treatment guidelines closer than did other primary care specialists. The management of PCPs and PAs differed from that of EPs, as follows: [table: see text]
CONCLUSION: The EPs more closely followed clinical guidelines than did the PAs and PCPs for these standardized clinical scenarios. Although the relationship of such theoretical practice to actual practice remains unknown, use of these clinical scenarios may identify intended practice patterns warranting attention.