Literature DB >> 8139300

Measuring the necessity of medical procedures.

J P Kahan1, S J Bernstein, L L Leape, L H Hilborne, R E Park, L Parker, C J Kamberg, R H Brook.   

Abstract

This is a report on the extension of the concept of the appropriateness of a procedure to the necessity, or crucial importance, of that procedure. To state that a procedure is crucial means that withholding the procedure would be deleterious to the patient's health. Appropriateness and necessity ratings for six procedures were obtained using a modified Delphi panel process developed in earlier work. Panels were composed of practicing clinicians who were recognized leaders in their fields. The panels included both performers and nonperformers of the procedure under discussion. For most procedures and panelists, necessity was related to appropriateness, but was distinct from it. The proportion of indications for which the procedure was crucial varied in clinically consistent ways both among and within procedures. However, panelists did not achieve a consensus on necessity. Further research is suggested to refine the method to promote consensus and to validate further the ratings of necessity. In conclusion, necessity ratings can be used together with appropriateness ratings to address not only the overuse of procedures, but also to indicate limited access to care through underuse of procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8139300     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199404000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  24 in total

1.  New Zealand and United Kingdom experiences with the RAND modified Delphi approach to producing angina and heart failure criteria for quality assessment in general practice.

Authors:  S A Buetow; G D Coster
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

2.  Changes in the healthcare system. Goals, forces, solutions.

Authors:  R H Brook
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Routine primary care management of acute low back pain: adherence to clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Violeta González-Urzelai; Loreto Palacio-Elua; Josefina López-de-Munain
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-11-06       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? 1998.

Authors:  Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Robert H Brook
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 5.  Ethics in American health 2: an ethical framework for health system reform.

Authors:  Jennifer Prah Ruger
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Indications for coronary revascularisation: a Dutch perspective.

Authors:  H Rigter; A P Meijler; J McDonnell; J K Scholma; S J Bernstein
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 7.  Consensus methods for medical and health services research.

Authors:  J Jones; D Hunter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-08-05

8.  Medical necessity and defined coverage benefits in the Oregon Health Plan.

Authors:  P A Glassman; P D Jacobson; S Asch
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Addressing the Concerns Surrounding Continuous Deep Sedation in Singapore and Southeast Asia: A Palliative Care Approach.

Authors:  Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 1.352

10.  Appropriateness of referral of coronary angiography patients in Sweden. SECOR/SBU Project Group.

Authors:  S J Bernstein; B Brorsson; T Aberg; H Emanuelsson; R H Brook; L Werkö
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.994

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.