BACKGROUND: The appropriate roles for generalists and cardiologists in the care of patients with heart failure (HF) are unknown. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine whether consultation between generalists and cardiologists was associated with better quality and outcomes of HF care. METHODS: We studied left ventricular function evaluation (LVFE) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) use and 90-day readmission and 90-day mortality rates in patients with HF who were hospitalized. Patient care was categorized into cardiologist (solo), generalist (solo), or consultative cares. The processes and outcomes of care were compared by care category using logistic regression analyses fit with generalized linear mixed models to adjust for hospital-related clustering. RESULTS: Of the 1075 patients studied, 13% received cardiologist care, 55% received generalist care, and 32% received consultative care. More patients who received consultative care (75%) received LVFE than patients who received generalist care (36%) and cardiologist care (53%; P <.001). Fewer patients who received solo care (54% each) received ACEI compared with 71% of patients who received consultative care (P <.001). After multivariable adjustment, consultative care was associated with higher odds of LVFE than generalist care (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.06; 95% CI, 3.97-9.26) or cardiologist care (adjusted OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.70-5.13) care. Consultation was also associated with higher odds of ACEI use compared with generalist (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.42-4.12) or cardiologist (adjusted OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.14-4.72) care. Compared with patients who received generalist care, patients who received consultative care had lower odds of 90-day readmission (adjusted OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86). CONCLUSION: Collaboration between generalists and cardiologists, rather than solo care by either, was associated with better HF processes and outcomes of care.

OBJECTIVE: Effective communication between primary care and specialty physicians is essential for comanagement when children are referred to specialty care. We sought to determine rates of physician-reported communication between primary care physicians and specialists, the clinical impact of communication or its absence, and patient- and practice system-level determinants of communication for a cohort of children referred to specialty care. METHODS: We enrolled 179 patients newly referred from general pediatricians in 30 community practices to 15 pediatric medical specialists in 5 specialties. Primary care physicians and specialists completed questionnaires at the first specialty visit and 6 months later. Questions covered communication received by primary care physicians and specialists, its impact on care provision, system characteristics of practices, and roles of physicians in treatment. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine associations between practice system and patient characteristics and the dependent variable of reported primary care physician-specialist communication. RESULTS: Specialists reported communication from referring primary care physicians for only 50% of initial referrals, whereas primary care physicians reported communication from specialists after 84% of initial consultations. Communication was strongly associated with physicians' reported ability to provide optimal care. System characteristics associated with reported primary care physician-specialist communication were computer access to chart notes and lack of delays in receipt of information. Associated patient characteristics included non-Medicaid insurance, no additional specialists seen, and specialty to which referred. Physicians favored comanagement of referred patients in more than two thirds of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although a prerequisite for optimal care, communication from primary care physicians to specialists is frequently absent. Interventions should promote widely accessible clinical information systems and target children with complex needs and public insurance.

OBJECTIVE: The inability to blind research participants to their experimental conditions is the Achilles' heel of mental health services research. When one experimental condition receives more disappointed participants, or more satisfied participants, research findings can be biased in spite of random assignment. The authors explored the potential for research participants' preference for one experimental program over another to compromise the generalizability and validity of randomized controlled service evaluations as well as cross-study comparisons. METHOD: Three Cox regression analyses measured the impact of applicants' service assignment preference on research project enrollment, engagement in assigned services, and a service-related outcome, competitive employment. RESULTS: A stated service preference, referral by an agency with a low level of continuity in outpatient care, and willingness to switch from current services were significant positive predictors of research enrollment. Match to service assignment preference was a significant positive predictor of service engagement, and mismatch to assignment preference was a significant negative predictor of both service engagement and employment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Referral source type and service assignment preference should be routinely measured and statistically controlled for in all studies of mental health service effectiveness to provide a sound empirical base for evidence-based practice.

Psychiatrists and nonphysician mental health professionals working in community mental health centers have difficulty establishing the scope of their expertise, defining the limits of their roles, delegating responsibility, and sharing professional liability. The clinical, political, and administrative aspects of these tensions are examined in the context of arguments for and against physicians' delegating to nonphysician mental health professionals the task of screening CMHC patients for tardive dyskinesia using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale. In 43 percent of mental health centers in Massachusetts surveyed by the authors, nonphysicians perform tardive dyskinesia screening. The authors suggest that the benefits of involving nonphysicians in tardive dyskinesia screening in the CMHC setting outweight the disadvantages.