Indications for cholecystectomy: The results of a consensus panel approach

Gerald M. Fraser, Dinah Pilpel, Sally Hollis, Jacqueline Kosecoff, Robert H. Brook

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    17 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    A Consensus panel approach was used in Israel to develop a list of clinical indications for which there was agreement that cholecystectomy should be performed. Nine physicians from different disciplines were asked to score a list of 266 clinical indications for cholecystectomy. Each indication was scored on a scale of 1 (inappropriate, i.e. health risks exceed health benefits) to 9 (appropriate, i.e. benefits exceed risks). Each indication also included one of four comorbidity levels (none to high). Agreement and disagreement were defined and panelists met to discuss, modify and rescore the list. The composition of the panel and definitions of agreement had a considerable impact on the preparation of a list of agreed, appropriate indications for cholecystectomy. Gastroenterologists in the panel were less likely to recommend surgery than either surgeons or general internists both before and after the panel discussion. Following the discussion the level of agreement (defined as after discarding the highest and lowest score all of the remaining seven panelists were in a 3-point range) increased from 39% to 46% (p < 0.08) and disagreement decreased from 27% to 18% (p < 0.01). Fifty-nine of the 266 indications were considered appropriate with agreement.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)75-80
    Number of pages6
    JournalInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care
    Volume5
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1 Dec 1993

    Keywords

    • Appropriate
    • Cholecystectomy
    • Comorbidity
    • Consensus agreement
    • Inappropriate
    • Indication
    • Panel
    • Score

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • General Medicine

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Indications for cholecystectomy: The results of a consensus panel approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this