Search

Background: Choosing Wisely is an international movement that stimulates conversations about unnecessary care. The campaign created five recommendations including a statement that less wound care is sometimes better. Aims: The study aims to evaluate nurses' and physicians' adherence to the Choosing Wisely recommendations for acute wound care in the Netherlands and the barriers and facilitators to improve this. Design: This is a mixed methods study using a survey and interviews. Methods: The survey was completed by 171 nurses and 71 physicians from November 2017 to February 2018. A total of 17 nurses and 6 physicians were interviewed. