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

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_882
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria.
Périodique
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Auteur(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
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
1997
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
9
Numéro
2
Pages
87-92
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't - Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
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.
Mots-clé
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
Oui
Création de la notice
19/11/2007 13:47
Dernière modification de la notice
08/05/2019 21:31
Données d'usage