The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 154, Issue 2 , Pages 164-168, February 2009

Interspecialty Differences in the Care of Children with Chronic or Serious Acute Conditions: A Review of the Literature

  • Michelle L. Mayer, PhD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Department of Health Policy and Administration, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    • ,
  • Asheley Cockrell Skinner, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Department of Health Policy and Administration, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
    • ,
  • Gary L. Freed, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Division of General Pediatrics and Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Gary L. Freed, MD, MPH, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, 300 NIB 6E10, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0456

Received 18 July 2008; received in revised form 22 September 2008; accepted 3 November 2008.

Article Outline

Abbreviations: MeSH, Medical Subject Heading

 

Little is known about the specific roles of pediatric subspecialists and other physician providers, such as general specialists, internist subspecialists, and general pediatricians, in the care of children in the United States.1, 2, 3, 4 The involvement of various types of providers in the care of children with chronic or serious acute conditions raises concerns about interspecialty differences in quality. Many studies of adult populations have demonstrated interspecialty differences in care for various conditions.5, 6, 7 These studies generally found that specialists are more knowledgeable than generalists for specific conditions, adhere more closely to current recommendations and guidelines, and have better condition-specific outcomes. Others found that generalists have better knowledge of immunization recommendations,8 similar outcomes and patient satisfaction levels,6, 9 and lower costs.10 Systematic reviews have identified persistent interspecialty differences in knowledge, patterns of care, costs, and outcomes for a wide variety of chronic conditions affecting adult patients.11, 12 To explore these issues, we conducted a review to determine what is currently known about interspecialty differences in the care of children and the quality of the existing literature.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Search Strategy 

We searched MEDLINE and PUBMED to identify English-language articles using original US data published in the content areas of interest between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2005. Inconsistencies in Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term assignment required an exhaustive list of MeSH terms to identify articles. We cross-referenced all articles with the following terms: “infant,” “child,” “adolescent,” or “pediatrics.” We excluded articles on nonphysicians and primary care issues, such as minor illnesses (eg, upper respiratory tract infections), immunizations, and reproductive health, because these rarely involve specialty care. We included articles on acute illnesses treated in emergency department settings or surgically, because the care of serious acute conditions often involves nongeneralists and nonpediatric specialists. Studies using facility-level comparisons were excluded.

Abstracts were first reviewed by 2 of 3 reviewers. Relevant abstracts meeting inclusion criteria were retained, and then full articles were obtained and reviewed. Two reviewers independently abstracted each article and omitted those articles that met the exclusion criteria.

Each article was classified into 1 of 5 categories reflecting the comparison type: generalist versus pediatric subspecialist, generalist versus other specialist, general pediatrician only versus pediatric subspecialist, pediatric subspecialist versus internist subspecialist, or pediatric subspecialist versus other specialist. Methods were classified by the most rigorous statistical approach used: none, descriptive, bivariate, analysis of variance, regression, or survival analysis. Finally, the articles were classified by 1 or more outcomes of interest: physician beliefs and attitudes; diagnostic accuracy (ie, concordance between provider diagnosis and a gold standard); patient education, satisfaction, or adherence; consistency with established guidelines; treatment patterns; outcomes; and utilization or costs.

Grading the Evidence 

Using elements listed for observational studies in the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's Systems to Rate the Strength of the Scientific Evidence, we adapted the following measures of methodological quality: study question clearly stated; provider specialties clearly defined; inclusion of sample size justification; comparability of patients at baseline; generalizability; clear definition of outcomes; outcome standard, valid and reliable; and appropriateness of statistical analysis.13 For each element, articles were scored using a tripartite scheme, as described in the Table.

