HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Park, R E Articles by Solomon, D H Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Park, R E Articles by Solomon, D H

Physician ratings of appropriate indications for three procedures: theoretical indications vs indications used in practice.

R E Park, A Fink, R H Brook, M R Chassin, K L Kahn, N J Merrick, J Kosecoff and D H Solomon

Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138.

We previously reported substantial disagreement among expert physician panelists about the appropriateness of performing six medical and surgical procedures for a large number of theoretical indications. A recently completed community-based medical records study of about 4,500 patients who had one of three procedures--coronary angiography, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and carotid endarterectomy--shows that many of the theoretical indications are seldom or never used in practice. However, we find that there is also substantial disagreement (5, 25, or 32 per cent for angiography, endoscopy, or endarterectomy, respectively) about the appropriateness of indications used in actual cases if disagreement is defined by first discarding the two extreme of nine ratings, then looking for at least one rating near the bottom (1 to 3) and one near the top (7 to 9) of the 9-point scale. Patients should know that a substantial percentage of procedures are performed for indications about which expert physicians disagree.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A Hutchings, R Raine, C Sanderson, and N Black An experimental study of determinants of the extent of disagreement within clinical guideline development groups Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2005; 14(4): 240 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A Sheldon, N. Cullum, D. Dawson, A. Lankshear, K. Lowson, I. Watt, P. West, D. Wright, and J. Wright What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews BMJ, October 30, 2004; 329(7473): 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. B. Hakim, M. B. Benedict, and N. J. Merrick Quality of Care for Women Undergoing a Hysterectomy: Effects of Insurance and Race/Ethnicity Am J Public Health, August 1, 2004; 94(8): 1399 - 1405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Kocher and D. Zurakowski Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics: A Primer for Orthopaedic Surgeons J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2004; 86(3): 607 - 620. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Filardo, A.P Maggioni, G Mura, F Valagussa, L Valagussa, C Schweiger, D.J Ballard, and A Liberati The consequences of under-use of coronary revascularization. Results of a cohort study in Northern Italy Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2001; 22(8): 654 - 662. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H. Wong, J. M. Findlay, and M. E. Suarez-Almazor Regional Performance of Carotid Endarterectomy : Appropriateness, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Complications Stroke, May 1, 1997; 28(5): 891 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				D. R. Longo and A. J. Daugird Measuring the Quality of Care: Reforming the Health Care System American Journal of Medical Quality, September 1, 1994; 9(3): 104 - 115. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Hershey and L. C. Bontempo Assessing Peer Review in the Quest for Improved Medical Services: Part II American Journal of Medical Quality, February 1, 1990; 5(1): 7 - 11. [Abstract] [PDF]