European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): conclusion and WWW site

Appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Analytical Study

Introduction

Extensive use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) with the advent of open access centers has resulted in inappropriate endoscopies. Our study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for UGE and to assess the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in a tertiary care center in South India.

Methods

The study was conducted as a prospective analytical study. Indications for endoscopy were classified as “ASGE appropriate” and “ASGE inappropriate”. The significance of association of ASGE guidelines and other categorical variables with endoscopic findings were assessed.

Results

ASGE appropriate indications and inappropriate indications accounted for 85.9% and 14.1% of endoscopies, respectively. The most common appropriate indication was persistent dyspepsia despite adequate proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (28.1%) and the only inappropriate indication for endoscopy was isolated dyspepsia without adequate PPI therapy (14.1%). The diagnostic yield of endoscopy for appropriate indications was 69.5% and for inappropriate indications was 55.1%, the difference was statistically significant (P= 0.003; OR-1.857). The sensitivity and specificity of ASGE guidelines was 88.5% and 19.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

According to our study, ASGE guidelines may be considered as appropriate guidelines for UGE in our population and these guidelines were followed 85.9% of the times in referring patients for the same. However, the high diagnostic yield even in inappropriate endoscopies indicates the necessity of further studies that might identify other relevant indications for endoscopy, thus avoiding misutilization of resources without missing out on relevant cases.

[Inappropriateness rate for colonoscopy indications in an open access unit]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The suitability of indications for colonoscopy is important to optimize the available resources. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy indications in an open access endoscopy unit using the EPAGE II criteria.

METHODS

Colonoscopies performed between October 1 and November 30, 2011 were retrospectively included. The appropriateness of the colonoscopy was established according to the EPAGE II criteria. Demographics, medical applicants, indications and relevant findings from these examinations were recorded.

RESULTS

We included 440 colonoscopies (60.8 ± 016.3 years, 54% women). The indication was appropriate in 75.4% (CI, 71-79.3%), uncertain in 13.1% (CI, 10.2-16.6%) and inappropriate in 11.4% (CI, 8.7-14.8%). In the univariate analysis, the relevant findings in the colonoscopy were associated with age, sex, colonoscopy indications and EPAGE II. In the logistic regression analysis, factors independently associated with the presence of relevant findings were age (≥ 50 years) (OR, 1.84), male sex (OR, 2.7) and two indications, inflammatory bowel disease and post-polypectomy surveillance (P < .03). The diagnostic yield of EPAGE II criteria was 37.3% for appropriate colonoscopies and 28.3% for inappropriate colonoscopies (P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of unnecessary colonoscopy is high, especially in young patients (<50 years) and some colonoscopy indications. Age (≥ 50 years) and male sex are independently associated with the presence of relevant findings in colonoscopy. The diagnostic yield of EPAGE II criteria does not differ between appropriate and inappropriate examinations.

European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy--a quality control study

OBJECTIVE

To use information from the referral letters to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies in a primary open-access referral center, according to the criteria from the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II, and to compare with the first EPAGE guidelines. Second, to evaluate how the appropriateness and other patient- or doctor-related factors affected the diagnostic yield (DY).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A set of variables; symptoms, referring physician and final diagnosis, for 323 referrals accepted for colonoscopy were recorded prospectively and later on assessed using the EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria, respectively. Patients with incomplete visualization of the entire colon or colonoscopic findings as indication were excluded.

RESULTS

EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 287 (95.3%) and 295 (98.0%) referrals, respectively. A total of 166 (57.8%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE and 240 (81.4%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE II. DY for appropriate versus uncertain/inappropriate referrals was 34.9% versus 17.4% for EPAGE (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-4.4, p = 0.003) and 31.3% versus 10.9% for EPAGE II (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.4-8.9, p = 0.007). Sensitivity was higher for EPAGE II (92.6% vs. 73.4%). According to EPAGE II, 68 (23.1%) patients were referred due to lesions identified on other diagnostic procedures, producing a DY of 39.7%. In this group, 70% presented symptoms appropriate for a primary referral to colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of colonoscopies were found appropriate by EPAGE II. There was a clear association between high appropriateness of the indication and a high DY. EPAGE II is a guideline-improvement that may be useful for both referring physicians and gastroenterologists when considering referrals.

The appropriateness of colonoscopies at a teaching hospital: magnitude, associated factors, and comparison of EPAGE and EPAGE-II criteria

BACKGROUND

The growing demand for colonoscopies and inappropriate colonoscopies have become a significant problem for health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies and to analyze the association with some clinical and organizational factors. To compare the results of the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) and the EPAGE-II criteria.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a teaching hospital in Spain.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for colonoscopy, excluding urgent, therapeutic indications, and poor cleansing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Appropriateness of colonoscopies according to the EPAGE criteria.