Table. Strength of evidence criteria by study element
StrongModerateWeak
Study question clearly statedResearch hypothesis or study question statedLacks a specific research question but states study's aims in general termsNo clear hypothesis, question, or purpose
Provider specialties clearly definedProvider specialties and source definedProvider specialties listed but source of specialty not clear or by parental recallGroups not clearly defined
Sample size justificationSample size justification presentStratification by group to ensure sufficiently large sample, although size required not explicitNo sample size justification or stratification
Comparability of patients at baseline1Groups randomized, patients identical across each provider group, or survey- based “exposure” identical (ie, clinical vignettes)Groups not randomized but shown to be equivalent on key variablesGroups not comparable or not assessed
GeneralizableNationally representative data or random or stratified provider or patient survey with a RR > 60%Generalizable to a state or setting (eg, HMO) or provider/patient survey with a RR of 40% to 60%Convenience sample, poor response rate (< 40%), or too few providers in one or more specialty categories
Outcomes clearly definedOutcome variables listed & definedOutcome variables described but lack clarityOutcome variables not clear
Outcomes standard, valid, and reliableAuthors justify the outcome variables selected in the manuscript or referencesAuthors cite qualities of the measure but do not provide references for validity or reliabilityOutcome selection not justified/discussed by the authors.
Statistical analysis appropriateConfounding controlled for through design (ie, randomized patients or identical exposure) or statistical controls; appropriate statistics usedStatistical analyses fail to address one or more issues (eg, confounding, multiple comparisons, clustering within providersInappropriate test or insufficient information

RR, relative risk.

Search Results 

Our initial search strategy identified 2037 articles; of these, 361 were retained for full review. After review by both authors, 49 articles were included in the final review. Most articles were excluded because they did not involve an interspecialty comparison (36%). Other reasons for exclusion included no original data or analyses (20%), focus on adult population (8%), no relevance to the topic (9%), facility-level comparison (8%), and other reasons, such as involving nursing care and taking place outside the United States (18%).

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Quality of Evidence 

Studies varied in the extent to which they adequately addressed various study elements. Only 40% of the articles included a clear study question or research hypothesis. Approximately half of the included articles defined the provider specialty and cited a valid means of identifying specialty, such as membership in a particular society or section of a trade organization, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. Unverified definitions of specialty included parental self-report of physician specialty or vague labels, such as “asthma specialist.”

Nearly 75% of the studies had clearly defined outcomes of interest; however, only 14% justified the outcome measure selected in terms of its appropriateness, validity, or reliability. Similarly, 98% of the included articles failed to include a discussion of sample size justification or power, leaving questions about the ability of the study to detect significant differences unanswered.

Statistical analyses were deemed moderate or weak for 86% of the studies. In addition to these threats to validity, the generalizability of the findings was quite limited, with only 14% of the studies considered generalizable to the US pediatric population and 47% generalizable to a state or a selected patient population, such as managed care or Medicaid enrollees.

Diagnostic Accuracy 

Two studies found that general pediatricians and “community pediatricians” had lower specificity than pediatric cardiologists in the identification of heart murmurs,14, 15 even when the patients studied were identical.14 In another study, presumptive and postconsultation diagnoses on a sample of children referred for subspecialist care found that diagnoses were concordant in 78% percent of cases for which both diagnoses were available.16

Consistency With Guidelines 

Several studies found evidence that adherence to guideline recommendations was less than optimal across all physician groups examined.17, 18 Studies comparing specialists' and generalists' care of children found no differences in guideline compliance for the treatment of otitis media with effusion18 but better compliance by specialists in the care of asthma,19 controlling for disease severity and patient demographics. Two studies of the management of febrile infants found that pediatric emergency medicine physicians were significantly more likely to comply with guideline recommendations than general emergency medicine physicians.17, 20

Patient Education, Satisfaction, and Adherence 

Parents of children seen by asthma specialists were more knowledgeable about asthma and had higher satisfaction levels than parents whose children saw generalists, even when statistical models controlled for potential confounders.21, 22 In a study of children with various chronic medical conditions, parents reported greater satisfaction with their specialists compared with their generalists.23

Treatment Patterns 

Many studies have compared treatment approaches between generalists and pediatric subspecialty providers. We divided these articles into 2 comparison groups: generalists versus pediatric specialists and pediatric specialists versus nonpediatric specialists.

