Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 499–511 | Cite as

Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists

  • Leslie R. Harrold
  • Terry S. Field
  • Jerry H. Gurwitz
Clinical Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the differences between generalist physicians and specialists in terms of knowledge, patterns of care, and clinical outcomes of care.

METHODS: English-language articles (January 1981 to January 1998) were identified through a Medline search and examination of bibliographies of identified articles. Systematic evaluation of articles relevant to adult medicine that had a direct comparison between generalist physicians and specialists in terms of knowledge relative to widely accepted standards of care, patterns of care (including use of medications, ancillary services, procedures, and resource utilization), and outcomes of care was performed.

MAIN RESULTS: In many survey studies, specialists were reported to be more knowledgeable about conditions encompassed within their specialty. In terms of overall practice patterns, specialists practicing in their area of expertise were more likely to use medications associated with improved survival and to comply with routine health maintenance screening guidelines; they used more resources including diagnostic tests, procedures, and longer hospital stays. In the limited number of studies examining the care of patients with acute myocardial infarction, acute nonhemorrhagic stroke, and asthma, specialists had superior outcomes compared with generalists.

CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence in the literature suggesting differences between specialists and generalists in terms of knowledge, patterns of care, and clinical outcomes of care for a broad range of diseases. In published studies, specialists were generally more knowledgeable about their area of expertise and quicker to adopt new and effective treatments than generalists. More research is needed to examine whether these patterns of care translate into superior outcomes for patients. Further work is also needed to delineate the components of care for which generalists and specialists should be responsible, in order to provide the highest quality of care to patients while most effectively utilizing existing physician manpower.

