0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

A Comparison of Outcomes Resulting From Generalist vs Specialist Care for a Single Discrete Medical Condition:  A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique FREE

Gerald W. Smetana, MD; Bruce E. Landon, MD, MBA; Andrew B. Bindman, MD; Helen Burstin, MD, MPH; Roger B. Davis, ScD; Jennifer Tjia, MD, MSc; Eugene C. Rich, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Drs Smetana, Landon, and Davis) and Department of Health Care Policy (Dr Landon), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Bindman); Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md (Dr Burstin); Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Dr Tjia); and Department of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Neb (Dr Rich).


Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(1):10-20. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.1.10.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Studies of clinical outcomes for generalist vs specialist care for diagnoses within a specialist's narrow domain have tended to favor specialty care.

Methods  A MEDLINE search from January 1, 1980, through April 1, 2005, and a hand search of retrieved bibliographies of English-language studies that compared generalist vs specialist care for individual patients with a single discrete medical condition were performed. Two reviewers determined eligibility for each study and abstracted data onto a standardized instrument.

Results  A total of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria: 24 studies favored specialty care, 13 found no difference in outcomes, 7 varied by individual outcome, 1 depended on physician experience, and 4 favored generalist care. Only 8 studies reported integration into health delivery systems, 4 considered physician experience, 3 documented information technology support, and 2 considered the impact of care management programs. Selection bias was adequately addressed in 58% of studies that favored specialty care and in 71% of studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (P = .52). Studies that favored specialty care were less likely to consider 4 key, potentially confounding physician or practice characteristics compared with studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (3% vs 15% of potential instances, respectively; P = .009).

Conclusions  The literature regarding the influence of generalist vs specialist care on outcomes for patients with a single discrete condition suffers from important methodologic shortcomings. Further research is needed to inform health care policy as it pertains to the optimal role of generalists and specialists in the physician marketplace.

Figures in this Article

Great debate exists regarding the types of physicians who should provide care for patients with particular medical conditions. Generally, this debate focuses on the quality of care provided by specialists in a particular clinical area compared with generalist physicians. Much of the available literature demonstrates that specialist physicians are able to deliver care of higher quality within the narrow, specific areas of their specialty.15 Many have relied on this literature to justify preferential resource allocation to specialists when compared with generalists.

Other arguments suggest that relying solely on these types of studies may lead to flawed conclusions about the value of primary care. Some studies have demonstrated that generalists appear to provide care of equal quality to specialists,610 and ecological studies that examine the availability and use of primary care in the community suggest that patients who live in areas with more primary care have better outcomes.1115

Certain generalists have levels of experience similar to specialists because of their training, natural inclinations, or patient population.7,8,16 In most studies, however, authors combine these “generalist experts” with less experienced generalists. Furthermore, it is not possible to divorce physicians from the context in which they practice. For instance, the use of electronic medical records, availability of guidelines, or ready access to other experts for discussion and informal consultation could also influence quality of care.1719

There are likely important differences in the types of patients who receive care from generalists or from specialists that observational studies might not accurately capture. Patients who seek specialist care might be more inclined to take an active role in their health care or adhere to lifestyle and other physician recommendations. Patients of specialist physicians tend to be younger and have fewer medical problems.3,2022 In addition, generalists often care for complex patients with multiple chronic conditions, whose care requires explicit trade-offs and potential for conflict involving the use of multiple medications and treatments.23,24 Finally, the literature has generally not assessed aspects of care that are difficult to measure including accessibility, care coordination, and communication.

In the present study, we systematically reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which prior studies accounted for some of these potential confounders. We posed 3 specific questions: (1) To what extent do studies adjust for selection bias and the characteristics of patients who receive care from specialists and generalists? (2) How do studies adjust for measures of physician experience and/or interest? and (3) To what extent do existing studies accurately characterize physician characteristics and practice environment?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

As our point of departure, we adapted the framework of structure, process, and outcomes of Donabedian25 to develop a larger framework that compares the care provided by generalists and specialists (Figure 1). The 4 major attributes of primary care (as defined by the Institute of Medicine) including accessibility, communication, coordination, and comprehensiveness each inform process measures.26

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for studies that compare generalist with specialist care.

Graphic Jump Location

Studies that compare generalist with specialist care range from the microlevel (individual patient with a single discrete medical condition) to the macrolevel (comparison between countries that vary in their proportions of generalist and specialist care). Most articles have focused on the individual patient with a single discrete disease that falls within the narrow domain of the particular specialist. Few, if any, studies have evaluated the outcomes of care for patients with multiple chronic illnesses. We therefore restricted our review to studies of individual patients with single discrete conditions.

LITERATURE SEARCH AND SELECTION CRITERIA

We performed a MEDLINE search of articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 27, 2004. We began with a previously published search strategy5 and added a MeSH term for health care costs. We combined the MeSH term specialties, medical (unexploded term) with any of the following MeSH terms: (1) health knowledge, attitudes, practice, (2) drug utilization, (3) health care costs or health care expenditures, (4) prescriptions, drug, (5) preventive medicine, (6) primary prevention, (7) physician's practice patterns, and (8) treatment outcome. This search retrieved 745 articles.

We performed a hand search of the bibliographies of retrieved articles and identified 45 additional articles. We reviewed indexed MeSH terms from retrieved articles and identified additional commonly occurring terms. We used these terms to perform a second search and combined each term with specialties, medical (unexploded term). These additional MeSH terms were family practice, comparative study, referral and consultation, primary health care, quality of health care, ambulatory care, practice guidelines, and evaluation studies. We updated the original search through April 1, 2005. These searches yielded an additional 1669 articles for a total of 2459 articles (Figure 2). A search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews yielded no additional articles.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Results of title and detailed search. *Reasons for exclusion sum to greater than 106 studies because we allowed more than 1 reason for exclusion per study.

Graphic Jump Location

Eligible studies reported outcomes for individual patients with a single discrete medical condition. We established explicit a priori exclusion criteria for eligibility for our review. We excluded studies without primary data (reviews, letters, and editorials), abstracts, pediatric studies, non–English language studies, and studies with fewer than 50 subjects in any arm owing to actuarial instability. We also excluded studies that compared generalist specialties with each other (eg, general internal medicine and family practice), studies that provided no explicit definition for outcomes, studies with no quantitative outcomes, and those that did not compare generalist vs specialty care. In addition, we excluded studies in which no accepted optimal standard of care existed for the outcome in question because it was not possible to determine if generalists or specialists provided superior care in these reports.

