Physician ratings of appropriate indications for three procedures: Theoretical indications vs indications used in practice

R.E. Park, A. Fink, R.H. Brook, M.R. Chassin, K.L. Kahn, N.J. Merrick, J. Kosecoff and D.H. Solomon

American Journal of Public Health, 1989, vol. 79, issue 4, 445-447

Abstract: We previously reported substantial disagreement among expert physician panelists about the appropriateness of performing six medical and surgical procedures for a large number of theoretical indications. A recently completed community-based medical records study of about 4,500 patients who had one of three procedures - coronary angiography, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and carotid endarterectomy - shows that many of the theoretical indications are seldom or never used in practice. However, we find that there is also substantial disagreement (5, 25, or 32 per cent for angiography, endoscopy, or endarterectomy, respectively) about the appropriateness of indications used in actual cases if disagreement is defined by first discarding the two extreme of nine ratings, then looking for at least one rating near the bottom (1 to 3) and one near the top (7 to 9) of the 9-point scale. Patients should know that a substantial percentage of procedures are performed for indications about which expert physicians disagree.

Date: 1989
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:4:445-447_0

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().