Generalists versus pediatric specialists 

General pediatricians were no less likely than other specialists to refer children with cerebral palsy to physical therapy,24, 25 less likely than otolaryngologists to recommend surgery for ankylglossia,26 and less likely than pediatric cardiologists to recommend cardiac follow-up for suspected heart disease.27 Vignette-based studies found that emergency medicine physicians were more aggressive than generalists in their diagnostic evaluation and management of febrile infants28, 29 and minor head injuries.30 In contrast, the management of febrile children with petechial rashes was comparable in general pediatricians, pediatric infectious disease physicians, and pediatric emergency medicine physicians.31

Interspecialty differences also have been noted in studies of children with mental health problems. A study of stimulant use in children found that psychiatrists were more likely than general pediatricians to perform psychotherapy, more likely to order specific follow-up, and less likely to perform “other counseling.” 32 Another study of a large managed behavioral health population found that in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder without a comorbid mood/ anxiety disorder, generalist physicians were significantly less likely than child psychiatrists to prescribe antidepressants, clonidine, and bupropion but equally likely to prescribe stimulants.33

Finally, studies of children with asthma found greater use of inhaled steroids in children treated by asthma specialists than in children treated by generalists,34, 35, 36 even when disease severity is comparable between patient groups.35 Other studies have found that children seen by asthma specialists are significantly more likely than those seen by generalists to have a written asthma plan35 and to have a prescription for a cromoglycate36 or an antihistamine.34

Pediatric specialists versus nonpediatric specialists 

Studies comparing pediatric and general emergency medicine physicians have found differences in the use of ultrasound for trauma evaluation;37 prescription of drugs for sedation, seizure, and asthma;38 management of febrile children;20 and management of resuscitation efforts.39 A study of children with false-positive screening results found that general and pediatric ophthalmologists had comparable spectacle prescription rates for children with no refractory error, but general ophthalmologists were more likely than pediatric ophthalmologists to prescribe spectacles for children with mild refractory error.40 Previous research also has demonstrated that pediatric nephrologists are significantly more likely than adult nephrologists to recommend peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis for pediatric patients.41 Studies comparing general and child psychiatrists' management of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have been somewhat inconsistent; one study found greater use of antidepressants in children treated by general psychiatrists,33 whereas another found no difference.42 In both of these studies, the use of stimulants was comparable in the 2 groups of children, however.33, 42 Studies of pediatric surgical specialists and their general counterparts have found differences in treatment recommendations for the management of vesicoureteral reflux,43 the surgical approach and follow-up for prepubertal varicoceles,44 and follow-up after tympanostomy tube placement.45

Clinical Outcomes 

Pediatric surgical subspecialization has been associated with decreased risk of bradycardia during surgery,46 shorter length of stay and lower complication rates in children with perforated appendix,47 decreased risk of mucosal perforation postpyloromyotomy, and greater precision in tumor removal.48 In contrast, pediatric surgical subspecialization has not been consistently associated with decreased length of stay for simple appendectomy47, 49 or lower postoperative complication rates.47, 48, 50 Survival rates were comparable in children whose cancer care was managed by a pediatric oncologist only and those whose care was managed collaboratively by pediatric oncologist and a community-based primary care physician.51 In contrast, children treated by allergists had significantly greater improvements in 5 of 24 measures of health-related quality of life compared with children treated by generalists.34

Utilization and Costs 

Studies have demonstrated lower costs and/or shorter length of stay in children treated by pediatric surgical specialists compared with those treated by general surgeons for appendectomy,49 uncomplicated pyloromyotomy,52 ureteroneocystostomy,50 and appendectomy complicated by perforation.47, 49, 51 In contrast, a study of children with one of multiple conditions found significantly lower health care expenditures for chronically ill children in predominantly generalist arrangements compared with those in predominantly specialist arrangements, even after adjusting for demographic variables, morbidity, and clustering.53

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

Although we found interspecialty differences in all areas that we examined, the evidence is not consistent enough to allow us to make recommendations about care delivery. Only studies of asthma-related care and surgical procedures consistently suggest a beneficial effect of specialty care; however, these studies are hampered by limited generalizability. It is possible that some of the differences in care provided may be due to training patterns, social factors in a community, or specific economic factors. Unfortunately, little data exist to provide insight into either the choice of therapy or the impact of this therapy. Many studies have investigated differences in treatment approaches, which are important process measures,54 but few studies have investigated clinical and financial outcomes. The extent to which interspecialty differences influence outcomes is a fundamentally important question that remains unanswered.

