Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria.

Details

Serval ID
serval:BIB_882
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria.
Journal
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Author(s)
Vader J.P., Burnand B., Froehlich F., Dupriez K., Larequi-Lauber T., Pache I., Dubois R.W., Gonvers J.J., Brook R.H.
ISSN
1353-4505
Publication state
Published
Issued date
1997
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
9
Number
2
Pages
87-92
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't - Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine the reproducibility of the RAND method for developing criteria for the appropriateness of medical procedures. DESIGN: Comparison of two sets of explicit criteria for appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, developed by separate expert panels from two countries. SETTING: United States, Switzerland. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: National experts from different medical specialties involved in the referral or application of UGI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Each panel was presented with about 500 clinical scenarios (indications) that were rated on a nine-point scale as to the appropriateness of performing UGI endoscopy for a patient with that clinical presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) distribution of appropriateness ratings and intrapanel agreement categories between the two panels, (2) between-panel agreement of assigning appropriateness for comparable indications and, (3) percentage of indications with major between-panel differences. RESULTS: Ratings for 2/3 of indications could be compared. The Swiss panel showed higher intrapanel agreement (54.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.002). Seventy-eight per cent of comparable indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.76, P < 0.001). For 93% of the 376 comparable indications, there were no major interpanel differences. CONCLUSION: Separate expert panels in different countries, using a standardized methodology, produce criteria for appropriateness of medical procedures that are similar. Given the resources being invested throughout the world in developing criteria and guidelines, international collaboration in seeking optimal use of limited health care resources should be intensified.
Keywords
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Health Services Research, Humans, International Cooperation, Patient Selection, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Process Assessment (Health Care), Reproducibility of Results, Switzerland, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, United States
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
19/11/2007 12:47
Last modification date
20/08/2019 14:47
Usage data