Paired reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of each article for potential relevance to our study questions. Based on this review, we excluded 2304 studies that either did not compare generalist vs specialty care for individual patients with single diagnoses or that obviously met at least 1 of our exclusion criteria. We used a standardized instrument to perform a detailed abstraction of each of the remaining 155 articles that form the basis of our review. Paired reviewers reviewed each article, independently abstracted data using the standardized instrument, and resolved any resulting discrepancies by consensus. Discrepancies occurred in fewer than 10% of potentially eligible articles.

We rated whether studies adequately addressed the potential bias associated with the selection of patients to generalist vs specialist care. We considered randomized controlled trials and physician surveys that tested knowledge or behaviors using case vignettes to have adequately addressed selection bias. Using a previously published definition,27 we also judged studies to be adequate if authors used 1 of the following strategies to perform case-mix adjustment: (1) multivariable analyses that incorporate patient age and sex and clinically or survey-derived measures of illness severity and health status, or both (eg, APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] and SF-36 [Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey]), or individual, clinically derived characteristics such as diagnoses and blood pressure; (2) comparisons applying use of propensity scores that incorporate patient age, sex, and multiple, clinically derived patient characteristics; or (3) multivariable analyses of administrative data with severity adjustment by patient age, sex, and computed severity adjustment (eg, adjusted clinical groups) or at least some measure(s) of health status or morbidity. We considered case adjustment inadequate if authors made some attempt at adjustment for patient characteristics, but these adjustments were less robust. Examples include traditional multivariable analysis using administrative data adjusted for patient age, sex, and diagnosis but with no adjustment for disease severity or comorbidity.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used the Fisher exact test to compare the proportion of studies that included each key methodologic attribute between studies that favored specialist care and those that favored generalist care or found no difference. To compare the use of key attributes, we considered 4 potential attributes per study: (1) physician volume or experience, (2) information technology support, (3) care management programs, and (4) practice size and integration into health delivery systems. We used the Fisher exact test to determine whether the proportion of attributes evaluated differed by study conclusions.

On detailed review of 155 potentially eligible articles, we excluded 106 that met our predefined exclusion criteria (Figure 2). The most common reasons for exclusion were no accepted optimal standard of care (n = 39), fewer than 50 subjects in any group (n = 23), and no comparison of generalist vs specialty care (n = 19).

Table 1 provides the characteristics of the 49 eligible studies, which included 28 cohort studies, 19 cross-sectional analyses, and 2 randomized controlled trials. Data sources included physician interviews or surveys in 19 studies, patient interviews or surveys in 9 studies, administrative data in 14 studies, and medical chart reviews in 23 studies (14 studies used more than 1 data source). Disease categories included coronary artery disease (16 studies), diabetes (7 studies), congestive heart failure (6 studies), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (5 studies), breast cancer (3 studies), hypertension (3 studies), and immunizations (2 studies). Outcomes for patients with liver disease, rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and Helicobacter pylori infection, and approaches to cholesterol management and smoking cessation were evaluated by 1 study each.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Eligible Studies

Table 2 details the use of key methodologic strategies stratified by diagnosis category. Thirty-nine studies (80%) used multivariable analysis. Thirty-three studies (67%) met our minimum criteria for adequately addressing selection bias. Strategies to address selection bias included case-mix adjustment (20 studies), physician surveys (7 studies), and case vignettes (4 studies). Only 2 eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (1 diabetes study and 1 HIV infection study).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Frequency of Key Methodologic Factors Stratified by Diagnosis Category*

Among the 6 key methodologic attributes that we defined a priori, the remaining attributes were present in a smaller number of eligible studies. Eight studies (16%) included data regarding practice size and integration into health delivery systems. Only 4 studies (8%) considered volume or physician experience (eg, generalist experts) as criteria to classify physician specialty. Consideration of the impact of information technology support (3 studies) and the availability of care management programs (2 studies) were infrequent among eligible studies in our review.

We stratified eligible studies by principal conclusion to identify potential correlates between key methodologic attributes and outcomes (Table 3). In our analyses, we combined those studies that found no difference or favored generalist care as both outcomes demonstrate that specialist care did not achieve the expected outcome of better care within the narrow area of their specialty. Selection bias was adequately addressed in 14 (58%) of 24 studies that reported specialist outcomes to be superior to generalist outcomes and 12 (71%) of 17 studies that found no difference in outcomes or that reported generalist outcomes to be superior (P = .52). Investigators used multivariable analytic techniques in 94% of studies that found no difference or favored generalist outcomes compared with 67% of studies that favored specialist outcomes (P = .06). Key attributes were present 10 times among 68 potential instances in studies that re ported no difference in outcomes or favored generalist outcomes and only 3 times among 96 potential instances in studies that favored specialist outcomes (P = .009). Studies that favored generalist care were more likely to include more than 1 key methodologic attribute. Only 3 of 24 studies that favored specialty care adequately adjusted for case mix and considered at least 1 other key attribute compared with 3 of 4 studies that favored generalist care (P = .02). An analysis that compared the 3 groups (generalists preferred, specialists preferred, and no difference) separately for each of the aforementioned comparisons produced similar results for each of these comparisons.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Methodologic Attributes Stratified by Principal Study Result*

Using the assumption that randomized controlled trials, case vignettes, and physician survey most effectively address issues of selection bias, 7 (53%) of 13 of such studies favored specialist care. Of the 20 studies that used adequate case-mix adjustment, 7 (35%) favored specialty care, whereas 10 (63%) of 16 studies that did not consider selection bias favored specialty care (P = .18).

