Cover: Panellist Consistency in the Assessment of Medical Appropriateness

Panellist Consistency in the Assessment of Medical Appropriateness

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

Posted on on January 01, 1996

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

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.

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.