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.

[1]  F. Rocca,et al.  The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system , 2000 .

[2]  Alessandro Liberati,et al.  Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal , 2000, The Lancet.

[3]  B. Burnand,et al.  The European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): project and methods. , 1999, Endoscopy.

[4]  B. Burnand,et al.  European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): Conclusion and WWW Site , 1999, Endoscopy.

[5]  J P Kahan,et al.  The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  R. Brook,et al.  Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison. , 1998, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[7]  D. Blumenthal,et al.  Is gatekeeping better than traditional care? A survey of physicians' attitudes. , 1997, JAMA.

[8]  R. Brook,et al.  Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care. , 1997, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  R. Brook,et al.  Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria. , 1997, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[10]  D. Ballard,et al.  Eight recommendations for maximizing the return on investment in external quality oversight. , 1997, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[11]  L. Leape,et al.  Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. , 1996, Medical care.

[12]  A. Tuffs Germany compromises in new abortion law , 1995, The Lancet.

[13]  D. Mechanic Dilemmas in rationing health care services: the case for implicit rationing , 1995, BMJ.

[14]  D. Levin,et al.  Trends in use of barium enema examination, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy: is use commensurate with risk of disease? , 1995, Radiology.

[15]  J. Marshall,et al.  Open-access endoscopy: Are the referals appropriate? , 1995 .

[16]  P. R. Lee Models of excellence , 1994, The Lancet.

[17]  Barbara Starfield,et al.  Is primary care essential? , 1994, The Lancet.

[18]  R. Brook,et al.  Effect of panel composition on appropriateness ratings. , 1994, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[19]  L. Leape,et al.  Measuring the Necessity of Medical Procedures , 1994, Medical care.

[20]  R H Brook,et al.  Appropriateness: the next frontier , 1994, BMJ.

[21]  R. Haynes Some Problems in Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice a , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[22]  S. Schoenbaum Toward fewer procedures and better outcomes. , 1993, JAMA.

[23]  R. Smith,et al.  The ethics of ignorance. , 1992, Journal of medical ethics.

[24]  C. Clancy,et al.  Gatekeeping revisited--protecting patients from overtreatment. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  D. Fleischer,et al.  Results from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/U.S. Food and Drug Administration collaborative study on complication rates and drug use during gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 1991, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[26]  B. Scott Endoscopic demands in the 90's. , 1990, Gut.

[27]  R. Brook,et al.  Practice guidelines and practicing medicine. Are they compatible? , 1989, JAMA.

[28]  J. Morrissey The problem of the inappropriate endoscopy. , 1988, Annals of internal medicine.

[29]  K. Kahn,et al.  Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. , 1986, American journal of public health.

[30]  R H Brook,et al.  A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies , 1986, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.