When considering studies comparing generalist and specialist care for single discrete conditions, 24 of 49 studies suggest better outcomes with specialists and only 4 studies suggest that generalist care is superior. This may seem to be an unsurprising result to many. Over the past 100 years, the US health care system has evolved to a heavy reliance on care by specialist physicians.7276 The American public places a high value on specialty certification,77,78 and US physician reimbursement policies more heavily compensate specialists than generalists, relative to the differentials in other countries.74 Only 10% of US medical students perceive that “specialists are less important than primary care physicians,” and not surprisingly, less than 20% of graduating students plan careers in a generalist specialty.79

Over the past 25 years, a line of ecological research has come to a very different conclusion regarding the value of generalist vs specialist care. For example, in 1993, Welch and colleagues80 reported marked variations across metropolitan service areas in the cost of physicians' services to Medicare beneficiaries, with lower costs in metropolitan service areas that contained a high proportion of primary care practitioners. Recently, Starfield et al11(pW5-97) concluded that “analyses at the county level show lower mortality rates where there are more primary care physicians, but this is not the case for specialist supply.” Indeed, in an exhaustive review of more than 100 such ecological studies of the relative benefits of generalist vs specialist care, Starfield et al12(p457) recently concluded that the “ . . . evidence shows that primary care helps prevent illness and death . . . ” and “ . . . that primary care (in contrast to specialty care) is associated with a more equitable distribution of health in populations.”

How can different types of research come to such starkly different results regarding the value of generalist vs specialist care? We suggest that the confusion derives in part from an overly simplistic model for the role of specialty training in patient care. We found that only 14 of the 24 studies favoring specialist care adequately considered case-mix adjustment for possible patient selection bias. Furthermore, only 3 studies considered the potential effects of the practice environment as a potential confounding factor, and none of these studies considered the volume of cases or other measures of practice experience as a measure of specialized expertise.

The failure to consider the potential influence of the physician's practice environment is a particularly interesting oversight. Numerous studies have demonstrated the effects of guidelines, care pathways, disease management, feedback, information technology, incentive plans, and corporate culture on physician care.8189 Scholars of primary care have emphasized the distinct primary care role (eg, continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive)26 and have argued that it is the fulfillment of this role (rather than the certification process of the physician) that is important to care.75,9092 Finally, the limited time and resources available to most US primary care physicians poses difficulties for the provision of excellent, comprehensive services.9396 Thus, it might seem obvious that a simple comparison of physician care by training and background would prove uninformative unless differences in practice environment and patient characteristics were taken into account. The seemingly substantive evidence favoring specialized care of discrete conditions becomes far less compelling when these important methodological issues are considered. In our review, while the total number of eligible studies was small, studies that favored generalist care were more likely to consider practice characteristics than were those that favored specialty care.

The dearth of studies comparing generalist vs specialist care of patients with multiple chronic conditions, a traditional strength of generalism, is another important omission in the literature. More than 80% of Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years have at least 1 chronic condition,23 but even more important, many have multiple chronic illnesses. Furthermore, patients with multiple chronic conditions account for most Medicare spending; 95% of Medicare expenditures are for patients with 2 or more chronic conditions.23 Unfortunately, in a specialty-oriented health care system, coordination of care for these multiple conditions can be a significant problem. Almost 70% of respondents to a recent survey reported that coordination among the different health professionals that they saw was a problem,97 and US patients with chronic illness report more frequent care coordination problems than do similar patients in Australia, Canada, Germany, or the United Kingdom.98 While many studies have demonstrated the benefits of various administrative approaches to enhancing chronic illness care,99 the benefits to chronic illness care of the certification pathway of the physician remain unclear. We suggest that further research enables comparison of generalists and specialists in health care systems that provide care for patients with complex diagnoses who require extensive coordination.

Of course, there are numerous limitations to a systematic review conducted on a complex topic such as this. First, we excluded 39 studies that reported differing rates of services or costs but did not offer any explicit optimal standard of care. Second, we identified but excluded a small number of studies that compared patient satisfaction with generalists vs specialists for patients with various conditions (instead of patients with single discrete conditions). Third, the literature on this subject is extensive, and it is possible that a different initial search strategy would have provided additional studies to evaluate. Nonetheless, we conducted a careful hand search of the bibliographies of identified articles and an expanded MEDLINE search using additional commonly occurring MeSH terms; thus, we believe our search strategy was suitably exhaustive. In addition, we were not blinded to the results of the studies that we abstracted, and all reviewers were generalists. Finally, the limited literature that addresses the care of patients with multiple chronic medical conditions, traditionally the strength and domain of generalists, would likely produce very different results.

In conclusion, in this systematic review, we found that almost half of the studies comparing generalist and specialist care suggest better outcomes for specialists treating patients with a single discrete condition. However, many studies suffered from inadequate case-mix adjustment and failure to address the characteristics of the physicians' practice setting. Studies that favored specialty care were less likely to consider physician volume or experience, information technology support, care management programs, and integration into health delivery systems than studies that showed no difference or favored generalists. While the many benefits of highly specialized services are indisputable, well-supported generalist practice remains a critical element of the health care system, not just for acute illness care but also for the management of the many patients with chronic illness. Further research is urgently needed to inform the emerging policy debate around the proper role and nurturance of generalist physicians in the United States.

Correspondence: Gerald W. Smetana, MD, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 (gsmetana@bidmc.harvard.edu).

Accepted for Publication: September 14, 2006.

Author Contributions: Dr Smetana had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Smetana, Landon, Bindman, Burstin, and Rich. Acquisition of data: Smetana, Landon, and Rich. Analysis and interpretation of data: Smetana, Landon, Bindman, Burstin, Davis, Tjia, and Rich. Drafting of the manuscript: Smetana, Landon, Burstin, and Rich. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Smetana, Landon, Bindman, Burstin, Davis, Tjia, and Rich. Statistical analysis: Burstin and Davis. Obtained funding: Smetana and Rich. Administrative, technical, and material support: Smetana and Rich. Study supervision: Smetana and Rich.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: All authors are members of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), which provided funding for a library research assistant for this study.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding source (SGIM) approved an outline of the proposed study design but had no role in the conduct of the study. The funding source had no role in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Acknowledgment: We thank Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, MD, for his contribution to the development of our conceptual framework; Leslie Kernisan, MD, for her assistance with data abstraction; and Tezera Tadesse for administrative and library support.

