IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1989794445-447_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, R.E. & Fink, A. & Brook, R.H. & Chassin, M.R. & Kahn, K.L. & Merrick, N.J. & Kosecoff, J. & Solomon, D.H., 1989. "Physician ratings of appropriate indications for three procedures: Theoretical indications vs indications used in practice," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(4), pages 445-447.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:4:445-447_0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:4:445-447_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.