Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1999 Mar;8(1):6–15. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.1.6

Development of review criteria for assessing the quality of management of stable angina, adult asthma, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in general practice

S M Campbell, M O Roland, P G Shekelle, J A Cantrill, S A Buetow, D K Cragg
PMCID: PMC2483627  PMID: 10557672

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop review criteria to assess the quality of care for three major chronic diseases: adult asthma, stable angina, and non- insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Modified panel process based upon the RAND/UCLA (University College of Los Angeles) appropriateness method. Three multiprofessional panels made up of general practitioners, hospital specialists, and practice nurses. RESULTS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method of augmenting evidence with expert opinion was used to develop criteria for the care of the three conditions. Of those aspects of care which were rated as necessary by the panels, only 26% (16% asthma, 10% non-insulin dependent diabetes, 40% angina) were subsequently rated by the panels as being based on strong scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: The results show the importance of a systematic approach to combining evidence with expert opinion to develop review criteria for assessing the quality of three chronic diseases in general practice. The evidence base for the criteria was often incomplete, and explicit methods need to be used to combine evidence with expert opinion where evidence is not available.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (147.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson B. G., Noyce J. A. Clinical indicators and their role in quality management. Aust Clin Rev. 1992;12(1):15–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Angaran D. M. Selecting, developing, and evaluating indicators. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991 Sep;48(9):1931–1937. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayanian J. Z., Landrum M. B., Normand S. L., Guadagnoli E., McNeil B. J. Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography--do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1896–1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806253382608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker R., Fraser R. C. Development of review criteria: linking guidelines and assessment of quality. BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):370–373. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Charlton B. G. Practice guidelines and practical judgement: the role of mega-trials, meta-analysis and consensus. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Jul;44(384):290–291. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eccles M., Clapp Z., Grimshaw J., Adams P. C., Higgins B., Purves I., Russell I. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development. BMJ. 1996 Mar 23;312(7033):760–762. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Forrest D., Hoskins A., Hussey R. Clinical guidelines and their implementation. Postgrad Med J. 1996 Jan;72(843):19–22. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.72.843.19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gray D., Hampton J. R., Bernstein S. J., Kosecoff J., Brook R. H. Audit of coronary angiography and bypass surgery. Lancet. 1990 Jun 2;335(8701):1317–1320. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91196-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grimshaw J. M., Russell I. T. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Grol R. Development of guidelines for general practice care. Br J Gen Pract. 1993 Apr;43(369):146–151. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hicks N. R. Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care. BMJ. 1994 Sep 17;309(6956):730–733. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6956.730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kahan J. P., Bernstein S. J., Leape L. L., Hilborne L. H., Park R. E., Parker L., Kamberg C. J., Brook R. H. Measuring the necessity of medical procedures. Med Care. 1994 Apr;32(4):357–365. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199404000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kahan J. P., Park R. E., Leape L. L., Bernstein S. J., Hilborne L. H., Parker L., Kamberg C. J., Ballard D. J., Brook R. H. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996 Jun;34(6):512–523. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199606000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kahn K. L., Rogers W. H., Rubenstein L. V., Sherwood M. J., Reinisch E. J., Keeler E. B., Draper D., Kosecoff J., Brook R. H. Measuring quality of care with explicit process criteria before and after implementation of the DRG-based prospective payment system. JAMA. 1990 Oct 17;264(15):1969–1973. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kosecoff J., Fink A., Brook R. H., Chassin M. R. The appropriateness of using a medical procedure. Is information in the medical record valid? Med Care. 1987 Mar;25(3):196–201. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198703000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kravitz R. L., Laouri M., Kahan J. P., Guzy P., Sherman T., Hilborne L., Brook R. H. Validity of criteria used for detecting underuse of coronary revascularization. JAMA. 1995 Aug 23;274(8):632–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Majeed F. A., Voss S. Performance indicators for general practice. BMJ. 1995 Jul 22;311(6999):209–210. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Milholland A. V., Wheeler S. G., Heieck J. J. Medical assessment by a Delphi group opinion technic. N Engl J Med. 1973 Jun 14;288(24):1272–1275. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197306142882405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Naylor C. D. What is appropriate care? N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1918–1920. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806253382612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Scott E. A., Black N. Appropriateness of cholecystectomy in the United Kingdom--a consensus panel approach. Gut. 1991 Sep;32(9):1066–1070. doi: 10.1136/gut.32.9.1066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Selby J. V., Fireman B. H., Lundstrom R. J., Swain B. E., Truman A. F., Wong C. C., Froelicher E. S., Barron H. V., Hlatky M. A. Variation among hospitals in coronary-angiography practices and outcomes after myocardial infarction in a large health maintenance organization. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 19;335(25):1888–1896. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612193352506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Shekelle P. G., Kahan J. P., Bernstein S. J., Leape L. L., Kamberg C. J., Park R. E. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1888–1895. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199806253382607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Thomson R., Lavender M., Madhok R. How to ensure that guidelines are effective. BMJ. 1995 Jul 22;311(6999):237–242. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES