Biomedical subjects

J P Kahan

Publications and source records attributed to J P Kahan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

Guideline adherence rates and interprofessional variation in a vignette study of depression.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of and variation in intention-to-treat decisions in the management of depression in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Mailed survey with 22 paper cases (vignettes) based on a population study. SETTING: A random sample from four professional groups in the Dutch mental healthcare system. SUBJECTS: 264 general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and clinical psychologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each vignette contained information on a number of patient characteristics taken from three national depression guidelines. The distribution of patient characteristics was based on data from a population study. Respondents were asked to choose the best treatment option and the best treatment setting. For each vignette we examined which of the selected treatments was appropriate according to the recommendations of the three published Dutch clinical guidelines and a panel of experts. RESULTS: 31% of all intention-to-treat decisions were not consistent with the guidelines. Overall, less severe depression, alcohol abuse, psychotic features, and lack of social resources were related to more inappropriate judgements. There was considerable variation between the professional groups: psychiatrists made more appropriate choices than the other professions although they had the highest rate of overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient variation in the intentions to treat depression to give it priority in quality assessment and guideline development. Efforts to achieve appropriate care should focus on treatment indications, referral patterns, and overtreatment.

Antidepressive Agents↗

PubMed2001

The appropriateness of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparison of Dutch and multinational criteria.

Over the last decade, a number of organisations have developed clinical guidelines, typically at a national level, in order to increase appropriate health care. This raises the question as to whether it is possible to develop guidelines, applicable on the national level, at an international level. In order to examine this, we compared the appropriateness criteria for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia ratings developed by two panels, one a single-nationality (Dutch) panel, the other a multinational (European) panel. The panels, both consisting of experienced urologists, used a modified Delphi process to rate 1152 indications for the most common treatments (surgery, alpha-blocker, finasteride and watchful waiting) on a nine-point scale. This article describes the similarities and differences between the ratings produced by the panels. The appropriateness ratings were identical for 84% of the indications (kappa=0.76). The difference in the scores for individual indications was zero in 41% of indications and less than or equal to two in 99% of indications. This study provides strong evidence that a multinational panel can deliver essentially the same appropriateness ratings for BPH as a national panel. Developing appropriateness criteria on an international level may result in significant savings and may help contribute to the reduction of undesirable practice variation.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Sensitivity and specificity of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the overuse and underuse of coronary revascularization and hysterectomy.

There is no empirical evidence on the sensitivity and specificity of methods to identify the possible overuse and underuse of medical procedures. To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Parallel three-way replication of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method for each of two procedures, coronary revascularization and hysterectomy. Maximum likelihood estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the method for each procedure. These values were then used to re-calculate past estimates of overuse and underuse, correcting for the error rate in the appropriateness method. The sensitivity of detecting overuse of coronary revascularization was 68% (95% confidence interval 60-76%) and the specificity was 99% (98-100%). The corresponding values for hysterectomy were 89% (85-94%) and 86% (83-89%). The sensitivity and specificity of detecting the underuse of coronary revascularization were 94% (92-95%) and 97% (96-98%), respectively. Past applications of the appropriateness method have overestimated the prevalence of the overuse of hysterectomy, underestimated the prevalence of the overuse of the coronary revascularization, and provided true estimates of the underuse of revascularization. The sensitivity and specificity of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method vary according to the procedure assessed and appear to estimate the underuse of procedures more accurately than their overuse.

Female↗

PubMed2001

Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: a pilot study.

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.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

PubMed2001

Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction: how can clinical expertise contribute to rational management?