RESULTS

From 749 colonoscopies, 619 were included. Most patients were referred by gastroenterologists (66.1%) in an outpatient setting (80.6%). Hematochezia was the most frequent indication (31.5%) followed by colorectal cancer-related indications (27.3%); a clinically relevant diagnosis was established in 41%. Inappropriate use was higher with EPAGE (27.0%) than EPAGE-II (17.4%) criteria. Surveillance after colonic polypectomy and uncomplicated lower abdominal pain were the indications exhibiting higher inadequacy. Inappropriate use was less with older age, in hospitalized patients, with referrals from internal medicine, and in colonoscopies with clinically relevant diagnoses. Agreement between EPAGE and EPAGE-II was fair (weighted κ = 0.31) but improved to moderate (simple κ = 0.60) after grouping appropriate and uncertain levels.

LIMITATIONS

The appropriateness criteria are based on panel opinions. Some patients (12%) could not be evaluated with the EPAGE criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identifies substantial colonoscopy overuse, especially in tumor disease surveillance. The EPAGE-II criteria decrease the inappropriate rate and the possibility of overlooking potentially severe lesions.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Quality assurance in colonoscopy: role of endomucosal clips

OBJECTIVE

Quality assurance in colonoscopy is important, and subjective assessment of completion based on endoscopic signs can be inaccurate leading to missed lesions. We aimed to determine the technique of endomucosal clips with follow-up X-rays in objectively documenting completion and correlation with pathology miss rates.

METHOD

A total of 82 patients undergoing colonoscopy by trained colonoscopists had an endomucosal clip applied to the most proximal bowel reached. A plain abdominal X-ray was performed while there was still a pneumocolon, and the clip position was assessed by a blinded radiologist to determine objective completion rates. Repeat colonoscopies were performed in patients with incomplete procedures. Pathology and endoscopy database were also reviewed to identify missed lesions at a median follow-up of 6 years. These were correlated with colonoscopy completions.

RESULTS

The clip was found in caecum of 76 (93%), ascending-colon in three (3.6%), hepatic flexure in one (1.2%) and splenic flexure in two (2.4%) patients. The endoscopist opinion was incorrect in six incomplete colonoscopies. A total of 33 patients underwent repeat colonoscopies over the median 6-year follow-up. Three adenomas and one carcinoma were missed in the incomplete group and were subsequently picked up in repeat endoscopies. Only one adenoma was truly missed in complete colonoscopies, providing an overall miss rate of 1.3%.

CONCLUSION

Use of endomucosal clips with follow-on abdominal X-ray is a safe and effective method of determining completion of colonoscopy. This technique is also an excellent objective measure of quality assurance of completion and miss rates in colonoscopy, especially when combined with an audit to determine the missed lesions at two years postprocedure.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in a digestive endoscopy unit: a prospective study using ASGE guidelines

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Appropriate indications for colonoscopy (C) are essential for a rational use of resources. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of indication for C according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines and to evaluate whether appropriate use was correlated with the diagnostic yield of C.

METHODS

We analysed 677 consecutive C performed over an 11-month period in a digestive endoscopy unit with an open access system.

RESULTS

The rate of 'generally indicated' C was 77% and 'generally not indicated' C was 18%. The rate of indication not listed in the ASGE guidelines was 5%. The percentage of generally not indicated C requested by gastroenterologists for outpatients was lower than that requested by primary care surgeons or doctors (9.5%, 29%, 25.3%, respectively). In 38 (7.3%) and in 111 (21.3%) of 520 patients with appropriate C, cancer and polyps larger than 5 mm were found, respectively. Twenty polyps greater than 5 mm were detected in 15 cases (12%) of 122 inappropriate C, with only one case of intramucosal carcinoma; four (12%) polyps measuring over 5 mm were found in C not listed in ASGE guidelines. No advanced stage cancer was detected in the inappropriate group and in C not listed in ASGE guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed the high rate of inappropriate procedures, according to ASGE guidelines, requested by surgeons, internists and primary care doctors for both outpatients and inpatients. The proportion of not indicated endoscopic procedures requested by gastroenterologists must be reduced through more carefully application of ASGE guidelines. Endoscopic findings were more stringent in appropriate C.

Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy based on symptoms

OBJECTIVE

There are only a few data on the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in different symptoms. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of colonoscopy in patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms and to estimate the relation between the findings and the presenting symptoms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

1121 consecutive colonoscopies were registered during 1 year. Asymptomatic subjects and patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were excluded, leaving 767 eligible for the study. Symptoms, findings and clinical judgement about their relation were recorded.

RESULTS

In patients with bleeding symptoms (n=405), serious colonic pathology--cancers and adenomas >1 cm, IBD and angiodysplasia--was found in 54 (13.3%), 83 (20.5%) and 20 (4.9%) patients, respectively; 162 (40%) patients had findings that could be related to the symptom. In 173 subjects with non-bloody diarrhoea, the diagnostic yield was 31.2%, i.e. mostly IBD and microscopic colitis. In 189 subjects with other gastrointestinal symptoms, the diagnostic yield was 13.2%. Serious colonic pathology was found in 8 of 362 (2.2%) subjects examined because of non-bleeding symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy is high in patients with bleeding symptoms or diarrhoea, while the prevalence of significant findings is equal to a screening population in patients with other symptoms.

[Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Almost 50% of gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in our Unit correspond to patients coming from primary care. Since resources are finite, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential. We prospectively assessed the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopies referred from Primary Care according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

From May to June 2005, all consecutive patients referred from Primary care to our unit for open-access endoscopy were included (478 colonoscopies and 264 gastroscopies). Appropriateness of each exploration was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of endoscopies, relevant endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

In 146 patients (20%), an endoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines or data were incomplete and they were not evaluated. In the remaining 596 patients, the indication of the procedure was considered appropriate in 401 (67%) patients (253 [69%], colonoscopies and 148 [65%], gastroscopies). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate endoscopies (30% vs 7%, p < 0.001). Endoscopies were more appropriate in older patients and in non-foreigners.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of gastrointestinal endoscopies in patients coming from primary Care increases with the appropriateness of indications according to the EPAGE criteria. Since a noteworthy proportion of these patients' endoscopies are considered inappropriate, the implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation.

The appropriateness of colonoscopy: a multi-center, international, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center.

INTERVENTION

Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Appropriateness of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms.

Applicability and efficacy of qualifying criteria for an appropriate use of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Appropriate indication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) may be facilitated by referring to qualifying criteria such as those devised by the European Panel (EPAGE) and French Experts (ANAES). This prospective study evaluates the applicability and efficacy of these criteria in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 522 patients was included (55% inpatients, 57% male, mean age 55 years). Appropriateness of referral was evaluated using EPAGE and ANAES criteria sets by a single independent expert.

RESULTS

EPAGE criteria were applicable in 71% of cases. Indications for UGE were appropriate, inappropriate and uncertain in 62%, 27% and 11% respectively; 74%, 16% and 10% of clinically significant lesions detected by UGE were disclosed in patients having appropriate, inappropriate and uncertain indications respectively. ANAES criteria were applicable in 81% of cases. Indications for UGE were appropriate in 74%, inappropriate in 26%; 76% and 24% of clinically significant lesions detected by UGE were disclosed in patients having appropriate and inappropriate indications respectively. Whatever the criteria set used, all cancers and most of the severe lesions were observed in patients with appropriate indications: those patients were more often in-patients and were significantly older than patients belonging to the inappropriate group.

CONCLUSION

Reference to EPAGE and ANAES qualifying criteria facilitates patient selection for UGE. Final decision must however rely upon practitioner advice. ANAES criteria are significantly more often applicable than EPAGE ones. However EPAGE referential when applicable is more predictive of the UGE findings.

Appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening: appraisal of evidence by experts

OBJECTIVE

. To evaluate how the level of evidence perceived by an international panel of experts was concordant with the level of evidence found in the literature, to compare experts perceived level of evidence to their appropriateness scores, and to compare appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy between experts and an evidence-based approach.

DESIGN

Comparison of expert panel opinions and systematic literature review regarding the level of evidence and appropriateness of colonoscopy indications.

PARTICIPANTS

European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy multidisciplinary experts from 14 European countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Concordance and weighted kappa coefficient between level of evidence as perceived by the experts' and that found in the literature, and between panel- and literature-based appropriateness categories.

RESULTS

Experts overestimated the level of published evidence of 57 indications. Concordance between the level of evidence perceived by the experts and the actual level of evidence found in the literature was 36% (weighted kappa 0.18). Indications for colonoscopy were reported to be appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate by the experts in 54, 19, and 27% of the cases, and by the literature in 37, 46, and 17% of the cases. A 46% agreement (weighted kappa 0.29) was found between literature-based and experts' appropriateness criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts often overestimated the level of evidence on which they based their decisions. However, rarely did the experts' judgement completely disagree with the literature, although concordance between panel- and literature-based appropriateness was only fair. A more explicit discussion of existing evidence should be undertaken with the experts before they evaluate appropriateness criteria.

The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

The demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasing in most developed countries, resulting in an important rise in overall costs and waiting lists for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential for the rational use of finite resources in an open-access system.

AIM

To assess indications and appropriateness of colonoscopy according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.

METHODS

From May to June 2004, all consecutive patients referred to our Unit for open-access colonoscopy were considered for inclusion in this prospective study. Appropriateness of each colonoscopy was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy, relevant endoscopic findings were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 350 consecutive patients were included in the study. In 38 of them, the colonoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines and, consequently, they were not evaluated. In the remaining 312 patients, the indication for the procedure was considered inappropriate in 73 (23%) patients. Both referring doctor characteristics (specialty and health care setting) and patient data (age) correlated with appropriateness of endoscopy. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate colonoscopies (42%) than in those judged inappropriate (21%) (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A noteworthy proportion of patients referred for colonoscopy to an open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate because of their indication, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation and, considering the correlation between appropriateness and diagnostic yield, even contribute to improve the prognosis of patients with colorectal diseases.

Évaluer la spécificité d’un centre hospitalo-universitaire

OBJECTIVE

The specificity of a University Hospital Centre is usually assessed from its teaching and research capacity. The EPAGE survey, an instrument used to help decision making available on the Internet, permitted us to compare the prescription of a routine exploration, gastrointestinal endoscopy, between the University Hospital Center in Clermont-Ferrand and the Hospital Centre in Moulins. The aim was to demonstrate the differences in daily practice between these two geographically close hospital centres and hence to underline the specificity of a University Hospital Centre that is not taken into account in the financing systems of such hospitals. Method The data collected were taken from the EPAGE trial, a prospective mutlicentre study that included 21 European and Canadian centres. Data was collected from the University Hospital centre in Clermont-Ferrand over two periods: from December 2000 to March 2001, then from December 2001 to February 2002, and from the Hospital Centre in Moulins, from December 2000 to the end of November 2001. For this Article, only the patients' characteristics, indications for gastrointestinal endoscopy and opportunity rate were analysed. Comparison of patients' categories from the 2 centres was conducted according to their DRG (diagnostic related group) (homogeneous patient group) classification, thus allowing calculation of the mean of the SIA (synthetic index of activity) points in the two centres.

RESULTS

221 cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy performed in the University Hospital centre and 292 in the Hospital Centre were included in the survey. No statistically significant difference was found in the reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy, with regard to the indications listed on the EPAGE website. There were 18% of unlisted indications in the University Hospital Centre versus 4.8% in the Hospital Centre (p<1.10-6). Using the DRG nomenclature, calculation of the mean SIA points at the University Hospital Centre per patient was of 1161 versus 1147: non significant deviation of 1.2% in favour of the University Hospital Centre.

DISCUSSION

- Conclusion The difference in reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy found between the two centres concerned rare, complex or innovating situations. This illustrates the role of a Regional Reference University Hospital Centre, an aspect clearly underestimated when measuring mixed cases according to the HPG. Study of the financing and/or information systems is warranted and might resolve the apparent underestimation of the current financing system.

Reliability of clinical guideline development using mail-only versus in-person expert panels

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines quickly become outdated. One reason they might not be updated as often as needed is the expense of collecting expert judgment regarding the evidence. The RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method is one commonly used method for collecting expert opinion. We tested whether a less expensive, mail-only process could substitute for the standard in-person process normally used.

METHODS

We performed a 4-way replication of the appropriateness panel process for coronary revascularization and hysterectomy, conducting 3 panels using the conventional in-person method and 1 panel entirely by mail. All indications were classified as inappropriate or not (to evaluate overuse), and coronary revascularization indications were classified as necessary or not (to evaluate underuse). Kappa statistics were calculated for the comparison in ratings from the 2 methods.

RESULTS

Agreement beyond chance between the 2 panel methods ranged from moderate to substantial. The kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.57 for coronary revascularization and 0.70 for hysterectomy. The kappa statistic to detect coronary revascularization underuse was 0.76. There were no cases in which coronary revascularization was considered inappropriate by 1 method, but necessary or appropriate by the other. Three of 636 (0.5%) hysterectomy cases were categorized as inappropriate by 1 method but appropriate by the other.