Ayanian  JZGuadagnoli  EMcNeil  BJCleary  PD Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med 1997;1572570- 2576
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHFriedmann  PDCassel  CKLang  RM Differences in generalist and specialist physicians' knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12523- 530
PubMed Link to Article
Jollis  JGDeLong  ERPeterson  ED  et al.  Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med 1996;3351880- 1887
PubMed Link to Article
Go  ASRao  RKDauterman  KWMassie  BM A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med 2000;108216- 226
PubMed Link to Article
Harrold  LRField  TSGurwitz  JH Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14499- 511
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBMcInnes  K  et al.  Physician specialization and the quality of care for human immunodeficiency virus infection. Arch Intern Med 2005;1651133- 1139
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBCohn  SE  et al.  Physician specialization and antiretroviral therapy for HIV. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18233- 241
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBWenger  N  et al.  Specialty training and specialization among physicians who treat HIV/AIDS in the United States. J Gen Intern Med 2002;1712- 22
PubMed Link to Article
Katz  JNSolomon  DHSchaffer  JLHorsky  JBurdick  EBates  DW Outcomes of care and resource utilization among patients with knee or shoulder disorders treated by general internists, rheumatologists, or orthopedic surgeons. Am J Med 2000;10828- 35
PubMed Link to Article
Rose  JHO'Toole  EEDawson  NV  et al. SUPPORT Investigators, Generalists and oncologists show similar care practices and outcomes for hospitalized late-stage cancer patients. Med Care 2000;381103- 1118
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  BShi  LGrover  AMacinko  J The effects of specialist supply on populations' health: assessing the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) January-June 2005; ((suppl Web exclusives)) W5-97- W5-107
PubMed
Starfield  BShi  LMacinko  J Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83457- 502
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  B Primary care and health: a cross-national comparison. JAMA 1991;2662268- 2271
PubMed Link to Article
Macinko  JStarfield  BShi  L The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res 2003;38831- 865
PubMed Link to Article
Shi  LMacinko  JStarfield  BPolitzer  RWulu  JXu  J Primary care, social inequalities, and all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality in US counties, 1990. Am J Public Health 2005;95674- 680
PubMed Link to Article
Keating  NLZaslavsky  AMAyanian  JZ Physicians' reports of focused expertise in clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15417- 420
PubMed Link to Article
Garrett  NYasnoff  W Disseminating public health practice guidelines in electronic medical record systems. J Public Health Manag Pract 2002;81- 10
PubMed Link to Article
Burton  LCAnderson  GFKues  IW Using electronic health records to help coordinate care. Milbank Q 2004;82457- 481
PubMed Link to Article
Sequist  TDGandhi  TKKarson  AS  et al.  A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12431- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Sakakibara  MKongoji  KSamejima  H  et al.  Specialty-related disparities of readmission in patients with chronic heart failure: the importance of hospital-clinic cooperation. Intern Med 1999;38705- 709
PubMed Link to Article
Chen  JRadford  MWang  YKrumholz  H Care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction by physician specialty: the effects of comorbidity and functional limitations. Am J Med 2000;108460- 469
PubMed Link to Article
Foody  JMRathore  SSWang  Y  et al.  Predictors of cardiologist care for older patients hospitalized for heart failure. Am Heart J 2004;14766- 73
PubMed Link to Article
Wolff  JLStarfield  BAnderson  G Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002;1622269- 2276
PubMed Link to Article
Braunstein  JBAnderson  GFGerstenblith  G  et al.  Noncardiac comorbidity increases preventable hospitalizations and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;421226- 1233
PubMed Link to Article
Donabedian  A Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1966;44 ((suppl)) 166- 206
PubMed Link to Article
Institute of Medicine, Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1996;
Iezzoni  LI Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill Health Administration Press2003;
McFall  SLWarnecke  RBKaluzny  ADAitken  MFord  L Physician and practice characteristics associated with judgments about breast cancer treatment. Med Care 1994;32106- 117
PubMed Link to Article
Taplin  SHTaylor  VMontano  DChinn  RUrban  N Specialty differences and the ordering of screening mammography by primary care physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract 1994;7375- 386
PubMed
Finison  KSWellins  CAWennberg  DELucas  FL Screening mammography rates by specialty of the usual care physician. Eff Clin Pract 1999;2120- 125
PubMed
Stafford  RSBlumenthal  DPasternak  RC Variations in cholesterol management practices of US physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29139- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Thorndike  ANRigotti  NAStafford  RSSinger  DE National patterns in the treatment of smokers by physicians. JAMA 1998;279604- 608
PubMed Link to Article
Edep  MEShah  NBTateo  IMMassie  BM Differences between primary care physicians and cardiologists in management of congestive heart failure: relation to practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30518- 526
PubMed Link to Article
Reis  SEHolubkov  REdmundowicz  D  et al.  Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure: specialty-related disparities in practice patterns and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30733- 738
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHWang  JCZhang  JXLang  RM Utilization and dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for heart failure: effect of physician specialty and patient characteristics. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12563- 566
PubMed Link to Article
Croft  JBGiles  WHRoegner  RHAnda  RFCasper  MLLivengood  JR Pharmacologic management of heart failure among older adults by office-based physicians in the United States. J Fam Pract 1997;44382- 390
PubMed
