Steven J. Bernstein

The concepts of appropriate and necessary care are fundamental to the creation of an efficient and equitable health-care delivery system. Evidence of inappropriate overuse and underuse of procedures has been documented even in health systems characterised by the absence of global budgets, capitation, utilisation review or the pressure of requiring a second opinion. Health systems should function in such a way that inappropriate care is progressively reduced, while appropriate and especially necessary care are maintained or increased. The ability to determine and identify which care is overused and which is underused is essential to this functioning. To this end, the "RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method" (here given the acronym RAM) was developed by RAND and UCLA in the 198Os. It has been further developed and refined in North America and, increasingly, in Europe.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. SETTING: There has been increasing use of decision support technologies--adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. METHODS: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. RESULTS: IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.

BACKGROUND: N-Acetylcysteine, theophylline, and other agents have shown inconsistent results in reducing contrast-induced nephropathy. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of these agents on preventing nephropathy. DATA SOURCES: Relevant randomized, controlled trials were identified by computerized searches in MEDLINE (from 1966 through 3 November 2006), EMBASE (1980 through November 2006), PubMed, Web of Knowledge (Current Contents Connect, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, and ISI Proceedings for the latest 5 years), and the Cochrane Library databases (up to November 2006). Databases were searched for studies in English, Spanish, French, Italian, and German. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that administered N-acetylcysteine, theophylline, fenoldopam, dopamine, iloprost, statin, furosemide, or mannitol to a treatment group; used intravenous iodinated contrast; defined contrast-induced nephropathy explicitly; and reported sufficient data to construct a 2 x 2 table of the primary effect measure. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracted information included patient characteristics, type of contrast media and dose, periprocedural hydration, definition of contrast-induced nephropathy, and prophylactic agent dose and route. DATA SYNTHESIS: In the 41 studies included, N-acetylcysteine (relative risk, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88]) and theophylline (relative risk, 0.49 [CI, 0.23 to 1.06]) reduced the risk for contrast-induced nephropathy more than saline alone, whereas furosemide increased it (relative risk, 3.27 [CI, 1.48 to 7.26]). The remaining agents did not significantly affect risk. Significant subgroup heterogeneity was present only for N-acetylcysteine. No publication bias was discerned. LIMITATIONS: All trials evaluated the surrogate end point of contrast-induced nephropathy as the primary outcome. The lack of a statistically significant renoprotective effect of theophylline may result from insufficient data or study heterogeneity. True study quality remains uncertain. CONCLUSION: N-acetylcysteine is more renoprotective than hydration alone. Theophylline may also reduce risk for contrast-induced nephropathy, although the detected association was not significant. Our data support the administration of N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients, given its low cost, availability, and few side effects.

BACKGROUND: To assess the overuse and underuse of medical procedures, various methods have been developed, but their reproducibility has not been evaluated. This study estimates the reproducibility of one commonly used method. METHODS: We performed a parallel, three-way replication of the RAND-University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method as applied to two medical procedures, coronary revascularization and hysterectomy. Three nine-member multidisciplinary panels of experts were composed for each procedure by stratified random sampling from a list of experts nominated by the relevant specialty societies. Each panel independently rated the same set of clinical scenarios in terms of the appropriateness of the relevant procedure on a risk-benefit scale ranging from 1 to 9. Final ratings were used to classify the procedure in each scenario as necessary or not necessary (to evaluate underuse) and inappropriate or not inappropriate (to evaluate overuse). Reproducibility was measured by overall agreement and by the kappa statistic. The criteria for underuse and overuse derived from these ratings were then applied to real populations of patients who had undergone coronary revascularization or hysterectomy. RESULTS: The rates of agreement among the three coronary-revascularization panels were 95, 94, and 96 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios and 93, 92, and 92 percent for necessary-use scenarios. Agreement among the three hysterectomy panels was 88, 70, and 74 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios. Scenarios involving necessary use of hysterectomy were not assessed. The three-way kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.52 for coronary revascularization and 0.51 for hysterectomy. The three-way kappa statistic to detect underuse of coronary revascularization was 0.83. Application of individual panels' criteria to real populations of patients resulted in a 100 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as inappropriate and a 20 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The appropriateness method is far from perfect. Appropriateness criteria may be useful in comparing levels of appropriate procedures among populations but should not by themselves be used to direct care for individual patients.