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic analysis of clinical expertise on treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO)) and to investigate the usefulness of these data in further guideline development. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to analyse the opinions of a panel of 15 European urologists on the appropriateness of 4 common treatments for 1,152 "indications" (hypothetical cases) for LUTS suggestive of BPO. Each indication consisted of a unique combination of 9 diagnostic variables, found to be relevant in treatment choice in previous research. The study population was restricted to patients for whom current guidelines do not provide clear indications on the most appropriate treatment. The panellists individually rated the appropriateness of three active treatments (surgery, alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonists, finasteride) using a 9-point scale, all in comparison with "watchful waiting". Aggregate panel judgements were calculated from individual ratings for each indication (appropriate, inappropriate, and uncertain). The relationship between diagnostic characteristics and panel opinions was analysed using logistic regression methods. The results were compared to those of an identical panel study including 12 Dutch urologists. RESULTS: Strong agreement existed for 42.5% of the indications, while strong disagreement was found in only 0.1%. For patients who had not previously been treated for LUTS, surgery was considered appropriate in 44% of the indications. For alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonists and finasteride these percentages were 56 and 6 respectively. Strong contra-indications were found only for finasteride (34%). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated consistent panel opinions, indicating a strong cumulative impact of almost all diagnostic variables on the panel judgement "appropriate". The figures on appropriateness were highly comparable to the results of the Dutch study (overall agreement 84%, kappa 0,76). A computer program was constructed to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of the panel recommendations in daily clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Given the consistency of the panel opinions, the results may be useful in complementing evidence-based guidelines for LUTS suggestive of BPO in the grey area of treatment choice.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

European criteria for the appropriateness and necessity of coronary revascularization procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Large variations in the use of coronary revascularization procedures have led many countries to apply the RAND appropriateness method to develop specific criteria describing patients who should be offered these procedures. The method is based on the work of a multidisciplinary expert panel that reviews a synthesis of the scientific evidence and rates the appropriateness of a comprehensive list of indications for the procedure being studied. Previous studies, however, have all involved single-country panels. We tested the feasibility of carrying out a multinational panel to rate the appropriateness and necessity of coronary revascularization, thereby producing recommendations for common European criteria. METHODS: Using the RAND methodology, a multispecialty (interventional cardiologists, non-interventional cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons), multinational (The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) panel rated the appropriateness and necessity of indications for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). A synthesis of the evidence and list of indications for PTCA and CABG were sent to 15 panelists, three from each country, who performed their ratings in three rounds. RESULTS: For PTCA, 24% of the indications were appropriate and necessary, 16% were appropriate, 43% were uncertain and 17% were inappropriate. The corresponding values for CABG were 33% appropriate and necessary, 7% appropriate, 40% uncertain and 20% inappropriate. The proportion of indications rated with disagreement was 4% for PTCA and 7% for CABG. CONCLUSION: Multinational panels appear to be a feasible method of addressing issues concerning the appropriateness and necessity of medical procedures in western European countries. The criteria produced provide a common tool that can be used to measure the overuse and underuse of medical procedures and to guide decision-making.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

PubMed2000

Effect of physician specialty on treatment recommendation to patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of physician specialty and the way in which patient data are presented in the treatment recommended for patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: In a prospective study, 3,628 patients with significant coronary artery disease who had been referred to 1 of 10 heart centers in the Netherlands as possible candidates for either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were recruited. Within each center, the recommended treatment is determined by a team consisting of cardiologists only, cardiovascular surgeons only, or cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons (i.e., composite teams). The main outcome measures are the proportions of patients for whom PTCA, CABG, or noninvasive (medical) therapy was recommended. RESULTS: Composite teams made 71% of recommendations, surgeon-only teams, 12%, and cardiologist-only teams, 17%. Cardiologist-only teams primarily recommended patients to PTCA, surgeon-only teams to CABG, while combined teams made more evenly distributed recommendations (p < .001). Although the patients discussed by the three types of teams were clinically different, the recommendation patterns remained significant after adjusting for these differences (p < .001). For patients with recent myocardial infarction, direct presentation of the case to the team by the referring cardiologist reduced the likelihood that CABG would be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment recommended to patients with coronary artery disease is affected by the composition of the team providing the recommendation. These findings have important implications for clinical decision making for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures.

