Dataset Information

Evidence for Policy Making: Clinical Appropriateness Study of Lumbar Spine MRI Prescriptions Using RAND Appropriateness Method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

MRI is a new and expensive diagnostic technology, which has been used increasingly all over the world. Low back pain is a worldwide prevalent disorder and MRI technique is one of the several ways to diagnose it. This paper aims to identify the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI prescriptions in Shiraz teaching hospitals using standardized RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) criteria in 2012.

Methods

This study consisted of two phases. The first phase involved a qualitative enquiry and the second phase had a quantitative cross-sectional nature. In the first phase RAM was used for developing lumbar spine MRI indications and scenarios. In the second phase, the finalized scenarios were compared with the history and physical examination of 300 patients with low back pain. The rate of appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI prescription was then calculated.

Results

Of 300 cases of lumbar spine MRI prescriptions, approximately 167 (56%) were considered inappropriate, 72 (24%) were uncertain, and 61 (20%) were deemed to be appropriate. The economic burden of inappropriate prescriptions was calculated at 88,009,000 Rials. In addition, the types of expertise and physical examination were considered as related factors to appropriateness of prescriptions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a large proportion of lumbar spine MRI prescriptions, which result in financial burden on the insurance companies and the patients alike is unnecessary. This study suggests that policy makers consider this evidence while decision-making. Our findings highlight the imperative role of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). As a result, developing local clinical guidelines may create the commitment needed in physicians in prescribing appropriate prescriptions within the health sector. The study further recommends that appropriate scenarios should be considered as a criterion for payment and reimbursement.

SUBMITTER: Salari H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3937931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations have been adopted internationally as a measure of health system performance; however, few assess appropriate processes of care around medication use, that if followed may prevent hospitalisation. The aim of this study was to develop and validate evidence-based medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations.Australian primary healthcare.Medical specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists. A modified RAND appropriateness method was used for the development of medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations, which included a literature review, assessment of the strength of the supporting evidence base, an initial face and content validity by an expert panel, followed by an independent assessment of indicators by an expert clinical panel across various disciplines, using an online survey.Analysis of ratings was performed on the four key elements of preventability; the medication-related problem must be recognisable, the adverse outcomes foreseeable and the causes and outcomes identifiable and controllable.A total of 48 potential indicators across all major disease groupings were developed based on level III evidence or greater, that were independently assessed by 78 expert clinicians (22.1% response rate). The expert panel considered 29 of these (60.4%) sufficiently valid. Of these, 21 (72.4%) were based on level I evidence.This study provides a set of face and content validated indicators of medication-related potentially preventable hospitalisations, linking suboptimal processes of care and medication use with subsequent hospitalisation. Further analysis is required to establish operational validity in a population-based sample, using an administrative health database. Implementation of these indicators within routine monitoring of healthcare systems will highlight those conditions where hospitalisations could potentially be avoided through improved medication management.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed.MethodsWe developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings.ResultsPanelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1?s or 2?s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7?s 8?s or 9?s) were represented by these a priori categories.DiscussionThe findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety.ConclusionWe have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Project description:PurposeTo summarize the results of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)'s analysis of appropriate delivery of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for endometrial cancer using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, outline areas of convergence and divergence with the 2014 ASTRO endometrial Guideline, and highlight where this analysis provides new information or perspective.Methods and materialsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine available evidence with expert opinion. A comprehensive literature review was conducted and a multidisciplinary panel rated the appropriateness of RT options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by the median rating as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Inappropriate.ResultsThe ASTRO endometrial Guideline and this analysis using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method did not recommend adjuvant RT for early-stage, low-risk endometrioid cancers and largely agree regarding use of vaginal brachytherapy for low-intermediate and high-intermediate risk patients. For more advanced endometrioid cancer, chemotherapy with RT is supported by both documents. The Guideline and the RAND/UCLA analysis diverged regarding use of pelvic radiation. For stages II and III, this analysis rated external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy Appropriate, whereas the Guideline preferred external beam alone. In addition, this analysis offers insight on the role of histology, extent of nodal dissection, and para-aortic nodal irradiation; the use of intensity modulated RT; and management of stage IVA.ConclusionsThis analysis based on the RAND/UCLA Method shows significant agreement with the 2014 endometrial Guideline. Areas of divergence, often in scenarios with low-level evidence, included use of external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy in stages II and III and external beam RT alone in early-stage patients. Furthermore, the analysis explores other important questions regarding management of this disease site.