CONCLUSIONS

The reproducibility of the overuse and underuse assessments from the mail-only compared with the conventional in-person conduct of expert panels in this application was similar to the underlying reproducibility of the process. This suggests a potential role for updating guidelines using an expert judgment process conducted entirely through the mail.

Open access endoscopy in rural and remote Western Australia: does it work?

BACKGROUND

Access to diagnostic endoscopy is limited in rural and remote Western Australia. Published reports suggest open access referrals may result in over-servicing, this is reduced by adherence to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. The aim was to assess whether an outreach surgical service offering open access endoscopy to rural areas was being over utilized.

METHODS

Prospective data collection from all patients undergoing upper and lower endoscopy procedures between January 1996 and June 2000 were included in the present study. Indications for referral between the general practitioners and the visiting surgeons were reviewed in patient records and assessed for compliance with the ASGE guidelines. The groups were analysed for appropriateness of referrals and frequency of positive pathology investigations. Records for all patients undergoing colonoscopy were reviewed to determine the reason and number of cancelled procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 772 endoscopies were performed and 75% were booked as open access services. The referral rate for procedures was greater for general practitioners (583) compared to the visiting surgeons (189), the overall compliance rate for approved indications using the ASGE guidelines for both groups was 92%. There was no significant difference in pathology found between groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that an outreach rural surgical service programme in Western Australia offering open access endoscopy conforms to international guidelines and does not induce unnecessary procedures. Rural patients benefit from a personal cost savings and convenience. There is an associated reduction in government-assisted travel costs to larger centres as well as decreased waiting lists.

Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness criteria are frequently used to assess quality of care. However, assessing care in one country with criteria developed in another may be misleading. One approach to measuring care across countries would be to develop common standards using physicians from different countries and specialties.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the degree to which appropriateness ratings for coronary revascularization developed by a multinational panel differ by panelist specialty and nationality.

METHODS

A 13-member panel of cardiothoracic surgeons and cardiologists from the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom was convened to rate the appropriateness of 842 indications for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) on a 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate) scale.

MEASURES

Mean appropriateness ratings by panelist specialty and nationality.

RESULTS

Surgeons' mean ratings for PTCA indications ranged from 0.64 points lower than the corresponding ratings of the cardiologists for acute myocardial infarction indications to 1.22 points lower for chronic stable angina indications. Conversely, their ratings for bypass surgery indications ranged from 0.59 points higher for chronic stable angina indications to 0.69 points higher for unstable angina indications. Although Spanish panelists' ratings were significantly higher than the mean for 3 of the 4 clinical conditions treated by PTCA, their ratings were similar for bypass surgery indications. No specific patterns were observed in the ratings of the panelists from the other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the use of physicians from multiple specialties on appropriateness panels because they represent more divergent views than physicians from a single specialty. Finding no systematic difference in beliefs regarding the appropriateness of PTCA and CABG among physicians from different countries will require confirmation before multinational panels supplant single country panels in future studies.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

European criteria for the appropriateness and necessity of coronary revascularization procedures

OBJECTIVES

Large variations in the use of coronary revascularization procedures have led many countries to apply the RAND appropriateness method to develop specific criteria describing patients who should be offered these procedures. The method is based on the work of a multidisciplinary expert panel that reviews a synthesis of the scientific evidence and rates the appropriateness of a comprehensive list of indications for the procedure being studied. Previous studies, however, have all involved single-country panels. We tested the feasibility of carrying out a multinational panel to rate the appropriateness and necessity of coronary revascularization, thereby producing recommendations for common European criteria.

METHODS

Using the RAND methodology, a multispecialty (interventional cardiologists, non-interventional cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons), multinational (The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) panel rated the appropriateness and necessity of indications for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). A synthesis of the evidence and list of indications for PTCA and CABG were sent to 15 panelists, three from each country, who performed their ratings in three rounds.

RESULTS

For PTCA, 24% of the indications were appropriate and necessary, 16% were appropriate, 43% were uncertain and 17% were inappropriate. The corresponding values for CABG were 33% appropriate and necessary, 7% appropriate, 40% uncertain and 20% inappropriate. The proportion of indications rated with disagreement was 4% for PTCA and 7% for CABG.

CONCLUSION

Multinational panels appear to be a feasible method of addressing issues concerning the appropriateness and necessity of medical procedures in western European countries. The criteria produced provide a common tool that can be used to measure the overuse and underuse of medical procedures and to guide decision-making.