Cujec  BQuan  HJin  YJohnson  D Association between physician specialty and volumes of treated patients and mortality among patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed heart failure. Am J Med 2005;11835- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Regueiro  CRHamel  MBDavis  RBDesbiens  NConnors  AFPhillips  RS A comparison of generalist and pulmonologist care for patients hospitalized with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: resource intensity, hospital costs, and survival. Am J Med 1998;105366- 372
PubMed Link to Article
Ayanian  JZHauptman  PJGuadagnoli  EAntman  EMPashos  CLMcNeil  BJ Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1994;3311136- 1142
PubMed Link to Article
Borowsky  SJKravitz  RLLaouri  M  et al.  Effect of physician specialty on use of necessary coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;261484- 1491
PubMed Link to Article
Schreiber  TLElkhatib  AGrines  CLO'Neill  WW Cardiologist versus internist management of patients with unstable angina: patterns and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26577- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Friedmann  PDBrett  ASMayo-Smith  MF Differences in generalists' and cardiologists' perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 1996;124414- 421
PubMed Link to Article
Stein  JHUretz  EFParrillo  JEBarron  JT Cost and appropriateness of radionuclide exercise stress testing by cardiologists and non-cardiologists. Am J Cardiol 1996;77139- 142
PubMed Link to Article
Whyte  JJFilly  ALJollis  JG Treatment of hyperlipidemia by specialists versus generalists as secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1997;801345- 1347
PubMed Link to Article
Stafford  RSBlumenthal  D Specialty differences in cardiovascular disease prevention practices. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;321238- 1243
PubMed Link to Article
Frances  CDGo  ASDauterman  KW  et al.  Outcome following acute myocardial infarction: are differences among physician specialties the result of quality of care or case mix? Arch Intern Med 1999;1591429- 1436
PubMed Link to Article
Nash  ISCorrato  RRDlutowski  MJO'Connor  JPNash  DB Generalist versus specialist care for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1999;83650- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Norcini  JJKimball  HRLipner  RS Certification and specialization: do they matter in the outcome of acute myocardial infarction? Acad Med 2000;751193- 1198
PubMed Link to Article
Gottwik  MZahn  RSchiele  R  et al.  Differences in treatment and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with compared to without departments of cardiology; results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA 1 + 2) Registries and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR). Eur Heart J 2001;221794- 1801
PubMed Link to Article
Fehrenbach  SNBudnitz  DSGazmararian  JAKrumholz  HM Physician characteristics and the initiation of beta-adrenergic blocking agent therapy after acute myocardial infarction in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care 2001;7717- 723
PubMed
Majumdar  SRInui  TSGurwitz  JHGillman  MWMcLaughlin  TJSoumerai  SB Influence of physician specialty on adoption and relinquishment of calcium channel blockers and other treatments for myocardial infarction. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16351- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Ayanian  JZLandrum  MBGuadagnoli  EGaccione  P Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality among elderly patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002;3471678- 1686
PubMed Link to Article
Tiemeier  Hde Vries  WJvan het Loo  M  et al.  Guideline adherence rates and interprofessional variation in a vignette study of depression. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11214- 218
PubMed Link to Article
Diabetes Integrated Care Team, Integrated care for diabetes: clinical, psychosocial, and economic evaluation. BMJ 1994;3081208- 1212
PubMed Link to Article
Greenfield  SRogers  WMangotich  MCarney  MFTarlov  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;2741436- 1444
PubMed Link to Article
Ho  MMarger  MBeart  JYip  IShekelle  P Is the quality of diabetes care better in a diabetes clinic or in a general medicine clinic? Diabetes Care 1997;20472- 475
PubMed Link to Article
Zgibor  JCSonger  TJKelsey  SF  et al.  The association of diabetes specialist care with health care practices and glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis from the Pittsburgh epidemiology of diabetes complications study. Diabetes Care 2000;23472- 476
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHZhang  JXMerrell  K Specialty differences in the care of older patients with diabetes. Med Care 2000;38131- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Zgibor  JCSonger  TJKelsey  SFDrash  ALOrchard  TJ Influence of health care providers on the development of diabetes complications. Diabetes Care 2002;251584- 1590
PubMed Link to Article
Fendrick  AMHirth  RAChernew  ME Differences between generalist and specialist physicians regarding Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcer disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;911544- 1548
PubMed
Turner  BJMcKee  LFanning  TMarkson  LE AIDS specialist versus generalist ambulatory care for advanced HIV infection and impact on hospital use. Med Care 1994;32902- 916
PubMed Link to Article
Keitz  SABox  TLHoman  RKBartlett  JAOddone  EZ Primary care for patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16573- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Stone  VEMansourati  FFPoses  RMMayer  KH Relation of physician specialty and HIV/AIDS experience to choice of guideline-recommended antiretroviral therapy. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16360- 368
PubMed Link to Article
Wilson  IBLandon  BEDing  L  et al.  A national study of the relationship of care site HIV specialization to early adoption of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Med Care 2005;4312- 20
PubMed
Huse  DMRoht  LHAlpert  JSHartz  SC Physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of pharmacologic treatment of hypertension. Ann Pharmacother 2001;351173- 1179
PubMed Link to Article
Ren  XSKazis  LELee  AZhang  HMiller  DR Identifying patient and physician characteristics that affect compliance with antihypertensive medications. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002;2747- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Nichol  KLZimmerman  R Generalist and subspecialist physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for elderly and other high-risk patients: a nationwide survey. Arch Intern Med 2001;1612702- 2708
