Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists

Peter A. Glassman, Richard L Kravitz, Laura P. Petersen, John E. Rolph

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

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 χ2 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 electrocardiograms (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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)506-512
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume157
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Exercise Test
Confidence Intervals
Syncope
Chest Pain
Cardiologists
Clinical Decision-Making
Thallium
Malpractice
Cardiology
Consciousness
Uncertainty
Decision Making
Analysis of Variance
Electrocardiography
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists. / Glassman, Peter A.; Kravitz, Richard L; Petersen, Laura P.; Rolph, John E.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5, 1997, p. 506-512.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glassman, PA, Kravitz, RL, Petersen, LP & Rolph, JE 1997, 'Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists', Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 157, no. 5, pp. 506-512.
Glassman, Peter A. ; Kravitz, Richard L ; Petersen, Laura P. ; Rolph, John E. / Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997 ; Vol. 157, No. 5. pp. 506-512.
@article{6217a89bf30a4e649047338e78856df4,
title = "Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists",
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 χ2 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 electrocardiograms (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.",
author = "Glassman, {Peter A.} and Kravitz, {Richard L} and Petersen, {Laura P.} and Rolph, {John E.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "157",
pages = "506--512",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists

AU - Glassman, Peter A.

AU - Kravitz, Richard L

AU - Petersen, Laura P.

AU - Rolph, John E.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - 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 χ2 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 electrocardiograms (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.

AB - 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 χ2 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 electrocardiograms (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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031041616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031041616&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9066454

AN - SCOPUS:0031041616

VL - 157

SP - 506

EP - 512

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 5

ER -