Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians

Alan J. Hirshberg, C. James Holliman, Richard C. Wuerz, Dane M. Chapman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1046-1052
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume4
Issue number11
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Physician Assistants
Case Management
Primary Care Physicians
Emergencies
Physicians
Primary Health Care
Guidelines
Cystitis
Pharyngitis
Practice Guidelines
Fever
Asthma
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Hirshberg, Alan J. ; Holliman, C. James ; Wuerz, Richard C. ; Chapman, Dane M. / Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 1997 ; Vol. 4, No. 11. pp. 1046-1052.
@article{69f10b877c544b1e900c3650116efc0d,
title = "Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Hirshberg, {Alan J.} and Holliman, {C. James} and Wuerz, {Richard C.} and Chapman, {Dane M.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "1046--1052",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

Case management by physician assistants and primary care physicians vs emergency physicians. / Hirshberg, Alan J.; Holliman, C. James; Wuerz, Richard C.; Chapman, Dane M.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 11, 1997, p. 1046-1052.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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

M3 - Article

C2 - 9383490

AN - SCOPUS:0030699101

VL - 4

SP - 1046

EP - 1052

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 11

ER -