TY - JOUR
T1 - Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians
AU - Hirshberg, Alan J.
AU - Holliman, C. James
AU - Wuerz, Richard C.
AU - Chapman, Dane M.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - 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: 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.
AB - 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: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030699101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030699101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03678.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03678.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 9383490
AN - SCOPUS:0030699101
SN - 1069-6563
VL - 4
SP - 1046
EP - 1051
JO - Academic Emergency Medicine
JF - Academic Emergency Medicine
IS - 11
ER -