Gastroenterologists Overestimate the Appropriateness of Colonoscopies They Perform: An International Observational Study

Abstract

Background and Study Aim: Little is known about how gastroenterologists perceive the appropriateness of colonoscopies they perform. The objective of this study was to compare the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopies as assessed by an expert panel and by the gastroenterologists performing the colonoscopies.
Methods: This observational study included 21 centers in 11 countries. Patients referred for colonoscopy were consecutively included. Appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopies were independently rated on a 9-point scale by the gastroenterologists performing them and by an expert panel using a validated method (RAND). The differences between the ratings from the two groups were examined.
Results: 6004 patients were included in the study. Comparisons of ratings were possible for 5381 (89.6 %) patients. The gastroenterologists’ mean appropriateness rating was 7.2 ± 1.7, and the panel’s mean appropriateness rating was 5.4 ± 2.3 (P < 0.001). The percentages of indications rated inappropriate, uncertain, appropriate, and necessary were 4.1 %, 23.8 %, 14.2 %, and 58.0 % for the gastroenterologists and 27.2 %, 26.7 %, 25.0 %, and 21.1 % for the panel, respectively. Agreement between the two groups’ ratings was poor (28.8 %, kappa = 0.11). Differences between the two groups’ ratings decreased with increasing patient age, decreasing health status, and decreasing expertise level of the referring physician. However, the gastroenterologists produced consistently higher ratings.
Conclusions: Compared with an expert panel, gastroenterologists tend to overestimate the appropriateness of colonoscopies they perform. Except for well-delineated reasons, participating gastroenterologists weighed patient characteristics differently from the panel when judging appropriateness. Ways to increase the prospective use of appropriateness criteria in order to improve appropriateness and reduce overuse of colonoscopies should be examined further.

References

• 1 Brook R H, Chassin M R, Fink A. et al . A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies.  Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;  2 53-63
• 2 Park R E, Fink A, Brook R H. et al . Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures.  Am J Public Health. 1986;  76 766-772
• 3 Kahan J P, Bernstein S J, Leape L L. et al . Measuring the necessity of medical procedures.  Med Care. 1994;  32 357-365
• 4 Kahn K L, Kosecoff J, Chassin M R. et al . The use and misuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 1988;  109 664-670
• 5 Vader J P, Porchet F, Larequi-Lauber T. et al . Appropriateness of surgery for sciatica: reliability of guidelines from expert panels.  Spine. 2000;  25 1831-1836
• 6 Vader J P, Burnand B, Froehlich F. et al . The European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): project and methods.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 572-578
• 7 Bernstein S J, Lazaro P, Fitch K. et al . Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of appropriateness of coronary revascularization: a pilot study.  Med Care. 2001;  39 513-520
• 8 Campbell S M, Hann M, Roland M O. et al . The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial.  Med Care. 1999;  37 964-968
• 9 Herrin J, Etchason J A, Kahan J P. et al . Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations.  Health Policy. 1997;  42 67-81
• 10 Kahan J P, Park R E, Leape L L. et al . Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures.  Med Care. 1996;  34 512-523
• 11 Landrum M B, McNeil B G, Silva L. et al . Understanding variability in physician ratings of the appropriateness of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;  52 309-319
• 12 Tobacman J K, Scott I U, Cyphert S. et al . Reproducibility of measures of overuse of cataract surgery by three physician panels.  Med Care. 1999;  37 937-945
• 13 Ayanian J Z, Landrum M B, Normand S L. et al . Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography: do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other?.  N Engl J Med. 1998;  338 1896-1904
• 14 Nicollier-Fahrni A, Vader J P, Froehlich F. et al . Development of appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy: comparison between a standardized expert panel and an evidence-based medicine approach.  Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;  15 15-22
• 15 Kmieciak Le Corguillé M, Gaudric M, Sogni P. et al . Pertinence des indications de la coloscopie dans un service de gastroentérologie de l’AP-HP en 2001 [full text in English on www.e2med.com/gcb].  Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2003;  27 213-218
• 16 Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care . Colorectal cancer screening.  CMAJ. 2001;  165 206-208
• 17 Finnish Medical Society Duodecim .Prevention and screening of colorectal cancer. In: EBM Guidelines Evidence-Based Medicine (CD-ROM). Helsinki, Finland; Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd 2004
• 18 US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale.  Ann Intern Med. 2002;  137 129-131
• 19 Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D. et al . Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale - update based on new evidence.  Gastroenterology. 2003;  124 544-560
• 20 Shekelle P G, Kahan J P, Bernstein S J. et al . The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures.  N Engl J Med. 1998;  338 1888-1895
• 21 Redelmeier D A, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups.  N Engl J Med. 1990;  322 1162-1164
• 22 Wassertheil-Smoller S, Tobin J, Steingart R. et al . Assessing the appropriateness of medical care [letter].  N Engl J Med. 1998;  339 1478-1481
• 23 Naylor C D. What is appropriate care [editorial]?.  N Engl J Med. 1998;  338 1918-1920
• 24 Burnand B, Vader J P, Froehlich F. et al . Reliability of panel based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 162-166
• 25 Hemingway H, Crook A M, Feder G. et al . Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures in patients considered appropriate candidates for revascularization.  N Engl J Med. 2001;  344 645-654