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.
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.
Authors: Sachin Wani; V Raman Muthusamy; Nicholas J Shaheen; Rena Yadlapati; Robert Wilson; Julian A Abrams; Jacques Bergman; Amitabh Chak; Kenneth Chang; Ananya Das; John Dumot; Steven A Edmundowicz; Glenn Eisen; Gary W Falk; M Brian Fennerty; Lauren Gerson; Gregory G Ginsberg; David Grande; Matt Hall; Ben Harnke; John Inadomi; Janusz Jankowski; Charles J Lightdale; Jitin Makker; Robert D Odze; Oliver Pech; Richard E Sampliner; Stuart Spechler; George Triadafilopoulos; Michael B Wallace; Kenneth Wang; Irving Waxman; Srinadh Komanduri Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jack V Tu; Dennis T Ko; Helen Guo; Janice A Richards; Nancy Walton; Madhu K Natarajan; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Derek So; David A Latter; Christopher M Feindel; Kori Kingsbury; Eric A Cohen Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sandra H Berry; Laura M Bogart; Chau Pham; Karin Liu; Leroy Nyberg; Michael Stoto; Marika Suttorp; J Quentin Clemens Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Andrew J Gawron; Karl Bilimoria; Rajesh N Keswani; Kerry B Dunbar; Peter J Kahrilas; Philip Katz; Joel Richter; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Nathaniel Soper; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ludovic Reveiz; Diana R Tellez; Juan S Castillo; Paola A Mosquera; Marcela Torres; Luis G Cuervo; Andres F Cardona; Rodrigo Pardo Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2010-03-06