, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 238-244

Physician board certification and the care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients and purchasers prefer board-certified physicians, but whether these physicians provide better quality of care and outcomes for hospitalized patients is unclear.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether care by board-certified physicians after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was associated with higher use of clinical guideline recommended therapies and lower 30-day mortality.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We examined 101,251 Medicare patients hospitalized for AMI in the United States and compared use of aspirin, β-blockers, and 30-day mortality according to the attending physicians’ board certification in family practice, internal medicine, or cardiology.

RESULTS: Board-certified family practitioners had slightly higher use of aspirin (admission: 51.1% vs 46.0%; discharge: 72.2% vs 63.9%) and β-blockers (admission: 44.1% vs 37.1%; discharge: 46.2% vs 38.7%) than nonboard-certified family practitioners. There was a similar pattern in board-certified Internists for aspirin (admission: 53.7% vs 49.6%; discharge: 78.2% vs 68.8%) and β-blockers (admission: 48.9% vs 44.1%; discharge: 51.2% vs 47.1). Board-certified cardiologists had higher use of aspirin compared with cardiologists certified in internal medicine only or without any board certification (admission: 61.3% vs 53.1% vs 52.1%; discharge: 82.2% vs 71.8% vs 71.5%) and β-blockers (admission: 52.9% vs 49.6% vs 41.5%; discharge: 54.7% vs 50.6% vs 42.5%). In multivariate regression analyses, board certification was not associated with differences in 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: Treatment by a board-certified physician was associated with modestly higher quality of care for AMI, but not differences in mortality. Regardless of board certification, all physicians had opportunities to improve quality of care for AMI.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
The JGIM Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement was provided on page 2 of the original submission.
Dr. Radford is now with the New York University Medical Center, New York, NY.
The analyses upon which this publication is based were performed under Contract Number 500-99-CTO1, entitled, “Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization for the State of Connecticut,” sponsored by the CMS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organization imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The author assumes full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the ideas presented. This article is a direct result of the Health Care Quality Improvement Program initiated by the Health Care Financing Administration, which has encouraged identification of quality improvement projects derived from analysis of patterns of care, and therefore required no special funding on the part of this Contractor. Ideas and contributions to the author concerning experience in engaging with issues presented are welcomed.
Mr. Rathore is supported by NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences Medical Scientist Training Grant GM07205.