Managed care is not the problem, quality is.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Delivery of Health Care↗
Biomedical subjects
R H Brook
Publications and source records attributed to R H Brook.
Variations in cataract extraction rates in Medicare prepaid and fee-for-service settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of cataract extraction in 2 prepaid health settings and in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis using 1993 health maintenance organization (HMO) Medicare claims and encounter files, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) 5% Medicare Part B provider/supplier file, and the HCFA October 1992 100% Medicare population file. SETTING: Southern California Medicare FFS settings and the staff-model and independent practice association (IPA) plans of a large California HMO. PATIENTS: 1993 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. The study included 43387 staff-model HMO enrollees, 19050 IPA enrollees, and 47 150 FFS beneficiaries (a 5% sample of all Southern California FFS beneficiaries). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Age and risk-factor adjusted rates of cataract extraction per 1000 beneficiary-years. RESULTS: After controlling for age, sex, and diabetes mellitus status, FFS beneficiaries were twice as likely to undergo cataract extraction as were prepaid beneficiaries (P<.01). Female FFS beneficiaries were nearly twice as likely to undergo the procedure as were male FFS beneficiaries (P<.001); there were no extraction rate differences by sex in the prepaid settings. CONCLUSION: Because of the potential implications for vision care in the elderly, the significantly different rates of cataract extraction in FFS and prepaid settings warrant further clinical investigation to determine whether there is overuse in FFS vs underuse in prepaid settings. Such investigations must assess the appropriateness of cataract surgery by evaluating its use relative to clinical need.
Age Distribution↗
Appropriateness of indications for surgery of lumbar disc hernia and spinal stenosis.
STUDY DESIGN: This prospective study examines the appropriateness of indications for surgery of herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis in patients undergoing surgery in a university hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of surgery using explicit criteria developed by an expert panel in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of surgery for herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis varies widely within and among countries. It has been postulated that the main reason for treatment failure is poor selection of candidates for the procedure. METHODS: The authors prospectively evaluated appropriateness of surgical indications for herniated lumbar intervertebral disc or spinal stenosis in 328 consecutive patients undergoing the operation in two university neurosurgery departments. Outcome was measured 1 year after surgery by a standardized interview. RESULTS: Indications for surgery were considered to be appropriate or equivocal in 202 (62%) patients and inappropriate in 126 (38%). Among the 126 inappropriate procedures, 66 were so rated because of insufficient activity restriction before the procedure. One year after surgery, 74% of the patients perceived the results of the operation as good or very good. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness as measured by the criteria established by the American panel identified a large percentage of day-to-day practice in the two surgical units as inappropriate. However, use of criteria that include new findings about lack of efficacy of bed rest probably would lower this percentage. Criteria of appropriateness of medical and surgical procedures, developed through the panel process, need to be updated regularly.
Adolescent↗
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↗
Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures: application of a clinical method.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to apply a new method to determine whether coronary revascularization procedures are underused, especially among African-Americans and uninsured patients. BACKGROUND: Although overuse of revascularization procedures has been studied, underuse as defined clinically has not been examined before. METHODS: The study was conducted at four public and two academically affiliated private hospitals in Los Angeles; 671 patients who underwent coronary angiography between June 1, 1990 and September 30, 1991 and met explicit clinical criteria for coronary revascularization were included. The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients undergoing an indicated procedure within 12 months (ascertained by medical record review and confirmed with a telephone survey). Adjusted relative odds of undergoing an indicated procedure for African-Americans and patients in public hospitals compared with whites and patients in private hospitals were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 75% of patients underwent a revascularization procedure. Of 424 patients requiring bypass surgery, 107 angioplasty and 140 either bypass surgery or angioplasty, 59%, 66% and 75% underwent the procedure, respectively. African-Americans were less likely than whites to undergo operation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p < 0.05) and angioplasty (adjusted OR 0.20, p < 0.05). Patients in public hospitals were less likely than those in private hospitals to undergo angioplasty (adjusted OR 0.10, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures is measurable and occurs to a significant degree even among insured patients attending private hospitals. Underuse is especially pronounced among African-Americans and patients attending public hospitals. Future cost-containment efforts must incorporate safeguards against underuse of necessary care.
Black or African American↗
Underutilization of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
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.
Adolescent↗
Under use of coronary angiography: application of a clinical method.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent of under use of coronary angiography and to determine whether women, ethnic minorities and poor and uninsured patients are less likely than their counterparts to receive necessary coronary angiography. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study employing chart review and patient interviews. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals: three government owned (public) and one private university medical center in Los Angeles, California. PATIENTS: Three hundred and fifty two patients who had a positive exercise stress test between 1 January 1990 and 30 June 1991 and met explicitly defined criteria for the necessity of coronary angiography established by a multidisciplinary expert panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients who received necessary coronary angiography within 3 and 12 months following exercise stress testing, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall 43% received necessary coronary angiography within 3 months and 56% within 12 months of the stress test. Women were less likely than men to receive necessary coronary angiography. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.90 for angiography within 3 months of the stress test; AOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.77 for angiography within 12 months of the stress test. Public hospital patients underwent necessary coronary angiography less often than private hospital patients. AOR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.79 for within 3 months; AOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.91 for within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Under use of coronary angiography can be measured and occurs to a significant degree. It is important to develop standards of quality to address and safeguard against under use of necessary medical care.
