FAILURE OF A CHEST PAIN CLINICAL POLICY TO MODIFY PHYSICIAN EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT

被引:30
作者
LEWIS, LM [1 ]
LASATER, LC [1 ]
RUOFF, BE [1 ]
机构
[1] ST LOUIS UNIV,HLTH SCI CTR,DIV EMERGENCY MED,ST LOUIS,MO 63103
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0196-0644(95)70348-9
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: To assess the effectiveness of a specific, targeted clinical policy regarding the evaluation of nontraumatic chest pain in the emergency department (ED) to modify physician evaluation and management. Design: Retrospective, blinded chart review. Setting: Twelve metropolitan EDs. Participants: All males older than 35 years and females older than 45 years who presented with nontraumatic chest pain during one of the two study periods-1 year before (1989) or 1 year after (1991) dissemination of the American College of Emergency Physicians' (ACEP) chest pain clinical policy. Measurements: Physician's compliance with various documentation rules regarding history and physical examination were compared between the two periods with chi2 analysis. Fisher's exact test was used when any one cell value was less than five. The physician's compliance with the rules and guidelines of management (Actions) were compared between the two periods with chi2 analysis. Results: Rates of compliance for 1989 and 1991 were as follows: history documentation, 368 (82%) vs. 255 (78%) (P=.22); physical examination documentation, 397 (88%) vs. 287 (88%) (P=.94); Action rules, 292 (65%) vs. 208 (64%) (P=.76); and Action guidelines, 247 (55%) vs. 172 (53%) (P=.55). Conclusion: We conclude that the dissemination of the ACEP chest pain clinical policy has not significantly modified the behavior of our metropolitan area emergency physicians regarding the evaluation and management of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of nontraumatic chest pain.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 14
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
American College of Physicians, Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project Procedural Manual, (1986)
[2]  
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures, Guidelines for coronary angiography, J Am Coll Cardiol, 10, pp. 935-950, (1987)
[3]  
Kelly, Swartwout, Commentary: Development of practice parameters by physician organizations, Qual Rev Bull, 16, pp. 54-58, (1990)
[4]  
American College of Emergency Physicians, Clinical Policy for Management of Adult Patients Presenting With a Chief Complaint of Chest Pain, With No History of Trauma, (1990)
[5]  
Eichhorn, Cooper, Cullen, Et al., Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, JAMA, 256, pp. 1017-1020, (1986)
[6]  
Woolf, Practice guidelines: A new reality in medicine. I. Recent developments, Arch Intern Med, 150, pp. 1811-1818, (1990)
[7]  
Hirschfeld, Practice parameters and the malpractice liability of physicians, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, pp. 1556-1562, (1990)
[8]  
Kosecoff, Kanouse, Rogers, Et al., Effects of the National Institute of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice, JAMA, 258, pp. 2708-2713, (1987)
[9]  
Field, Lohr, Definition of Key Terms, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, (1990)
[10]  
House of Representatives, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989: Conference Report to Accompany HR 3299, (1989)