BACKGROUND: To assess the overuse and underuse of medical procedures, various methods have been developed, but their reproducibility has not been evaluated. This study estimates the reproducibility of one commonly used method. METHODS: We performed a parallel, three-way replication of the RAND-University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method as applied to two medical procedures, coronary revascularization and hysterectomy. Three nine-member multidisciplinary panels of experts were composed for each procedure by stratified random sampling from a list of experts nominated by the relevant specialty societies. Each panel independently rated the same set of clinical scenarios in terms of the appropriateness of the relevant procedure on a risk-benefit scale ranging from 1 to 9. Final ratings were used to classify the procedure in each scenario as necessary or not necessary (to evaluate underuse) and inappropriate or not inappropriate (to evaluate overuse). Reproducibility was measured by overall agreement and by the kappa statistic. The criteria for underuse and overuse derived from these ratings were then applied to real populations of patients who had undergone coronary revascularization or hysterectomy. RESULTS: The rates of agreement among the three coronary-revascularization panels were 95, 94, and 96 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios and 93, 92, and 92 percent for necessary-use scenarios. Agreement among the three hysterectomy panels was 88, 70, and 74 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios. Scenarios involving necessary use of hysterectomy were not assessed. The three-way kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.52 for coronary revascularization and 0.51 for hysterectomy. The three-way kappa statistic to detect underuse of coronary revascularization was 0.83. Application of individual panels' criteria to real populations of patients resulted in a 100 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as inappropriate and a 20 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The appropriateness method is far from perfect. Appropriateness criteria may be useful in comparing levels of appropriate procedures among populations but should not by themselves be used to direct care for individual patients.

Delphi Technique↗

PubMed1997

The role of medical necessity and cost-effectiveness in making medical decisions.

The term "medical necessity" is used ubiquitously in health care, but its meaning and implementation vary substantially among providers, payers, and patients. This ambiguity has led some to suggest that cost-effectiveness be used as a basis for decision rules. This paper presents an analytical framework that is familiar to clinicians and shows that medical necessity and cost-effectiveness do not provide deterministic rules for clinical decision making. First, 2 x 2 tables are used to show the tradeoff between the sensitivity and specificity of decision rules. Then, the example of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm is used to show that these tradeoffs can be seen as a continuum of decision rules on a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Society can therefore choose a decision threshold on the basis of medical necessity that optimizes the number of lives saved or any other desired outcome, but the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity cannot be avoided. Applying cost-effectiveness criteria may change the decision threshold because cost-effectiveness itself involves inherent tradeoffs that create additional ambiguity for clinical decisions. The conclusion is that decision rules based on medical necessity or cost-effectiveness should not be considered deterministic. Rather, decision rules are useful when they make assumptions explicit and specify tradeoffs so that clinicians, patients, and payers can make better decisions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1997

Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the composition of multispecialty physician panels is associated with both the summary ratings assigned by such panels and the agreement of such panels with the recommendations of specialty societies. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We examined the final ratings assigned by a nine-member multispecialty RAND Corporation physician panel regarding indications for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery and the recommendations of a specialty society representing vascular surgeons who perform the same surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The panel was retrospectively divided into two sub-panels, one composed of the three vascular surgeons on the panel and the other composed of the six remaining physicians. We analyzed the two sub-panels' rating patterns with respect to each other and with respect to concurrent guidelines generated by the Joint Council of the Society of Vascular Surgery and the North American Chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 782 indications considered by the panel for appropriateness, the vascular surgeons had an average of mean ratings for appropriateness of 5.1, significantly higher than the 4.5 average of the other physicians. Across the 221 indications considered by the panel for necessity, the vascular surgeons had an average of mean necessity ratings of 6.8, significantly higher than the 5.8 average of the other physicians. The vascular surgeons' rankings of agreement with the guidelines of the Joint Council were significantly higher than those of the physician panelists from other specialties. CONCLUSIONS: statements of clinical appropriateness and necessity produced by summarizing ratings assigned to indications by expert panel members may disguise marked underlying disagreements among well-defined groups of practitioners within these panels. In the case of abdominal aortic aneurysm management, these disagreements within the RAND panel explain the marked discrepancy between the RAND multidisciplinary panel ratings and the recommendations issued by vascular surgeon professional societies.

Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal↗

PubMed1997

Measuring the clinical consistency of panelists' appropriateness ratings: the case of coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical consistency of expert panelists' ratings of appropriateness for coronary artery bypass surgery. DESIGN: Quantitative analysis of panelists' ratings. PARTICIPANTS: Nine physicians (three cardiothoracic surgeons, four cardiologists, and two internists) convened by RAND to establish criteria for the appropriateness of coronary artery bypass surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Percentage of indication-pairs given clinically inconsistent ratings (i.e. higher rating assigned to one member of an indication-pair when rating should have been equal or lower). RESULTS: In the final round of appropriateness ratings, among 1785 pairs of indications differing only on a single clinical factor (e.g., three-vessel vs. two-vessel stenosis), 6.6% were assigned clinically inconsistent ratings by individual panelists, but only 2.7% received inconsistent ratings from the panel as a whole (using the median panel rating as the criterion). Internists on the panel provided fewer inconsistent ratings (4.6%) than either cardiologists (7.8%) or cardiothoracic surgeons (6.3%) (p < 0.001). More inconsistencies were noted when the factor distinguishing otherwise identical indications was symptom severity (inconsistency rate, 13.2%) or intensity of medical therapy (13.2%) than when it was number of stenosed vessels (3.8%) or proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) involvement (1.9%). Contrary to expectations, panelists' inconsistency rates increased between the initial and final rounds of appropriateness ratings (from 3.9 to 6.6%, p < 0.001). Panelists' mean ratings across indications were only weakly correlated with individual inconsistency rates (r = 0.18, p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: The RAND/UCLA method for assessing the appropriateness of coronary revascularization generally produces criteria that are clinically consistent. However, research is needed to understand the sources of panelists' inconsistencies and to reduce inconsistency rates further.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗

PubMed1996

Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness.

Where information about the appropriateness of a surgical procedure is lacking, expert panels have been used to establish guidelines for medical practitioners. Such a panel was convened to assess the appropriateness of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the Netherlands. The panel, consisting of interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons, used a modified Delphi process to rate 1126 clinical indications over two rounds. This article describes the degree of change in both agreement amongst members and in the appropriateness ratings over the two rounds, and examines the internal consistency of the ratings of individual panellists. Over the two rounds, agreement increased. Although most appropriateness ratings remained unchanged, there was significant movement from equivocal ratings to determinate ratings. While individual members showed some degree of inconsistency in their scoring, the panel as a whole scored very consistently. The observed changes in appropriateness were consistent with expectations, showing that the appropriateness method is used logically and consistently by panellists.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

PubMed1996

Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures.

The authors compare the appropriateness ratings and mutual influence of panelists from different specialties rating a comprehensive set of indications for six surgical procedures. Nine-member panels rated each procedure: abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, carotid endarterectomy, cataract surgery, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (common panel). Panelists individually rated the appropriateness of indications at home and then discussed and re-rated the indications during a 2-day meeting. Subsequently, they rated the necessity of those indications scored by the group as appropriate. There were 45 panelists, including specialists (either performers of the procedure or members of a related specialty) and primary care providers, all drawn from nominations by their respective specialty societies. Main outcome measures included: individual panelists' mean ratings over all indications, mean change and conformity scores between rounds of ratings, and the percentage of audited actual procedures rated appropriate or necessary. Performers had the highest mean ratings, followed by physicians in related specialties, trailed by primary care providers. One fifth of all actual procedures were for indications rated appropriate by performers and less than appropriate by primary care providers. At the panel meetings, primary care providers and related specialists showed no greater tendency to be influenced by other panelists than did performers. Multispecialty panels provide more divergent viewpoints than panels composed entirely of performers. This divergence means that fewer actual procedures are deemed performed for appropriate or necessary indications.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

PubMed1995

Dissemination of effectiveness and outcomes research.