The nature of the specific condition under investigation may have important implications for the types of comparisons that are feasible given the typical time and budget constraints facing most studies. Studies comparing generalists and pediatric specialists rely heavily on comparisons of attitudes, consistency with guidelines, and treatment approaches. In contrast, studies comparing pediatric subspecialists with other specialists, which often involve surgical procedures, focus more heavily on comparisons of clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs. Process measures may be the most feasible outcomes available for comparing interspecialty differences in the care of pediatric conditions that are medical in nature and lack useful short-term outcome measures. Increased availability of clinical guidelines would provide gold standards with which process measures of care can be compared. The study of interspecialty differences in pediatric surgical procedures may be more feasible given the availability of inpatient data sets; however, existing data sets often lack the physician specialty data required to fully answer these questions in a nationwide sample.

There is a notable lack of studies comparing pediatric medical subspecialists and their internist counterparts in the care of children. With the exception of children with rheumatic diseases and adolescents with neoplasms, the role of internist physicians in providing care to children and adolescents with chronic conditions remains largely undocumented. The adequacy of the supply of pediatric medical subspecialists is unclear; in some regions of the US, few or no pediatric medical subspecialists are available.55 If internist specialists are managing the care of chronically ill children who reside in these areas, more research is needed on the extent to which these providers are capable of providing quality pediatric care. Our review highlights the need for improvements in research on interspecialty differences in pediatric care. Generally, the studies reviewed have major deficiencies in design, execution, or analysis that limit their validity and generalizability. Although randomized controlled trials comparing pediatric subspecialty care with generalist care may be feasible for common conditions such as asthma, allergies, and attention deficit disorder, such trials are more difficult to execute for rare pediatric conditions.

Many studies have examined interspecialty differences in the care of children over the last decade, finding interspecialty differences across a variety of measures. Overall, the strength of the evidence reported in these studies constrains assessment of the relative quality of different types of providers. Additional outcomes studies are essential and should include efforts to assess cost-effectiveness.

Back to Article Outline

 

