A randomised controlled trial of joint consultations with general practitioners and cardiologists in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Joint consultation sessions of a small group of general practitioners (GPs) and a specialist in orthopaedics proved to be an effective way of decreasing the referral rate of orthopaedic patients. Cardiac complaints comprise an important category of health problems with high referral rates. AIMS: To study the effects of joint consultation on the quality of care and referrals for patients with cardiac complaints. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-nine GPs participated in 16 consultation groups, each with one of 13 cardiologists, in monthly joint consultations over a period of about 18 months. METHOD: The GPs selected patients about whom they were uncertain, and those needing urgent referral were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to joint consultation or to usual care. After a follow-up period all patients had a joint consultation for outcome assessment. Referral data were provided by two regional health insurance companies and questionnaires were given to the patients, GPs, and cardiologists to gauge their opinion of the trial. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight patients in the intervention group and 158 patients in the control group fulfilled the whole protocol. The quality of care was similar in both groups. In the intervention group, 34% of the patients were referred, compared with 55% in the control group (P = 0.001), and fewer patients underwent further diagnostic procedures (7% compared with 16%, P = 0.013). Referrals to cardiology as a proportion of all referrals decreased in the practices of the participating GPs, compared with their reference districts (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Joint consultation is an effective method that provides a quality of care that at least equals usual care and that contributes to a better selection of patients who need specialist care.

[Role of the family practitioner in the management of patients following a myocardial infarct]. / De rol van de huisarts bij de begeleiding van patiënten na een myocardinfarct.

OBJECTIVE: Determining the role of the general practitioner (GP) in the management of the postinfarction patient, the factors that influence this role, and the relation between GP and cardiologist. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Registration Network of Family Practice (RNF) of the University of Limburg, the Netherlands. METHOD: Data were obtained from a sample of 284 patients from 30 GPs, all participating in the RNF. The GPs completed a questionnaire about their own patients while the data concerning the cardiac state of the patients were obtained from their problem lists. RESULTS: Postinfarction care was given in only 50% of the patients. Relatively more patients with a more severe cardiac condition were under regular medical follow-up than those with a less severe cardiac condition. However, the severity of the disease had no effect on the specialty of the doctor performing the follow-up (GP or cardiologist), nor had the time expired after the myocardial infarction. In almost 50% of the cases the GPs found continuation of the follow-up by the cardiologist not necessary, in 25% of the cases they were not satisfied with the complementary roles of both disciplines. CONCLUSION: Postinfarction care by the GPs was not uniform. They need guidelines for the management of such patients, based on the patient's risk profile. There is a need for better coordination between GP and cardiologist.