Effectiveness and outcomes research seeks to improve patients' health outcomes by improving the quality of the health care they receive. Dissemination of the findings of such research is a necessary step in that process. This paper reviews what is known about designing and disseminating effective information packages aimed at health care providers (mainly physicians), where effectiveness means promoting behavior change on the part of practitioners that leads to better patient care. Practice-relevant research information is delivered to providers through publication of results from randomized clinical trials, dissemination of consensus recommendations, development and use of computer-based aids to clinical decision making, and provision of continuing medical education. Each of these areas offers numerous examples of the exceedingly modest behavioral response that can be expected from the mere provision of information. The literature also offers some principles that may improve the chances for success, including the desirability of techniques that involve face-to-face interaction, promoting the active involvement of the learner, repeating the message, making recommendations explicit and relevant to clinical practice, and making use of opinion leaders and peer influence. Little basic research has been done on providers' motivations and actual decision-making processes. Research aimed at furthering a behavioral science of providers could yield new insights on effective dissemination strategies as well.

Communication↗

PubMed1994

An examination of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale cross-specialty linkage method.

The Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) was developed by surveying panels of physicians from single specialties, then merging the specialty-specific results into a common work scale. The merging process involved two steps: 1) specification of links or equivalent services across specialties: and 2) use of links to align work values from each specialty onto a common scale. This study examines the sensitivity of physician relative values of work (RVWs) to changes in both the specification of links and in the method for aligning specialties. Using the same survey data employed in developing the RBRVS, we calculated new RVWs based on an alternative specification of links and an alternative method for aligning specialties. Total RVWs declined by almost 50% for anesthesiology, and increased by more than 20% for allergists, neurologists, and thoracic surgeons. Most of this change was attributable to our specification of links. We conclude that future use of the linkage procedure employed in developing the RBRVS is not warranted without further research. Instead, efforts to update and revise work values could be based on a common scale of work developed by cross-specialty panels, thus eliminating the need for a linkage procedure.

Economics, Medical↗

PubMed1994

Measuring the necessity of medical procedures.

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.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗

PubMed1994

Panel processes for revising relative values of physician work. A pilot study.

In this study, a set of meetings was conducted to pilot a group-discussion-based method anchored by a reference set of services with agreed-on values for revising the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The authors focused on the method as it evolved over the sequence of meetings, rather than on whether the relative values of work obtained were more or less valid than relative values of work obtained elsewhere. Four pilot panels, composed of 46 physicians from different specialties (including primary care), were conducted to rate total physician work. One panel examined 80 urologic services, another panel examined 80 ophthalmologic services, and the last two panels considered the merit of appeals from five specialty and subspecialty societies to 68 and 48 services, respectively. Rather than using the method of ratio estimation relative to a standard service, panelists were asked to estimate magnitudes relative to an established multispecialty reference set of values. Prominent members of that reference set were graphically displayed to panelists on a "ruler." Measures included physicians' preliminary and final ratings and detailed notes of the group discussions conducted between the ratings. The authors found that a panel process for refining relative values of work is practical, provided that panelists are provided with a valid reference set for comparison purposes and provided that care is taken that all members feel comfortable engaging in the discussion. In Summer 1992, the Health Care Financing Association conducted a series of multispecialty panels based on the methods presented here to produce the 1993 RBRVS; in addition, the RBRVS Update Committee of the American Medical Association is employing group processes and a reference set in determining the relative work values of new Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Economics, Medical↗

PubMed1992

Group judgments of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition.

The current interest in the development of practice guidelines raises an important question about the effect of expert panel composition on the outcome of the guideline development process. We compared the ratings of appropriateness of indications for carotid endarterectomy produced by two panels: an all-surgical panel and a "balanced" panel composed of four surgeons, two neurologists, and one specialist each from family practice, internal medicine, and radiology. We then compared the effect of the two sets of ratings when used to evaluate 1302 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy. The all-surgical panel found more indications "appropriate" (24 versus 14%) and fewer indications "inappropriate" (61 versus 70%) than the balanced panel (p less than 0.01). The all-surgical panel also more often reached agreement. When ratings were applied to patients, 70% were appropriate by the all-surgical criteria versus 38% by the balanced panel, while 19% of the operations were inappropriate by all-surgical criteria, versus 31% by the balanced panel ratings. However, the percentage of procedures judged "inappropriate with agreement" was 15% for all-surgical and 16% for the balanced panel. We conclude that the all-surgical panel was more likely to favor operative treatment for carotid disease than the multispecialty panel, but that concensus judgments of inappropriateness by the two panels were very similar.

Arteriosclerosis↗