Effect of Specialty and Nationality on Panel Judgments of the Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularization
- 1 May 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Medical Care
- Vol. 39 (5), 513-520
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200105000-00011
Abstract
Background. Appropriateness criteria are frequently used to assess quality of care. However, assessing care in one country with criteria developed in another may be misleading. One approach to measuring care across countries would be to develop common standards using physicians from different countries and specialties. Objective. To identify the degree to which appropriateness ratings for coronary revascularization developed by a multinational panel differ by panelist specialty and nationality. Methods. A 13-member panel of cardiothoracic surgeons and cardiologists from the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom was convened to rate the appropriateness of 842 indications for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) on a 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate) scale. Measures. Mean appropriateness ratings by panelist specialty and nationality. Results. Surgeons’ mean ratings for PTCA indications ranged from 0.64 points lower than the corresponding ratings of the cardiologists for acute myocardial infarction indications to 1.22 points lower for chronic stable angina indications. Conversely, their ratings for bypass surgery indications ranged from 0.59 points higher for chronic stable angina indications to 0.69 points higher for unstable angina indications. Although Spanish panelists’ ratings were significantly higher than the mean for 3 of the 4 clinical conditions treated by PTCA, their ratings were similar for bypass surgery indications. No specific patterns were observed in the ratings of the panelists from the other countries. Conclusions. These findings support the use of physicians from multiple specialties on appropriateness panels because they represent more divergent views than physicians from a single specialty. Finding no systematic difference in beliefs regarding the appropriateness of PTCA and CABG among physicians from different countries will require confirmation before multinational panels supplant single country panels in future studies.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- European criteria for the appropriateness and necessity of coronary revascularization proceduresEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2000
- The European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): Project and MethodsEndoscopy, 1999
- Appropriateness of referral of coronary angiography patients in SwedenHeart, 1999
- Do different physicians' panels reach similar conclusions? A case study on practice guidelines for limited surgery in breast cancerEuropean Journal of Public Health, 1997
- The appropriateness of intention to treat decisions for invasive therapy in coronary artery disease in The Netherlands.Heart, 1997
- Qualitätssicherung in der invasiven Kardiologie: Eine prospektive Untersuchung zur Bewertung von Indikationen zur Koronarangiographie und zur Koronardilatation nach der Methode der »RAND Corporation«Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 1996
- The appropriateness of coronary procedures in SwedenPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1994
- Comparison of the appropriateness of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery between Canada and New York StatePublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1994
- The appropriateness of hysterectomy. A comparison of care in seven health plans. Health Maintenance Organization Quality of Care ConsortiumJAMA, 1993
- Audit of coronary angiography and bypass surgeryThe Lancet, 1990