Home Current Issue Previous Issues Published Ahead-of-Print Blog For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > May 2001 - Volume 39 - Issue 5 > Effect of Specialty and Nationality on Panel Judgments of th...
Text sizing:
A
A
A
You could be reading the full-text of this article now...
If you have access to this article through your institution, you can view this article in OvidSP.
Medical Care:
May 2001 - Volume 39 - Issue 5 - pp 513-520
Brief Report

Effect of Specialty and Nationality on Panel Judgments of the Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularization: A Pilot Study

Bernstein, Steven J. MD, MPH*†; Lázaro, Pablo MD, PhD†; Fitch, Kathryn MPH†; Dolores Aguilar, María MD†; Kahan, James P. PhD‡

Collapse Box

Abstract

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.

© 2001 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login




Help

Forgot Password?

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.