Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 95–103

Diagnostic test restraint and the specialty consultation

  • Robert L. Braham
  • Aran Ron
  • Hirsch S. Ruchlin
  • James P. Hollenberg
  • Peter Pompei
  • Mary E. Charlson
Original Articles

Abstract

Object:To assess the effect consultants had on the diagnostic process in the management of patients admitted to the medical service of a university hospital.

Design:Cohort study utilizing prospective evaluation by residents, retrospective chart review, and direct communication with the patient, a family member, or the patient’s physician one year after admission to the hospital.

Setting:The medical inpatient service of an urban university hospital.

Patients:The 580 patients admitted to the medical service during one month in 1984 for whom complete data were available.

Main results:Sixty-three percent of the patients had consultations. Seventy percent (198/284) of the patients admitted by generalists had consultations, while 57% (170/296) of the patients admitted by subspecialists had consultations. Of the 1,422 major diagnostic tests performed on these patients, 504 (35%) were first recommended by consultants, and the consultants recommended cancellation of only ten major diagnostic tests. Patients who were seen by consultants had a length of stay that was more than double that of patients not seen by consultants. Consultation was associated with prolonged stay when patients were stratified by important clinical variables and remained an important independent factor in a multivariate model. The prolongation of hospitalization was principally due to delays in scheduling and interpreting sophisticated tests recommended by the consultants. When stratified into prognostically similar clinical groupings, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients seen and those not seen by a consultant.

Conclusion:Efforts to foster diagnostic restraint in the management of hospitalized patients should be broadened to include attention to the specialty consultation process.

Key words

diagnostic services utilization consultation teaching hospital cost control 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Myers LP, Schroeder SA. Physician use of services for the hospitalized patient: a review with implications for cost containment. Milbank Mem Fund Q/Health and Society. 1981;59:481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moloney TW, Rogers DE. Medical technology—a different view of the contentious debate over costs. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1413–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eisenberg JM, Williams SV. Cost containment and changing physicians’ practice behavior. JAMA. 1981;246:2195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chassin MR, Brook RH, Park RE, et al. Variations in the use of medical and surgical services by the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:285–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin AR, Wolf MA, Lawrence TA, Victor D, Braunwald E. A trial of two strategies to modify the test ordering behavior of medical residents. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1330–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisenberg JM. Physician utilization. The state of research about physician’s practice patterns. Med Care. 1985;23:461–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schroeder SA, Myers LP, McPhee SV, et al. The failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. JAMA. 1984;252:225–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenberg JM. An educational program to modify laboratory use by house staff. J Med Educ. 1977;52:578–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nanji AA. Medical grand rounds and laboratory use. JAMA. 1983;249:2890–1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams SV, Eisenberg JM, Pascale LA, et al. Physicians’ perceptions about unnecessary diagnostic testing. Inquiry. 1982;19:363–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donaldson RM, Joyce CM, Feinstein AR. Effect of restraints on diagnostic approaches to abdominal pain and weight loss. Am J Med. 1986;81:641–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bosk CL. Occupational rituals in patient management. N Engl J Med. 1980;303:71–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lowenstein SR, Iezzoni LI, Moskowitz MA. Prospective payment for physician services: impact on medical consultation practices. JAMA. 1985;254:2632–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charlson ME, Cohen RP, Sears CL. General medical consultation: lessons from a clinical service. Am J Med. 1983;75:121–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee T, Pappius EM, Goldman L. Impact of interphysician communication on the effectiveness of medical consultations. Am J Med. 1983;74:106–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarawicz B. Presidents page: primary care or primary medical problem. Am J Cardiol. 1980;45:914–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menken M, Sheps CG. Consequences of an oversupply of specialists. JAMA. 1985;253:1926–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pompei P, Charlson ME, Douglas RG Jr. Clinical assessment as predictors of one year survival after hospitalization: implications for prognostic stratification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:275–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Braham RL, Fields SD, Douglas RG Jr. Morbidity during hospitalization: can we predict it? J Chron Dis. 1987;40:705–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Braham RL, Fields SD, Braham RL, Douglas RG Jr. Assessing clinical severity: does clinical judgment work. J Chron Dis. 1986;39:439–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Fields SR, Braham RL, Douglas RG Jr. Resuscitation: how do we decide? JAMA. 1986;255:1316–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR. The importance of classifying initial comorbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chron Dis. 1974;27:387–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, MacKenzie Cr, Ales KL. Development and validation of a new method of classifying comorbidity for use in longitudinal studies. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilkinson L. Systat: the system for statistics. Evanston, Il: Systat Inc., 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manu P, Schwartz SE. Patterns of diagnostic testing in the academic setting: the influence of medical attendings subspecialty training. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17:1339–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bennet MD, Applegate WB, Chilton LA, Skipper BJ, White RE. Comparison of family medicine and internal medicine: charges for continuing ambulatory care. Med Care. 1983;21:830–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertakis KD, Robbins JA. Gatekeeping in primary care: a comparison of internal medicine and family practice. J Fam Pract. 1987;24:305–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noren J, Frazier T, Altman I, DeLozier J. Ambulatory medical care: a comparison of internists and family-general practitioners. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:11–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenwald HP, Peterson ML, Garrison LP, et al. Interspecialty variation in office based care. Med Care. 1984;22:14–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strauss MJ, Conrad D, Logerfo JP, Hudson LD, Bergner M. Cost and outcome of care for patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Analysis by physician specialty. Med Care. 1986;24:915–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Young MJ, Fried LS, Eisenberg J, Hershey J, Williams S. Do cardiologists have higher thresholds for recommending coronary arteriography than family physicians? Health Serv Res. 1987;22:623–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© the Society of General Internal Medicine 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Braham
    • 1
  • Aran Ron
  • Hirsch S. Ruchlin
  • James P. Hollenberg
  • Peter Pompei
  • Mary E. Charlson
  1. 1.Department of MedicineCornell University Medical CollegeNew York

Personalised recommendations