Special thanks to the Sprint Manuscript Team, Department of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Sherry DD, Wallace CA, Kahn SJ. Pediatric rheumatology in adult rheumatology practices in Washington state. Arthritis Rheum. 1996;39:1218–1221
  2. Mayer ML, Sandborg CI, Mellins ED. Role of pediatric and internist rheumatologists in treating children with rheumatic diseases. Pediatrics. 2004;113(3 Pt 1):e173–e181
  3. Kuhlthau K, Ferris TG, Beal AC, Gortmaker SL, Perrin JM. Who cares for Medicaid-enrolled children with chronic conditions?. Pediatrics. 2001;108:906–912
  4. Giannini EH, Ruperto N, Athreya B, Cassidy JT, White P. Specialty training and distribution of work effort among US American College of Rheumatology members caring for children with rheumatic disease. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40:2273–2274
  5. Ayanian JZ, Hauptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, Antman EM, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1136–1142
  6. Chin MH, Zhang JX, Merrell K. Specialty differences in the care of older patients with diabetes. Med Care. 2000;38:131–140
  7. Melniker LA, Leo PJ. Comparative knowledge and practice of emergency physicians, cardiologists, and primary care practitioners regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Chest. 1998;113:297–305
  8. Nichol KL, Zimmerman R. Generalist and subspecialist physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for elderly and other high-risk patients: a nationwide survey. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2702–2708
  9. Rose JH, O'Toole EE, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Connors AF, Wenger N, et al. Generalists and oncologists show similar care practices and outcomes for hospitalized late-stage cancer patients (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks for Treatment (SUPPORT)). Med Care. 2000;38:1103–1118
  10. Donohoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies, deficiencies, and excesses. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1596–1608
  11. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:499–511
  12. Go AS, Rao RK, Dauterman KW, Massie BM. A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med. 2000;108:216–226
  13. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence (Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 47). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002;
  14. Rajakumar K, Weisse M, Rosas A, Gunel E, Pyles L, Neal WA. Comparative study of clinical evaluation of heart murmurs by general pediatricians and pediatric cardiologists. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1999;38:511–518
  15. Scholz TD, Kienzle MG. Optimizing utilization of pediatric echocardiography and implications for telemedicine. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1645–1648
  16. Jones V, Sisson B, Kurbasic M, Thomas A, Badgett J. Subspecialist referrals in an academic, pediatric setting: rationale, rates, and compliance. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3:1307–1311
  17. Belfer RA, Gittelman MA, Muniz AE. Management of febrile infants and children by pediatric emergency medicine and emergency medicine: comparison with practice guidelines. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2001;17:83–87
  18. Stewart MG, Manolidis S, Wynn R, Bautista M. Practice patterns versus practice guidelines in pediatric otitis media. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;124:489–495
  19. Diette GB, Skinner EA, Nguyen TT, Markson L, Clark BD, Wu AW. Comparison of quality of care by specialist and generalist physicians as usual source of asthma care for children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:432–437
  20. Isaacman DJ, Kaminer K, Veligeti H, Jones M, Davis P, Mason JD. Comparative practice patterns of emergency medicine physicians and pediatric emergency medicine physicians managing fever in young children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:354–358
  21. Callahan KA, Eggleston PA, Rand CS, Kanchanaraksa S, Swartz LJ, Wood RA. Knowledge and practice of dust mite control by specialty care. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003;90:302–307
  22. Farber HJ, Capra AM, Finkelstein JA, Lozano P, Quesenberry CP, Jensvold NG, et al. Misunderstanding of asthma controller medications: association with nonadherence. J Asthma. 2003;40:17–25
  23. Perry D, Ireys H. Maternal perceptions of pediatric providers for chidlren with chronic illnesses. Matern Child Health J. 2001;5:15–20
  24. Anderson J, Campbell S, Gardner H. Correlates of physician utilization of physical therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8:10–19
  25. Campbell SK, Gardner HG, Ramakrishnan V. Correlates of physicians' decisions to refer children with cerebral palsy for physical therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1995;37:1062–1074
  26. Messner A, Lalakea M. Ankyloglossia: controversies in management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;54:123–131
  27. Benun J, Fisher SD, Orav EJ, et al. Cardiac management by pediatricians versus pediatric cardiologists in an inpatient academic center. Am Heart J. 2003;145:424–429
  28. Jones RG, Bass JW. Febrile children with no focus of infection: a survey of their management by primary care physicians. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993;12:179–183
  29. Wittler RR, Cain KK, Bass JW. A survey about management of febrile children without source by primary care physicians. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17:271–277
  30. Aitken ME, Herrerias CT, Davis R, Bell HS, Coombs JB, Kleinman LC, et al. Minor head injury in children: current management practices of pediatricians, emergency physicians, and family physicians. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:1176–1180