Key words

specialties, medical knowledge, attitudes, practice prescription, drug physician practice patterns treatment, outcome 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weiner JP. Forecasting the effects of health reform on US physician workforce requirement: evidence from HMO staffing patterns. JAMA. 1994;272:222–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper RA. Seeking a balanced physician workforce for the 21st century. JAMA. 1994;272:680–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeMaria AN, Lee TH, Leon DF, et al. Effect of managed care on cardiovascular specialists: involvement, attitudes and practice adaptations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:1884–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kravitz RL, Greenfield S. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:431–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1992;267:1624–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kassirer JP. Access to specialty care. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1151–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rhee SO, Luke RD, Lyons TF, Payne BC. Domain of practice and the quality of physician performance. Med Care. 1981;19:14–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoechst Marion Roussel Managed Care Digest Series. Kansas City, Mo: Hoechst Marion Roussel; 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Group Health Association of America. Patterns in HMO Enrollment. Washington, DC: Group Health Association of America, June 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jensen GA, Morrisey MA, Gaffney S, Liston DK. The new dominance of managed care: insurance trends in the 1990s. Health Aff. 1997;16:125–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recommendations of the American Society of Internal Medicine. Patient Access to Internist-Subspecialists in Gatekeeper Health Plans; ASIM, Washington, DC. August 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Committee of the American College of Rheumatology Council on Health Care Research. Role of specialty care for chronic diseases: a report from an Ad Hoc committee of the American College of Rheumatology. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996;71:1179–81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NIH Consensus Development Panel on Helicobacter pylori in Peptic Ulcer Disease. Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease. JAMA. 1994;272:65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Cancer Society. 1989 survey of physicians’ attitudes and practices in early cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin. 1990;40:77–101.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institutes of Health. The treatment of primary breast cancer: management of local disease. Consensus Development Conference, Bethesda, Md, June 5, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Institutes of Health. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Consensus Development Conference, Bethesda, Md, July 14–16, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Institutes of Health. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Consensus Development Conference, Bethesda, Md, September 9–11, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institutes of Health. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Consensus Development Conference, Bethesda, Md, June 18–21, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunnar RM, Bourdillon PD, Dixon DW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the early management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures. Circulation. 1990;82:664–707.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Markson LE, Cosler LE, Turner BJ. Implications of generalists’ slow adoption of zidovudine in clinical practice. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1497–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mauskopf J, Turner BJ, Markson LE, Houchens RL, Fanning TR, McKee L. Patterns of ambulatory care for AIDS patients, and association with emergency room use. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:489–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Braun MM, Weisner PJ. Tuberculosis prevention practices and perspectives of physicians in DeKalb County, Ga. Public Health Rep. 1994;109:259–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vollmer WM, O’Hollaren M, Ettinger KM, et al. Specialty differences in the management of asthma: a cross-sectional assessment of allergists’ patients and generalists’ patients in a large HMO. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1201–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zeiger RS, Heller S, Mellon MH, Wald J, Falkoff R, Schatz M. Facilitated referral to asthma specialist reduces relapses in asthma emergency room visits. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1991;87:1160–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ayanian JZ, Hauptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, Antman EM, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1136–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1986;1:397–402.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;2:349–60.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment. BMJ. 1988;296:320–31.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Norwegian Multicenter Study Group. Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1981;304:801–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    β-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. I: mortality results. JAMA. 1982;247:1707–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Danish Study Group on Verapamil in Myocardial Infarction. Verapamil in acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 1984;5:516–28.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Israeli Sprint Study Group. Secondary Prevention Reinfarction Israeli Nifedipine Trial (SPRINT): a randomized intervention trial of nifedipine in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 1988;9:354–64.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Multicenter Diltiazem Postinfarction Trial Research Group. The effect of diltiazem on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:385–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Held PH, Yusuf S, Furberg CD. Calcium channel blockers in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina: an overview. BMJ. 1989;299:1187–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacMahon S, Collins R, Peto R, Koster RW, Yusuf S. Effects of prophylactic lidocaine in suspected acute myocardial infarction: an overview of results from the randomized, controlled trials. JAMA. 1988;260:1910–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hine LK, Laird N, Hewitt P, Chalmers TC. Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:2694–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hlatky MA, Cotugno H, O’Connor C, Mark DB, Pryor DB, Califf RM. Adoption of thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61:510–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hlatky MA, Cotugno HE, Mark DB, O’Connor C, Califf RM, Pryor DB. Trends in physician management of uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction, 1970 to 1987. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61:515–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jollis JG, DeLong ER, Peterson ED, et al. Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1880–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ayanian JZ, Guadagnoli E, McNeil BJ, Cleary PD. Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2570–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nash IS, Nash DB, Fuster V. Do cardiologists do it better? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:475–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Friedmann PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:414–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lipid Research Clinics Program. The lipid research clinics coronary primary prevention trial results. I: reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1984;251:351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrizol in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. Safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1237–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by anti-hypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). JAMA. 1991;265:3255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Takaro T, Peduzzi P, Detre KM, et al. Survival in subgroups of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of Surgery for Coronary Artery Occlusive Disease. Circulation. 1982;66:14–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chaitman BR, Fisher LD, Bourassa MG, et al. Effect of coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of patients with left main coronary artery disease: report of the Collaborative Study in Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS). Am J Cardiol. 1981;48:765–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chin MH, Friedmann PD, Cassel CK, Lang RM. Differences in generalist and specialist physicians’ knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:523–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:685–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chin MH, Wang JC, Zhang JX, Lang RM. Utilization and dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for heart failure: effect of physician specialty and patient characteristics. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:563–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stafford RS, Blumenthal D, Pasternak RC. Variations in cholesterol management practices of US physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:139–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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
