The Effect of Comorbidity on Appropriateness Ratings for Two Gastrointestinal Procedures
Download Free Electronic Document
|PDF file||0.5 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
Purchase Print Copy
|Add to Cart||Paperback8 pages||$20.00||$16.00 20% Web Discount|
The authors evaluated the effect of patients' comorbidity on the appropriateness of performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or cholecystectomy. A nine-member national physician panel rated 1,118 brief clinical scenarios for patients without comorbidity. Ratings were then repeated for patients with increasing degrees of comorbidity. As comorbidity changed from none to medium, 60 percent of those scenarios that were originally rated as appropriate for endoscopy and cholecystectomy remained appropriate. As high comorbidity was introduced, only 13 percent of such scenarios remained appropriate for endoscopy, while 33 percent remained appropriate for cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that, although clinical reasons for performing procedures are a powerful determinant of when they should be used, comorbidity is also important and needs to be included in any assessment of the appropriateness of procedure use.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
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.