Aged↗
Understanding changes in health status. Is the floor phenomenon merely the last step of the staircase?
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have found that health-status measures may be unable to detect clinically important changes for patients whose baseline health is poor (the "floor phenomenon"). It is not known whether this inability to detect change is confined to patients in very poor baseline health or whether the sensitivity of health-status instruments varies across the entire range of health states. The goals of this study were to see how changes in physical health, mental health, and overall health (1) depend on baseline (usual) health and (2) compare with patients' global assessment of changes in their health. METHODS: Stable, ambulatory patients presenting to the emergency department of a public hospital retrospectively rated their usual physical health (eight items), mental health (three items), and overall health (one item); their health on the day of study entry using these same items; and their global assessment of the change in their health compared with baseline. Complete information on these items was available for 1,005 patients. Baseline scores on the physical and mental health subscales and the overall health item were divided into five categories: 81 to 100 (best), 61 to 80, 41 to 60, 21 to 40, and 0 to 20 (worst). RESULTS: The mean difference in health from baseline to emergency department presentation decreased as the baseline health category worsened, as follows: physical health, -26.0, -35.9, -15.1, -9.5, +1.0; mental health, -23.0, -16.1, -9.6, 0.0, 6.6; overall health -64.0, -45.3, -28.4, -8.4, 10.4, respectively. However, patients' global assessment of health change showed the opposite trend; the proportion of patients rating their health as "much worse" than baseline increased as baseline health worsened. When only patients whose physical health score declined less than 10 points were analyzed, 14% of those in the best baseline health said their health was "much worse," whereas 74% of those with the worst baseline physical health said their health was "much worse" than baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the sensitivity of health-status measures to change and the meaning of an incremental change in physical health or mental health vary depending on baseline health. This may result from noninterval properties of response options or from patients being at the lowest health state (the "floor") of individual questions. If health-status measures similar to this are to be used to compare the outcomes of treatment across diseases and for patients in a wide variety of baseline health states, weighting schemes may be needed to account for these effects.
Analysis of Variance↗
The appropriateness of intention to treat decisions for invasive therapy in coronary artery disease in The Netherlands.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the appropriateness of intention to treat decisions concerning coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for patients with coronary artery disease in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective study of intention to treat decisions using a computerised expert system. SETTING: "Presentation" sessions in 10 tertiary referral heart centres in 1992. PATIENTS: 3207 consecutive patients: 1618 CABG and 1589 PTCA candidates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of invasive treatment decisions rated appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate by the expert system. RESULTS: PTCA decisions were common for patients with one-vessel disease and CABG decisions for patients with three-vessel and left main disease. PTCA decisions outnumbered CABG decisions in acute myocardial infarction. Of CABG decisions, 84% were rated appropriate, 12% uncertain, and 4% inappropriate. The proportions for PTCA decisions were 39% appropriate, 31% uncertain, and 29% inappropriate. Type C lesion was the main determinant of inappropriateness of PTCA decisions. If type C lesions were downgraded to type A/B lesions the rate of inappropriate PTCA decisions dropped to 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in tertiary referral centres in The Netherlands favoured CABG if vessel disease was extensive or involved the left main artery, and PTCA for patients with less extensive disease and with acute myocardial infarction. Few CABG decisions were inappropriate. The main determinant of inappropriateness of PTCA decisions was its intended use in patients with type C lesions.
Aged↗
Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care.
BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study was aimed at evaluating the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) in primary care in a country with open access to and high availability of the procedure. METHODS: Outpatients were consecutively included in two clinical settings: Setting A (20 primary care physicians during 4 weeks) and B (university-based outpatient clinic during 3 weeks). In patients undergoing UGE, appropriateness of referral was judged by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method. RESULTS: Patient visits (8135) were assessed. Six hundred eleven patients complained of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Physicians decided to perform UGE in 63 of these patients. Twenty-five (40%) of the endoscopies were rated appropriate, 7 (11%) equivocal, and 31 (49%) inappropriate. Overuse of UGE occurred in 5.1% (setting A: 4.7%; setting B:6.5%; p = 0.39) of the patients who presented with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The decision to perform UGE in previously untreated dyspeptic patients was the most common clinical situation resulting in overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate use of UGE is high in Switzerland. However, to better reflect primary care decision making, overuse should be related not only to patients referred for a medical test, but also to the number of patients who complain of the symptoms that would be investigated by the procedure.
Adolescent↗
Having a foot in both camps: the impact of Kerr White's vision.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Delivery of Health Care↗
Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria.
OBJECTIVE: Examine the reproducibility of the RAND method for developing criteria for the appropriateness of medical procedures. DESIGN: Comparison of two sets of explicit criteria for appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, developed by separate expert panels from two countries. SETTING: United States, Switzerland. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: National experts from different medical specialties involved in the referral or application of UGI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Each panel was presented with about 500 clinical scenarios (indications) that were rated on a nine-point scale as to the appropriateness of performing UGI endoscopy for a patient with that clinical presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) distribution of appropriateness ratings and intrapanel agreement categories between the two panels, (2) between-panel agreement of assigning appropriateness for comparable indications and, (3) percentage of indications with major between-panel differences. RESULTS: Ratings for 2/3 of indications could be compared. The Swiss panel showed higher intrapanel agreement (54.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.002). Seventy-eight per cent of comparable indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.76, P < 0.001). For 93% of the 376 comparable indications, there were no major interpanel differences. CONCLUSION: Separate expert panels in different countries, using a standardized methodology, produce criteria for appropriateness of medical procedures that are similar. Given the resources being invested throughout the world in developing criteria and guidelines, international collaboration in seeking optimal use of limited health care resources should be intensified.
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal↗
Influence of projected complication rates on estimated appropriate use rates for carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness Project Investigators. Academic Medical Center Consortium.
OBJECTIVE: To examine specifically the influence of estimated perioperative mortality and stroke rate on the assessment of appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: An expert panel convened to rate the appropriateness of a variety of potential indications for carotid endarterectomy based on various rates of perioperative complications. We then applied these ratings to the charts of 1,160 randomly selected patients who had carotid endarterectomy in one of the 12 participating academic medical centers. STUDY DESIGN: An expert panel evaluated indications for carotid endarterectomy using the modified Delphi approach. Charts of patients who received surgery were abstracted, and clinical indications for the procedure as well as perioperative complications were recorded. To examine the impact of surgical risk assessment on the rates of appropriateness, three different definitions of risk strata for combined perioperative death or stroke were used: Definition A, low risk < 3 percent; Definition B, low risk < 5 percent; and Definition C, low risk < 7 percent. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall hospital-specific mortality ranged from 0 percent to 4.0 percent and major complications, defined as death, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or myocardial infarction, varied from 2.0 percent to 11.1 percent. Most patients (72 percent) had surgery for transient ischemic attack or stroke; 24 percent of patients were asymptomatic. Most patients (82 percent) had surgery on the side of a high-grade stenosis (70-99 percent). When the thresholds for operative risk were placed at the values defined by the expert panel (Definition A), only 33.5 percent of 1,160 procedures were classified as "appropriate." When the definition of low risk was shifted upward, the proportion of cases categorized as appropriate increased to 58 percent and 81.5 percent for Definitions B and C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high proportion of procedures performed for symptomatic patients with a high degree of ipsilateral extracranial carotid artery stenosis and generally low rates of surgical complications at the participating institutions, the overall rate of "appropriateness" using a perioperative complication rate of < 3 percent was low. However, the rate of "appropriateness" was extremely sensitive to judgments about a single clinical feature, surgical risk. These data show that before applying such "appropriateness" ratings, it is crucial to perform sensitivity analyses in order to assess the stability of the results. Results that are robust to moderate in variation in surgical risk provide a much sounder basis for policy making than those that are not.
Academic Medical Centers↗
Quality assurance in capitated physician groups. Where is the emphasis?
OBJECTIVE: To describe quality assurance (QA) programs implemented by capitated physician groups; to measure their relative emphasis on monitoring of overuse compared with underuse and monitoring and improving preventive services compared with chronic disease care; and to examine how group characteristics influence QA activity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire. SETTING: A large network-model health maintenance organization in California (133 contracting physician groups). PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four physician groups (71%) caring for 2.9 million capitated patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported use of quality monitoring and improvement methods. RESULTS: All capitated physician groups conducted some QA. Groups' QA programs monitored areas subject to overuse, such as cesarean delivery and angioplasty rates, more than areas subject to underuse, such as childhood immunization rates and performance of retinal examinations for diabetic patients (64% vs 43%, P<.001). They monitored underuse of preventive services more than follow-up services for chronic diseases (54% vs 31%, P<.001). Groups also used reminders for preventive services more than they monitored follow-up services for chronic diseases (26% vs 15%, P<.01). Physician group characteristics independently associated with higher overall QA activity were greater number of years in existence, higher profitability, and capitated care penetration. CONCLUSION: Capitation places a large share of responsibility for QA in the hands of physician groups, but not all aspects of QA are being equally addressed. The emphasis on overuse may result from financial incentives inherent in capitation, while the focus on preventive services may stem from lack of adequate quality measurement tools for monitoring chronic disease care. Further research efforts should address how capitated physician groups might expand their QA programs to include monitoring of underuse, especially for patients with chronic disease.
California↗
Practice guidelines: to be or not to be.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Health Care Reform↗
Predicting short-term mortality from myocardial infarction.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Hospitalization↗
Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Humans↗
Health system reform and quality.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cost Control↗