  31. Nelson DG, Leake J, Bradley J, Kuppermann N. Evaluation of febrile children with petechial rashes: is there consensus among pediatricians?. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17:1135–1140
  32. Hoagwood K, Jensen PS, Feil M, Vitiello B, Bhatara VS. Medication management of stimulants in pediatric practice settings: a national perspective. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2000;21:322–331
  33. Stein B, Orlando M. ADHD treatment in a behavioral health care carve-out: medications, providers, and service utilization. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2001;28:30–41
  34. Kanter LJ, Siegel CJ, Snyder CF, Pelletier EM, Buchner DA, Goss TF. Impact of respiratory symptoms on health-related quality of life and medical resource utilization of patients treated by allergy specialists and primary care providers. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89:139–147
  35. Meurer JR, Helstad CP, Wiegmann SM, Kelly KJ, Fisher R, Bukstein D, et al. Pediatric Asthma Study of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin. Wisc Med J. 2001;100:26–34
  36. Yawn BP, Mainous AG, Love MM, Hueston W. Do rural and urban children have comparable asthma care utilization?. J Rural Health. 2001;17:32–39
  37. Baka AG, Delgado CA, Simon HK. Current use and perceived utility of ultrasound for evaluation of pediatric compared with adult trauma patients. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002;18:163–167
  38. Schweich PJ, Smith KM, Dowd MD, Walkley EI. Pediatric emergency medicine practice patterns: a comparison of pediatric and general emergency physicians. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998;14:89–94
  39. Scribano PV, Baker MD, Ludwig S. Factors influencing termination of resuscitative efforts in children: a comparison of pediatric emergency medicine and adult emergency medicine physicians. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1997;13:320–324
  40. Donahue SP. How often are spectacles prescribed to “normal” preschool children?. J AAPOS. 2004;8:224–229
  41. Furth SL, Powe NR, Hwang W, Neu AM, Fivush BA. Does greater pediatric experience influence treatment choices in chronic disease management? (Dialysis modality choice for children with end-stage renal disease). Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:545–550
  42. Zarin DA, Suarez AP, Pincus HA, Kupersanin E, Zito JM. Clinical and treatment characteristics of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in psychiatric practice. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37:1262–1270
  43. Elder J, Snyder H, Peters C, Simpson PM. Variations in practice among urologists and nephrologists treating children with vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol. 1992;148(2 Pt 2):976–982
  44. Richter F, Stock JA, LaSalle M, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hanna MK. Management of prepubertal varicoceles: results of a questionnaire study among pediatric urologists and urologists with infertility training. Urology. 2001;58:98–102
  45. Derkay C, Carron J, Wiatrak B, Choi S, Jones J. Postsurgical follow-up of children with tympanostomy tubes: results of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Pediatric Otolaryngology Committee National Survey. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;122:313–318
  46. Keenan RL, Shapiro JH, Kane FR, Simpson PM. Bradycardia during anesthesia in infants: an epidemiologic study. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:976–982
  47. Alexander F, Magnuson D, DiFiore J, Jirousek K, Secic M. Specialty versus generalist care of children with appendicitis: an outcome comparison. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:1510–1513
  48. Albright AL, Sposto R, Holmes E, Zeltzer PM, Finlay JL, Wisoff JH, et al. Correlation of neurosurgical subspecialization with outcomes in children with malignant brain tumors. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:879–885
  49. Kokoska ER, Minkes RK, Silen ML, Langer JC, Tracy TF, Snyder CL, et al. Effect of pediatric surgical practice on the treatment of children with appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1298–1301
  50. Snow BW, Cartwright PC, Young MD. Does surgical subspecialization in pediatrics provide high-quality, cost-effective patient care?. Pediatrics. 1996;97:14–17
  51. Kisker CT, Fethke CC, Tannous R. Shared management of children with cancer. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:1008–1013
  52. Pranikoff T, Campbell BT, Travis J, Hirschl RB. Differences in outcome with subspecialty care: pyloromyotomy in North Carolina. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37:352–356
  53. Perrin JM, Kuhlthau KA, Gortmaker SL, Beal AC, Ferris TG. Generalist and subspecialist care for children with chronic conditions. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2:462–469
  54. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA. Assessing the quality of healthcare provided to children. Health Serv Res. 1998;33(4 Pt 2):1059–1090
  55. Mayer ML. Are We There Yet? (Distance to Pediatric Medical Subspecialists in the United States). Boston: Child Health Services Research; 2005;

 Supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) Grant 1-K02-HS013309-01A1. The ARHQ was not involved in the performance of the study in any way. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

PII: S0022-3476(08)00963-3

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.004

The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 154, Issue 2 , Pages 164-168, February 2009

Article Tools