  55. 55.
    Glassman PA, Kravitz RL, Petersen LP, Rolph JE. Differences in clinical decision making between internists and cardiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:506–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Greenwald HP, Peterson ML, Garrison LP, et al. Interspecialty variation in office-based care. Med Care. 1984;22:14–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schreiber TL, Elkhatib A, Grines CL, O’Neill WW. Cardiologist versus internist management of patients with unstable angina: treatment patterns and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:577–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1995;274:1436–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Clark RA, Rietschel RL. The cost of initiating appropriate therapy for skin disease: a comparison of dermatologists and family physicians. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1983;9:787–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fendrick AM, Hirth RA, Chernew ME. Differences between generalist and specialist physicians regarding Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcer disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:1544–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mahajan RJ, Barthel JS, Marshall JB. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy: how do physicians in different medical specialties do? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2065–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Appropriate Use of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Manchester, Mass: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; 1992.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Morin CA, Roberts CL, Mshar PA, Addiss DG, Hadler JL. What do physicians know about cryptosporidiosis? A survey of Connecticut physicians. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1017–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mitchell JB, Ballard DJ, Whisnant JP, Ammering CJ, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. What role do neurologists play in determining the costs and outcomes of stroke patients? Stroke. 1996;27:1937–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McFall SL, Warnecke RB, Kaluzny AD, Aitken M, Ford L. Physician and practice characteristics associated with judgements about breast cancer treatment. Med Care. 1993;32:106–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wachtel TJ, Mor V. Physicians’ use of health resources for terminal cancer patients: clinical setting versus physician specialty. South Med J. 1987;80:1120–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Roetzheim RG, Van Durme DJ, Brownlee HJ, Herold AH, Pamies RJ, Woodard L. Compliance with screening mammography: survey of primary care physicians. J Fla Med Assoc. 1991;78:426–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K. Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med. 1993;329:478–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Taplin SH, Taylor V, Montano D, Chinn R, Urban N. Specialty differences and the ordering of screening mammography by primary care physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1994;7:375–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grisso JA, Baum CR, Turner BJ. What do physicians in practice do to prevent osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res. 1990;5:213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dietrich AJ, Goldberg H. Preventive content of adult primary care: do generalists and specialists differ? Am J Public Health. 1984;74:223–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Periodic Health Examination Report of a Task Force to the Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health, Ottawa, Canada, 1980.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Meredith LS, Wells KB, Camp P. Clinical specialty and treatment style for depressed outpatients with and without medical comorbidities. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3:1065–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Strauss MJ, Conrad D, LoGerfo JP, Hudson LD, Bergner M. Cost and outcome of care for patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Med Care. 1986;24:915–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CA, Davies AR. A Short-Form General Health Survey. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 1988. Publication P-7444.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bellamy N, Gilbert JF, Brooks PM, Emmerson BT, Campbell J. A survey of current prescribing practices of antiinflammatory and urate lowering drugs in gouty arthritis in the province of Ontario. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1841–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Medellin MV, Erickson AR, Enzenauer RJ. Variability of treatment for gouty arthritis between rheumatologists and primary care physicians. JCR J Clin Rheumatol. 1997;3:24–7.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, Li W, Stewart KD. Therapeutic strategies distinguish community based primary care physicians from rheumatologists in the management of osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:80–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, et al. Comparison of general internists, family physicians, and rheumatologists managing patients with symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Care Res. 1997;10:289–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Walker DJ, Young I, Hassey GA, Smith AMM, Goring M, Platt PN. The acute hot joint in medical practice. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995;29:101–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, et al. The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors and orthopedic surgeons. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:913–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R. Comparing the costs between provider types of episodes of back pain care. Spine. 1995;20:221–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gunnar RM, Passamani ER, Bourdillon PD, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;82:664–707.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kaste M, Palomäki H, Sarna S. Where and how should elderly stroke patients be treated? Stroke. 1995;26:249–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Indredavik B, Bakke F, Solberg R, Rokseth R, Haaheim LL, Holme I. Benefit of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1991;22:1026–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, Ross-Degnan D. The role of social desirability in clinician self-reports of guideline adherence. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(suppl 1):64. Abstract.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Solomon DH, Bates DW, Panush RS, Katz JN. Costs, outcomes and patient satisfaction by provider type for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a critical review of the literature and proposed methodologic standards. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:52–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nash DB, Nash IS. Building the best team. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:72–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Matz R. Letters to the editor. JAMA. 1996;275:1083–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wennberg J, Gittelsohn A. Variations in medical care among small areas. Sci Am. 1982;246:120–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hiss RG, Greenfield S. Forum three: changes in the U.S. health care system that would facilitate improved care for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(1 pt 2):180–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie R. Harrold
    • 1
  • Terry S. Field
    • 1
  • Jerry H. Gurwitz
    • 1
  1. 1.the Meyers Primary Care Institute, Fallon Healthcare System, and the Department of MedicineUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcester

Personalised recommendations