PubMed Link to Article
Daniels  NANguyen  TTGildengorin  GPerez-Stable  EJ Adult immunization in university-based primary care and specialty practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;521007- 1012
PubMed Link to Article
Ko  CWKelley  KMeyer  KE Physician specialty and the outcomes and cost of admissions for end-stage liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;963411- 3418
PubMed Link to Article
Shipton  DGlazier  RHGuan  JBadley  EM Effects of use of specialty services on disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in an insured elderly population. Med Care 2004;42907- 913
PubMed Link to Article
Sumartojo  EMGeiter  LJMiller  BHale  BE Can physicians treat tuberculosis? report on a national survey of physician practices. Am J Public Health 1997;872008- 2011
PubMed Link to Article
Starr  P The Social Transformation of American Medicine.  New York, NY Basic Books1982;
Ludmerer  KM Learning to Heal: The Development of American Medical Education.  Baltimore, Md Johns Hopkins University Press1996;
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Health at a Glance: 2001.  Paris, France Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development2001;
Starfield  B Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation, and Policy.  New York, NY Oxford University Press1992;
Moore  GShowstack  J Primary care medicine in crisis: toward reconstruction and renewal. Ann Intern Med 2003;138244- 247
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  TAHorwitz  RIDuffy  FDCassel  CKGoode  LDLipner  RS The role of physician specialty board certification status in the quality movement. JAMA 2004;2921038- 1043
PubMed Link to Article
Mainous  AG  IIIHagen  MDRich  EC Patient awareness of and attitudes toward physician board certification. J Am Board Fam Pract 1993;6403- 406
PubMed
Association of American Medical Colleges, 2005 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.  Washington, DC Association of American Medical Colleges2005;
Welch  WPMiller  MEWelch  HGFisher  ESWennberg  JE Geographic variation in expenditures for physicians' services in the United States. N Engl J Med 1993;328621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Keating  NLWeeks  JCLandrum  MBBorbas  CGuadagnoli  E Discussion of treatment options for early-stage breast cancer: effect of provider specialty on type of surgery and satisfaction. Med Care 2001;39681- 691
PubMed Link to Article
Burstin  HRConn  ASetnik  G  et al.  Benchmarking and quality improvement: the Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study. Am J Med 1999;107437- 449
PubMed Link to Article
Rich  ECKralewski  JFeldman  RDowd  BBernhardt  TS Variations in the management of primary care: effect on cost in an HMO network. Arch Intern Med 1998;1582363- 2371
PubMed Link to Article
Schmittdiel  JMcMenamin  SBHalpin  HA  et al.  The use of patient and physician reminders for preventive services: results from a National Study of Physician Organizations. Prev Med 2004;391000- 1006
PubMed Link to Article
Kaissi  AKralewski  JCuroe  ADowd  BSilversmith  J How does the culture of medical group practices influence the types of programs used to assure quality of care? Health Care Manage Rev 2004;29129- 138
PubMed Link to Article
Kralewski  JEDowd  BEHeaton  AKaissi  A The influence of the structure and culture of medical group practices on prescription drug errors. Med Care 2005;43817- 825
PubMed Link to Article
Kralewski  JERich  ECFeldman  R  et al.  The effects of medical group practice and physician payment methods on costs of care. Health Serv Res 2000;35591- 613
PubMed
Casalino  LP Disease management and the organization of physician practice. JAMA 2005;293485- 488
PubMed Link to Article
Shortell  SMSchmittdiel  JWang  MC  et al.  An empirical assessment of high-performing medical groups: results from a national study. Med Care Res Rev 2005;62407- 434
PubMed Link to Article
Forrest  CBStarfield  B Entry into primary care and continuity: the effects of access. Am J Public Health 1998;881330- 1336
PubMed Link to Article
Shi  LStarfield  BPolitzer  RRegan  J Primary care, self-rated health, and reductions in social disparities in health. Health Serv Res 2002;37529- 550
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  BShi  L Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy 2002;60201- 218
PubMed Link to Article
American College of Physicians, The Impending Collapse of Primary Care Medicine and its Implications for the State of the Nation's Health Care.  Philadelphia, Pa American College of Physicians2006;
Yarnall  KSPollak  KIOstbye  TKrause  KMMichener  JL Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93635- 641
PubMed Link to Article
Ostbye  TYarnall  KSKrause  KMPollak  KIGradison  MMichener  JL Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med 2005;3209- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Rich  ECBurke  WHeaton  CJ  et al.  Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19273- 280
PubMed Link to Article
The Kaiser Family Foundation,Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Harvard School of Public Health, National Survey on Consumers' Experiences With Patient Safety and Quality Information.  Menlo Park, Calif: Kaiser Family Foundation; Rockville, Md Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Boston, Mass: Harvard School of Public Health2005;
Schoen  COsborn  RHuynh  PT  et al.  Taking the pulse of health care systems: experiences of patients with health problems in six countries [published online ahead of print November 3, 2005]. Health Aff (Millwood)
PubMed
Wolff  JLBoult  C Moving beyond round pegs and square holes: restructuring Medicare to improve chronic care. Ann Intern Med 2005;143439- 445
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for studies that compare generalist with specialist care.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Results of title and detailed search. *Reasons for exclusion sum to greater than 106 studies because we allowed more than 1 reason for exclusion per study.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Eligible Studies
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Frequency of Key Methodologic Factors Stratified by Diagnosis Category*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Methodologic Attributes Stratified by Principal Study Result*

