Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SCOTT, I. A.
Right arrow Articles by CLOUGH, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by SCOTT, I. A.
Right arrow Articles by CLOUGH, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15:155-161 (2003)
© 2003 International Society for Quality in Health Care

Paper

An Australian comparison of specialist care of acute myocardial infarction

IAN A. SCOTT1, KATE HEATH2,3, CATHERINE HARPER3 and ALEESA CLOUGH3

1Internal Medicine and Health Information Management Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane
2Health Information Management Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane
3Public Health Unit, West Moreton District Health Services, Goodna, Queensland, Australia

Objective. To determine whether patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in an Australian setting receive better pharmacological care if managed by cardiologists than by non-cardiologists.

Design. Retrospective chart review of patients hospitalized between 1 January 1997 and 30 June 1998, undertaken by abstractors blind to study objectives.

Setting. One tertiary and two community hospitals in south-east Queensland, Australia, in which all patients admitted with AMI were cared for by cardiologists and general physicians, respectively.

Study participants. Two cohorts of consecutive patients satisfying diagnostic criteria for AMI: 184 in the tertiary hospital and 207 in the community hospitals.

Main outcome measures. Frequency of use, in highly eligible patients, of thrombolysis, ß-blockers, aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, lipid-lowering agents, nitrates, and calcium antagonists. Cohorts were compared for differences in prognostic factors or illness severity.

Results. In community hospital patients, there was greater use of thrombolysis [100% versus 83% in the tertiary hospital; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11–26%; P < 0.001] and of ACE inhibitors (84% versus 66%; difference 18%, 95% CI 3–34%; P = 0.02), and lower median length of stay (6.0 days versus 7.0 days; P = 0.001) compared with tertiary hospital patients. Frequency of use of other drugs, and adjusted rates of death and re-infarction were the same for both cohorts.

Conclusions. With respect to pharmacological management of patients hospitalized with AMI, cardiologists and general physicians appear to provide care of similar quality and achieve equivalent outcomes. Further studies are required to confirm the generalizability of these results to Australian practice as a whole.

Keywords: acute myocardial infarction, cardiologist, general physician, quality


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.