Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9060880

Do cardiologists do it better?

I S Nash·D B Nash·V Fuster
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Pressure to lower the cost of health care delivery has fostered widespread efforts to limit patients' access to specialists such as cardiologists. However, there is concern that diminished specialist involvement may lead to poorer patient outcomes for specific clinical conditions. As part of a state-sponsored effort to improve the quality of health care in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council gathered clinical and administrative data on all 40,684 hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in that state in 1993. They prepared a detailed public report that included risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay by physician group, by hospital and by region. These data demonstrate that patients cared for by cardiologists, as a group, had a lower risk-adjusted mortality than patients cared for by either internists (risk ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.35) or family practitioners (risk ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.40). The patients of cardiologists also had a shorter length of stay than the other two groups. These data suggest that there is enhanced value in the care provided by cardiologists for patients with AMI and call into question the growing trend toward reliance on generalists instead of specialists.

Explore related subjects

CardiologyClinical CompetenceCost ControlData CollectionHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHospital CostsHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayMyocardial InfarctionPennsylvaniaReferral and ConsultationJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I S Nash, D B Nash, V Fuster. 1997-03-01. Do cardiologists do it better?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00528-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Language and publication in "Cardiovascular Research" articles.

BACKGROUND: The acceptance rate of non-mother English tongue authors is generally a lot lower than for native English tongue authors. Obviously the scientific quality of an article is the principal reason for publication. However, is editorial rejection purely on scientific grounds? English mother tongue writers publish more than non mother-tongue writers--so are editors discriminating linguistically? We therefore decided to survey language errors in manuscripts submitted for publication to Cardiovascular Research (CVR). METHOD: We surveyed language errors in 120 medical articles which had been submitted for publication in 1999 and 2000. The language "error" categories were divided into three principal groups: grammatical, structural and lexical which were then further sub-divided into key areas. The articles were corrected without any knowledge of the author's nationality or the corrections made by other language researchers. After an initial correction, a sample of the papers were cross-checked to verify reliability. RESULTS: The control groups of US and UK authors had an almost identical acceptance rate and overall "error" rate indicating that the language categories were objective categories also for the other nationalities. Although there was not a direct relationship between the acceptance rate and the amount of language errors, there was a clear indication that badly written articles correlated with a high rejection rate. The US/UK acceptance rate of 30.4% was higher than for all the other countries. The lowest acceptance rate of 9% (Italian) also had the highest error rate. DISCUSSION: Many factors could influence the rejection of an article. However, we found clear indications that carelessly written articles could often have either a direct or subliminal influence on whether a paper was accepted or rejected. On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted. This is even if the editor involved in rejecting a paper does not necessarily identify language problems as a motive for rejection. A more detailed look at the types and categories of language errors is needed. Furthermore we suggest the introduction of standardised guidelines in scientific writing.

Cardiology↗