Panellist Consistency in the Assessment of Medical Appropriateness

Published in: Health Policy, v. 37, no. 3, Sep. 1996, p. 139-152

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 1996

by Joseph McDonnell, Annejet P. Meijler, James P. Kahan, Steven J. Bernstein, Henk Rigter

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.sciencedirect.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Where information about the appropriateness of a surgical procedure is lacking, expert panels have been used to establish guidelines for medical practitioners. Such a panel was convened to assess the appropriateness of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the Netherlands. The panel, consisting of interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons, used a modified Delphi process to rate two rounds of 1,126 clinical indications. This article describes the degree of change in both agreement among members and the appropriateness ratings over the two rounds, and examines the internal consistency of the ratings of individual panelists. Over the two rounds, agreement increased. Although most appropriateness ratings remained unchanged, there was significant movement from equivocal to determinate ratings. While individual members showed a small degree of inconsistency in their scoring, the panel as a whole scored very consistently. The observed changes in appropriateness were consistent with what the authors expected, showing that the appropriateness method is used logically and consistently by panelists.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.