Search

Background: For patients undergoing surgery at an Ambulatory Surgical Center, recent changes to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy allow for the omission of a 30-day preoperative History and Physical (H&P). Preoperative H&Ps for low-risk surgery may contribute to health care waste and lead to unnecessary preoperative testing and treatment cascades., Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with surgeons who frequently perform low-risk surgeries. We aimed to evaluate surgeon perspectives on the continued use of the 30-day preoperative H&P and specifically the potential risks and benefits associated with the elimination of a preoperative H&P requirement from institutional practice. We used an interpretive description approach to generate a thematic description., Results: Most participants felt that the 30-day preoperative H&P was low value and frequently described it as "unnecessary," "redundant," or "just checking a box." Many viewed the 30-day requirement as arbitrary and felt that new H&P findings were rare and unlikely to influence surgical care. The participants who favored the preoperative H&P felt it was a safeguard to ensure "nothing was missed" and were less likely to be burdened by the requirement than participants who felt it was low value., Conclusions: Surgeons performing low-risk procedures question the utility and value of conducting a preoperative H&P within 30 days of surgery. De-implementation of the 30-day preoperative H&P for low-risk patients may increase convenience for patients and providers. Furthermore, it may improve value in surgery by increasing access to services for patients with greater need for preoperative assessment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) lacks evidence of effectiveness in the care of schizophrenia or other disorders for which antipsychotic drugs are indicated, also exposing patients to more risks. Authors assessed APP prevalence and APP association with beneficiary race/ethnicity and payer among publicly-insured adults regardless of diagnosis. Retrospective repeated panel study of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, Medicaid, and dually-eligible white, black, and Latino adults residing in California, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, or West Virginia, filling antipsychotic prescriptions between July 2008 and June 2013. Primary outcome was any monthly APP utilization. Across states and payers, 11% to 21% of 397,533 antipsychotic users and 12% to 19% of 9,396,741 person-months had some APP utilization. Less than 50% of person-months had a schizophrenia diagnosis and up to 19% had no diagnosed mental illness. Payer modified race/ethnicity effects on APP utilization only in CA; however, the odds of APP utilization remained lower for minorities than for whites. Elsewhere, the odds varied by race/ethnicity only in OK, with Latinos having lower odds than whites (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.96). The odds of APP utilization varied by payer in several study states, with odds generally higher for Dual eligibles, although the differences were generally small; the odds also varied by year (lower at study end). APP was frequently utilized but mostly declined over time. APP utilization patterns varied across states, with no consistent association with race/ethnicity and small payer effects. Greater use of APP-reducing strategies are needed, particularly among non-schizophrenia populations., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

This study systematically maps empirical research on physicians' views and experiences of hedging-type defensive medicine, which involves providing services (eg, tests, referrals) to reduce perceived legal risks. Such practices drive over-treatment and low value healthcare. Data sources were empirical, English-language publications in health, legal and multi-disciplinary databases. The extraction framework covered: where and when the research was conducted; what methods of data collection were used; who the study participants were; and what were the study aims, main findings in relation to hedging-type defensive practices, and proposed solutions. 79 papers met inclusion criteria. Defensive medicine has mainly been studied in the United States and European countries using quantitative surveys. Surgery and obstetrics have been key fields of investigation. Hedging-type practices were commonly reported, including: ordering unnecessary tests, treatments and referrals; suggesting invasive procedures against professional judgment; ordering hospitalisation or delaying discharge; and excessive documentation in medical records. Defensive practice was often framed around the threat of negligence lawsuits, but studies recognised other legal risks, including patient complaints and regulatory investigations. Potential solutions to defensive medicine were identified at macro (law, policy), meso (organisation, profession) and micro (physician) levels. Areas for future research include qualitative studies to investigate the behavioural drivers of defensive medicine and intervention research to determine policies and practices that work to support clinicians in de-implementing defensive, low-value care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Low-value care is the provision of procedures and treatments that provide little or no benefit to patients while increasing the cost of health care. This study examined the provision of low-value care in the Military Heath System (MHS), comparing care delivered in civilian health care facilities (purchased care) to care delivered in Department of Defense-controlled health care facilities (direct care). We used 2014 TRICARE claims data to evaluate the provision of nineteen previously developed measures of low-value care, including diagnostic, screening, and monitoring tests and therapeutic procedures. Of these, six measures appeared more frequently in direct care, while eleven measures appeared more frequently in purchased care-which may reflect the outsourcing of specialist services from the former to the latter. Magnetic resonance imaging for low back pain emerged as the most common low-value service in both care environments and could represent a target for future interventions. As the MHS and the United States increasingly focus on value-based care, the identification of low-value services accompanied by efforts to reduce such inefficient practices could provide greater quality of care at a lower cost.

Background: Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial., Methods/design: This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies., Discussion: Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018.