Literature DB >> 9041229

Underutilization of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

F Froehlich1, I Pache, B Burnand, J P Vader, M Fried, J Kosecoff, M Kolodny, R W DuBois, R H Brook, J J Gonvers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efforts to reduce costs in health care may raise concerns about underuse of medical procedures. This study prospectively assessed underuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a cohort of patients in whom we have recently published data on overuse of endoscopy.
METHODS: Underuse was identified by formal necessity criteria for endoscopy, obtained by an explicit panel process. Outpatients were consecutively included in two clinical settings. Setting A consisted of 20 primary care physicians and 7215 patient visits that occurred within 1 month. Setting B consisted of 920 visits that occurred during 3 weeks at an outpatient clinic.
RESULTS: During these 8135 visits, 611 patients complained of upper digestive symptoms; 63 of them underwent endoscopy. Underuse was identified in 72 patients (11.8%). The two clinical situations mainly responsible for underuse of endoscopy were uninvestigated peptic symptoms resistant to treatment and dysphagia. At first follow-up, 29 of the patients with initial underuse still fulfilled criteria of necessity (underuse rate, 4.7%). One-year follow-up showed underuse of endoscopy in 5 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective evidence shows that underuse of a medical procedure exists. The estimated overuse and underuse of endoscopy in this cohort were approximately equal (5%). Improving quality of care will require reductions of both overuse and underuse of medical procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9041229     DOI: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.pm9041229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  6 in total

Review 1.  Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative.

Authors:  Kia Saeian
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2002-06

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

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

3.  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 4.  [Consensus methods: review of original methods and their main alternatives used in public health].

Authors:  F Bourrée; P Michel; L R Salmi
Journal:  Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 1.019

5.  Management of dyspeptic patients by general practitioners and specialists.

Authors:  V Stanghellini; C Tosetti; G Barbara; B Salvioli; R De Giorgio; R Corinaldesi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a hospital-based study.

Authors:  L Trevisani; S Sartori; G Gilli; C M Chiamenti; P Gaudenzi; V Alvisi; P Pazzi; V Abbasciano
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.199

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.