References

Ayanian  JZGuadagnoli  EMcNeil  BJCleary  PD Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med 1997;1572570- 2576
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHFriedmann  PDCassel  CKLang  RM Differences in generalist and specialist physicians' knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12523- 530
PubMed Link to Article
Jollis  JGDeLong  ERPeterson  ED  et al.  Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med 1996;3351880- 1887
PubMed Link to Article
Go  ASRao  RKDauterman  KWMassie  BM A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med 2000;108216- 226
PubMed Link to Article
Harrold  LRField  TSGurwitz  JH Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14499- 511
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBMcInnes  K  et al.  Physician specialization and the quality of care for human immunodeficiency virus infection. Arch Intern Med 2005;1651133- 1139
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBCohn  SE  et al.  Physician specialization and antiretroviral therapy for HIV. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18233- 241
PubMed Link to Article
Landon  BEWilson  IBWenger  N  et al.  Specialty training and specialization among physicians who treat HIV/AIDS in the United States. J Gen Intern Med 2002;1712- 22
PubMed Link to Article
Katz  JNSolomon  DHSchaffer  JLHorsky  JBurdick  EBates  DW Outcomes of care and resource utilization among patients with knee or shoulder disorders treated by general internists, rheumatologists, or orthopedic surgeons. Am J Med 2000;10828- 35
PubMed Link to Article
Rose  JHO'Toole  EEDawson  NV  et al. SUPPORT Investigators, Generalists and oncologists show similar care practices and outcomes for hospitalized late-stage cancer patients. Med Care 2000;381103- 1118
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  BShi  LGrover  AMacinko  J The effects of specialist supply on populations' health: assessing the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) January-June 2005; ((suppl Web exclusives)) W5-97- W5-107
PubMed
Starfield  BShi  LMacinko  J Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83457- 502
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  B Primary care and health: a cross-national comparison. JAMA 1991;2662268- 2271
PubMed Link to Article
Macinko  JStarfield  BShi  L The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res 2003;38831- 865
PubMed Link to Article
Shi  LMacinko  JStarfield  BPolitzer  RWulu  JXu  J Primary care, social inequalities, and all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality in US counties, 1990. Am J Public Health 2005;95674- 680
PubMed Link to Article
Keating  NLZaslavsky  AMAyanian  JZ Physicians' reports of focused expertise in clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15417- 420
PubMed Link to Article
Garrett  NYasnoff  W Disseminating public health practice guidelines in electronic medical record systems. J Public Health Manag Pract 2002;81- 10
PubMed Link to Article
Burton  LCAnderson  GFKues  IW Using electronic health records to help coordinate care. Milbank Q 2004;82457- 481
PubMed Link to Article
Sequist  TDGandhi  TKKarson  AS  et al.  A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12431- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Sakakibara  MKongoji  KSamejima  H  et al.  Specialty-related disparities of readmission in patients with chronic heart failure: the importance of hospital-clinic cooperation. Intern Med 1999;38705- 709
PubMed Link to Article
Chen  JRadford  MWang  YKrumholz  H Care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction by physician specialty: the effects of comorbidity and functional limitations. Am J Med 2000;108460- 469
PubMed Link to Article
Foody  JMRathore  SSWang  Y  et al.  Predictors of cardiologist care for older patients hospitalized for heart failure. Am Heart J 2004;14766- 73
PubMed Link to Article
Wolff  JLStarfield  BAnderson  G Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002;1622269- 2276
PubMed Link to Article
Braunstein  JBAnderson  GFGerstenblith  G  et al.  Noncardiac comorbidity increases preventable hospitalizations and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;421226- 1233
PubMed Link to Article
Donabedian  A Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1966;44 ((suppl)) 166- 206
PubMed Link to Article
Institute of Medicine, Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1996;
Iezzoni  LI Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill Health Administration Press2003;
McFall  SLWarnecke  RBKaluzny  ADAitken  MFord  L Physician and practice characteristics associated with judgments about breast cancer treatment. Med Care 1994;32106- 117
PubMed Link to Article
Taplin  SHTaylor  VMontano  DChinn  RUrban  N Specialty differences and the ordering of screening mammography by primary care physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract 1994;7375- 386
PubMed
Finison  KSWellins  CAWennberg  DELucas  FL Screening mammography rates by specialty of the usual care physician. Eff Clin Pract 1999;2120- 125
PubMed
Stafford  RSBlumenthal  DPasternak  RC Variations in cholesterol management practices of US physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29139- 146
PubMed Link to Article
Thorndike  ANRigotti  NAStafford  RSSinger  DE National patterns in the treatment of smokers by physicians. JAMA 1998;279604- 608
PubMed Link to Article
Edep  MEShah  NBTateo  IMMassie  BM Differences between primary care physicians and cardiologists in management of congestive heart failure: relation to practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30518- 526
PubMed Link to Article
Reis  SEHolubkov  REdmundowicz  D  et al.  Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure: specialty-related disparities in practice patterns and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30733- 738
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHWang  JCZhang  JXLang  RM Utilization and dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for heart failure: effect of physician specialty and patient characteristics. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12563- 566
PubMed Link to Article
Croft  JBGiles  WHRoegner  RHAnda  RFCasper  MLLivengood  JR Pharmacologic management of heart failure among older adults by office-based physicians in the United States. J Fam Pract 1997;44382- 390
PubMed
Cujec  BQuan  HJin  YJohnson  D Association between physician specialty and volumes of treated patients and mortality among patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed heart failure. Am J Med 2005;11835- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Regueiro  CRHamel  MBDavis  RBDesbiens  NConnors  AFPhillips  RS A comparison of generalist and pulmonologist care for patients hospitalized with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: resource intensity, hospital costs, and survival. Am J Med 1998;105366- 372
PubMed Link to Article
Ayanian  JZHauptman  PJGuadagnoli  EAntman  EMPashos  CLMcNeil  BJ Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1994;3311136- 1142
PubMed Link to Article
Borowsky  SJKravitz  RLLaouri  M  et al.  Effect of physician specialty on use of necessary coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;261484- 1491
PubMed Link to Article
Schreiber  TLElkhatib  AGrines  CLO'Neill  WW Cardiologist versus internist management of patients with unstable angina: patterns and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26577- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Friedmann  PDBrett  ASMayo-Smith  MF Differences in generalists' and cardiologists' perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 1996;124414- 421
PubMed Link to Article
Stein  JHUretz  EFParrillo  JEBarron  JT Cost and appropriateness of radionuclide exercise stress testing by cardiologists and non-cardiologists. Am J Cardiol 1996;77139- 142
PubMed Link to Article
Whyte  JJFilly  ALJollis  JG Treatment of hyperlipidemia by specialists versus generalists as secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1997;801345- 1347
PubMed Link to Article
Stafford  RSBlumenthal  D Specialty differences in cardiovascular disease prevention practices. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;321238- 1243
PubMed Link to Article
Frances  CDGo  ASDauterman  KW  et al.  Outcome following acute myocardial infarction: are differences among physician specialties the result of quality of care or case mix? Arch Intern Med 1999;1591429- 1436
PubMed Link to Article
Nash  ISCorrato  RRDlutowski  MJO'Connor  JPNash  DB Generalist versus specialist care for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1999;83650- 654
PubMed Link to Article
Norcini  JJKimball  HRLipner  RS Certification and specialization: do they matter in the outcome of acute myocardial infarction? Acad Med 2000;751193- 1198
PubMed Link to Article
Gottwik  MZahn  RSchiele  R  et al.  Differences in treatment and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with compared to without departments of cardiology; results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA 1 + 2) Registries and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR). Eur Heart J 2001;221794- 1801
PubMed Link to Article
Fehrenbach  SNBudnitz  DSGazmararian  JAKrumholz  HM Physician characteristics and the initiation of beta-adrenergic blocking agent therapy after acute myocardial infarction in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care 2001;7717- 723
