Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1997 Dec;14(6):431-5.
doi: 10.1093/fampra/14.6.431.

Management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs: a study with standardized (simulated) patients in actual practice

Affiliations

Management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs: a study with standardized (simulated) patients in actual practice

L Saebu et al. Fam Pract. 1997 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess how a group of GPs managed a patient with angina pectoris complaints in a real-life practice setting during unbiased consultations with standardized patients.

Methods: GPs were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardized patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. The setting was Trondheim, Norway. All 87 GPs in the city of Trondheim (Norway) were informed by letter about a study with standardized patients and invited to take part. They were asked to give consent to be visited during actual surgery hours by standardized patients. The date, number and content of the visits planned were not mentioned. They were not told that the study focused on angina pectoris. For budgetary reasons it was decided to ask 24 physicians to participate. The GPs were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardized patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. The patients reported on the consultations using a checklist based on guidelines for management of angina pectoris. Outcome measures were the content and number of actions undertaken from the guidelines.

Results: Twenty-eight GPs (32%) agreed to participate. Of these, 24 were selected and visited. One doctor detected the standardized patient. The results showed that the participating physicians met 76% of the guidelines used. However, the GPs ordered 31 different types of laboratory test (mean = 7.9, range = 1-18 per physician). In addition, the 23 consultations resulted in seven referrals (two for chest X-rays, four for an exercise test and one referral to a specialist in cardiology). Twenty-two of the 23 doctors made the correct diagnosis and informed the patient accordingly.

Conclusions: When assessed in an unbiased situation in real practice, GPs performed well against a pre-set standard for management of angina pectoris patients. Much variation was found in the request for laboratory tests. These real-life practice data suggest that there is a need for discussing guidelines for effective ordering of laboratory tests in general practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources