Abstract
A panel of 16 cardiologists and cardiac surgeons rated 438 case scenarios for the maximum acceptable delay prior to revascularization, using a scale with seven interventional time frames and two nodes for designating dubious or inappropriate cases. If consensus was defined as agreement by 12 or more panelists, only 1.4 percent of the case scenarios showed consensus on a single rating. Dividing the scale into three broad clinical categories (revascularize promptly, place on a waiting list, or no intervention), 11.4 percent of scenarios showed all 16 panelists agreeing on a single category, rising to 59.4 percent of scenarios if agreement by 12 panelists was accepted as a consensus. The mean difference between the panelists' highest and lowest urgency ratings yielded waiting time differences of two weeks for scenarios of very unstable angina, and more than three months for those with stable angina. However, in a regression model, individual panelist factors on average had less effect than clinical features such as severity and stability of angina, or stenosis of major coronary arteries. These findings strongly support the need for consensus criteria to ensure that triage practices are consistent and fair, and also suggest that widespread adoption of a standardized approach to revascularization priorities may be feasible.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Anderson G. M., Lomas J. Monitoring the diffusion of a technology: coronary artery bypass surgery in Ontario. Am J Public Health. 1988 Mar;78(3):251–254. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.3.251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Fink A., Solomon D. H., Kosecoff J., Park R. E. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53–63. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300002774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brook R. H., Kosecoff J. B., Park R. E., Chassin M. R., Winslow C. M., Hampton J. R. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: comparison of doctors' attitudes in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 1988 Apr 2;1(8588):750–753. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)91550-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campeau L. Letter: Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976 Sep;54(3):522–523. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goyert G. L., Bottoms S. F., Treadwell M. C., Nehra P. C. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med. 1989 Mar 16;320(11):706–709. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198903163201106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lomas J., Anderson G., Enkin M., Vayda E., Roberts R., MacKinnon B. The role of evidence in the consensus process. Results from a Canadian consensus exercise. JAMA. 1988 May 27;259(20):3001–3005. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merrick N. J., Fink A., Park R. E., Brook R. H., Kosecoff J., Chassin M. R., Solomon D. H. Derivation of clinical indications for carotid endarterectomy by an expert panel. Am J Public Health. 1987 Feb;77(2):187–190. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.2.187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Naylor C. D., Baigrie R. S., Goldman B. S., Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92640-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Park R. E., Fink A., Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Kahn K. L., Merrick N. J., Kosecoff J., Solomon D. H. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986 Jul;76(7):766–772. doi: 10.2105/ajph.76.7.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz W. B., Aaron H. J. Rationing hospital care. Lessons from Britain. N Engl J Med. 1984 Jan 5;310(1):52–56. doi: 10.1056/nejm198401053100120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]