PubMed
Majumdar  SRInui  TSGurwitz  JHGillman  MWMcLaughlin  TJSoumerai  SB Influence of physician specialty on adoption and relinquishment of calcium channel blockers and other treatments for myocardial infarction. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16351- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Ayanian  JZLandrum  MBGuadagnoli  EGaccione  P Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality among elderly patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002;3471678- 1686
PubMed Link to Article
Tiemeier  Hde Vries  WJvan het Loo  M  et al.  Guideline adherence rates and interprofessional variation in a vignette study of depression. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11214- 218
PubMed Link to Article
Diabetes Integrated Care Team, Integrated care for diabetes: clinical, psychosocial, and economic evaluation. BMJ 1994;3081208- 1212
PubMed Link to Article
Greenfield  SRogers  WMangotich  MCarney  MFTarlov  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;2741436- 1444
PubMed Link to Article
Ho  MMarger  MBeart  JYip  IShekelle  P Is the quality of diabetes care better in a diabetes clinic or in a general medicine clinic? Diabetes Care 1997;20472- 475
PubMed Link to Article
Zgibor  JCSonger  TJKelsey  SF  et al.  The association of diabetes specialist care with health care practices and glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis from the Pittsburgh epidemiology of diabetes complications study. Diabetes Care 2000;23472- 476
PubMed Link to Article
Chin  MHZhang  JXMerrell  K Specialty differences in the care of older patients with diabetes. Med Care 2000;38131- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Zgibor  JCSonger  TJKelsey  SFDrash  ALOrchard  TJ Influence of health care providers on the development of diabetes complications. Diabetes Care 2002;251584- 1590
PubMed Link to Article
Fendrick  AMHirth  RAChernew  ME Differences between generalist and specialist physicians regarding Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcer disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;911544- 1548
PubMed
Turner  BJMcKee  LFanning  TMarkson  LE AIDS specialist versus generalist ambulatory care for advanced HIV infection and impact on hospital use. Med Care 1994;32902- 916
PubMed Link to Article
Keitz  SABox  TLHoman  RKBartlett  JAOddone  EZ Primary care for patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16573- 582
PubMed Link to Article
Stone  VEMansourati  FFPoses  RMMayer  KH Relation of physician specialty and HIV/AIDS experience to choice of guideline-recommended antiretroviral therapy. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16360- 368
PubMed Link to Article
Wilson  IBLandon  BEDing  L  et al.  A national study of the relationship of care site HIV specialization to early adoption of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Med Care 2005;4312- 20
PubMed
Huse  DMRoht  LHAlpert  JSHartz  SC Physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of pharmacologic treatment of hypertension. Ann Pharmacother 2001;351173- 1179
PubMed Link to Article
Ren  XSKazis  LELee  AZhang  HMiller  DR Identifying patient and physician characteristics that affect compliance with antihypertensive medications. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002;2747- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Nichol  KLZimmerman  R Generalist and subspecialist physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for elderly and other high-risk patients: a nationwide survey. Arch Intern Med 2001;1612702- 2708
PubMed Link to Article
Daniels  NANguyen  TTGildengorin  GPerez-Stable  EJ Adult immunization in university-based primary care and specialty practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;521007- 1012
PubMed Link to Article
Ko  CWKelley  KMeyer  KE Physician specialty and the outcomes and cost of admissions for end-stage liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;963411- 3418
PubMed Link to Article
Shipton  DGlazier  RHGuan  JBadley  EM Effects of use of specialty services on disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in an insured elderly population. Med Care 2004;42907- 913
PubMed Link to Article
Sumartojo  EMGeiter  LJMiller  BHale  BE Can physicians treat tuberculosis? report on a national survey of physician practices. Am J Public Health 1997;872008- 2011
PubMed Link to Article
Starr  P The Social Transformation of American Medicine.  New York, NY Basic Books1982;
Ludmerer  KM Learning to Heal: The Development of American Medical Education.  Baltimore, Md Johns Hopkins University Press1996;
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Health at a Glance: 2001.  Paris, France Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development2001;
Starfield  B Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation, and Policy.  New York, NY Oxford University Press1992;
Moore  GShowstack  J Primary care medicine in crisis: toward reconstruction and renewal. Ann Intern Med 2003;138244- 247
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  TAHorwitz  RIDuffy  FDCassel  CKGoode  LDLipner  RS The role of physician specialty board certification status in the quality movement. JAMA 2004;2921038- 1043
PubMed Link to Article
Mainous  AG  IIIHagen  MDRich  EC Patient awareness of and attitudes toward physician board certification. J Am Board Fam Pract 1993;6403- 406
PubMed
Association of American Medical Colleges, 2005 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.  Washington, DC Association of American Medical Colleges2005;
Welch  WPMiller  MEWelch  HGFisher  ESWennberg  JE Geographic variation in expenditures for physicians' services in the United States. N Engl J Med 1993;328621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Keating  NLWeeks  JCLandrum  MBBorbas  CGuadagnoli  E Discussion of treatment options for early-stage breast cancer: effect of provider specialty on type of surgery and satisfaction. Med Care 2001;39681- 691
PubMed Link to Article
Burstin  HRConn  ASetnik  G  et al.  Benchmarking and quality improvement: the Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study. Am J Med 1999;107437- 449
PubMed Link to Article
Rich  ECKralewski  JFeldman  RDowd  BBernhardt  TS Variations in the management of primary care: effect on cost in an HMO network. Arch Intern Med 1998;1582363- 2371
PubMed Link to Article
Schmittdiel  JMcMenamin  SBHalpin  HA  et al.  The use of patient and physician reminders for preventive services: results from a National Study of Physician Organizations. Prev Med 2004;391000- 1006
PubMed Link to Article
Kaissi  AKralewski  JCuroe  ADowd  BSilversmith  J How does the culture of medical group practices influence the types of programs used to assure quality of care? Health Care Manage Rev 2004;29129- 138
PubMed Link to Article
Kralewski  JEDowd  BEHeaton  AKaissi  A The influence of the structure and culture of medical group practices on prescription drug errors. Med Care 2005;43817- 825
PubMed Link to Article
Kralewski  JERich  ECFeldman  R  et al.  The effects of medical group practice and physician payment methods on costs of care. Health Serv Res 2000;35591- 613
PubMed
Casalino  LP Disease management and the organization of physician practice. JAMA 2005;293485- 488
PubMed Link to Article
Shortell  SMSchmittdiel  JWang  MC  et al.  An empirical assessment of high-performing medical groups: results from a national study. Med Care Res Rev 2005;62407- 434
PubMed Link to Article
Forrest  CBStarfield  B Entry into primary care and continuity: the effects of access. Am J Public Health 1998;881330- 1336
PubMed Link to Article
Shi  LStarfield  BPolitzer  RRegan  J Primary care, self-rated health, and reductions in social disparities in health. Health Serv Res 2002;37529- 550
PubMed Link to Article
Starfield  BShi  L Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy 2002;60201- 218
PubMed Link to Article
American College of Physicians, The Impending Collapse of Primary Care Medicine and its Implications for the State of the Nation's Health Care.  Philadelphia, Pa American College of Physicians2006;
Yarnall  KSPollak  KIOstbye  TKrause  KMMichener  JL Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93635- 641
PubMed Link to Article
Ostbye  TYarnall  KSKrause  KMPollak  KIGradison  MMichener  JL Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med 2005;3209- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Rich  ECBurke  WHeaton  CJ  et al.  Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19273- 280
PubMed Link to Article
The Kaiser Family Foundation,Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Harvard School of Public Health, National Survey on Consumers' Experiences With Patient Safety and Quality Information.  Menlo Park, Calif: Kaiser Family Foundation; Rockville, Md Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Boston, Mass: Harvard School of Public Health2005;
Schoen  COsborn  RHuynh  PT  et al.  Taking the pulse of health care systems: experiences of patients with health problems in six countries [published online ahead of print November 3, 2005]. Health Aff (Millwood)
PubMed
Wolff  JLBoult  C Moving beyond round pegs and square holes: restructuring Medicare to improve chronic care. Ann Intern Med 2005;143439- 445
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 48

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles