EFFECT OF PANEL COMPOSITION ON PHYSICIAN RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF ABDOMINAL AORTIC-ANEURYSM SURGERY - ELUCIDATING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MULTISPECIALTY PANEL RESULTS AND SPECIALTY SOCIETY RECOMMENDATIONS

Objective: to investigate how the composition of multispecialty physic ian panels is associated with both the summary ratings assigned by suc h panels and the agreement of such panels with the recommendations of specialty societies. Data sources/study setting: we examined the final ratings assigned by a nine-member multispecialty RAND Corporation phy sician panel regarding indications for abdominal aortic aneurysm surge ry and the recommendations of a specialty society representing vascula r surgeons who perform the same surgery. Study design: the panel was r etrospectively divided into two sub-panels, one composed of the three vascular surgeons on the panel and the other composed of the six remai ning physicians. We analyzed the two sub-panels' rating patterns with respect to each other and with respect to concurrent guidelines genera ted by the Joint Council of the Society of Vascular Surgery and the No rth American Chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular S urgery. Principal findings: of the 782 indications considered by the p anel for appropriateness, the vascular surgeons had an average of mean ratings for appropriateness of 5.1, significantly higher than the 4.5 average of the other physicians. Across the 221 indications considere d by the panel for necessity, the vascular surgeons had an average of mean necessity ratings of 6.8, significantly higher than the 5.8 avera ge of the other physicians. The vascular surgeons' rankings of agreeme nt with the guidelines of the Joint Council were significantly higher than those of the physician panelists from other specialties. Conclusi ons: statements of clinical appropriateness and necessity produced by summarizing ratings assigned to indications by expert panel members ma y disguise marked underlying disagreements among well-defined groups o f practitioners within these panels. In the case of abdominal aortic a neurysm management, these disagreements within the RAND panel explain the marked discrepancy between the RAND multidisciplinary panel rating s and the recommendations issued by vascular surgeon professional soci eties. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.