Literature DB >> 3312657

How coronary angiography is used. Clinical determinants of appropriateness.

M R Chassin1, J Kosecoff, D H Solomon, R H Brook.   

Abstract

Using ratings of appropriateness derived from an expert physician panel, we measured how appropriately physicians in 1981 performed coronary angiography in a randomly selected, community-based sample of cases in the Medicare population. We studied large geographic areas (three sites) in three states, representing regions of high and low use. The high-use site had fewer procedures classified as appropriate (72%) than either low-use site (77% and 81%, respectively). Over all sites, 17% of procedures were classified as inappropriate. Patients in the high-use site were older, had less severe angina, and were less intensively medically treated than patients in either of the low-use sites. Patients without angina who had not undergone exercise testing constituted the most common subgroup of inappropriate cases. Although overall differences in appropriateness were not large, practice differences do exist. This analysis of practice differences among study sites provides the clinical basis for understanding the small, but significant, differences in the appropriateness of use of coronary angiography. The finding of 17% inappropriate use may be cause for concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3312657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  14 in total

1.  Racial disparities in access to renal transplantation--clinically appropriate or due to underuse or overuse?

Authors:  A M Epstein; J Z Ayanian; J H Keogh; S J Noonan; N Armistead; P D Cleary; J S Weissman; J A David-Kasdan; D Carlson; J Fuller; D Marsh; R M Conti
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Hypothetical ratings of coronary angiography appropriateness: are they associated with actual angiographic findings, mortality, and revascularisation rate? The ACRE study.

Authors:  H Hemingway; A M Crook; S Banerjee; J R Dawson; G Feder; P G Magee; A Wood; S Philpott; A Timmis
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  [Evolutionary quality assurance. A new concept for improving process and outcome quality].

Authors:  D Köhler; G Goeckenjan; J Rünz
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-03-15

4.  Appropriateness in health care delivery: definitions, measurement and policy implications.

Authors:  J N Lavis; G M Anderson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Authors:  H R Rubin; D A Redelmeier; A W Wu; E P Steinberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development.

Authors:  Raj Nair; Rohit Aggarwal; Dinesh Khanna
Journal:  Semin Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Are the economically active more deserving?

Authors:  B Gaffney; F Kee
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1995-04

8.  Effect of local standards on the implementation of national guidelines for asthma: primary care agreement with national asthma guidelines.

Authors:  H A Picken; S Greenfield; D Teres; P S Hirway; J N Landis
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.128

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

Authors:  R E Park; A Fink; R H Brook; M R Chassin; K L Kahn; N J Merrick; J Kosecoff; D H Solomon
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Costs and coverage. Pressures toward health care reform.

Authors:  P R Lee; D Soffel; H S Luft
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1992-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.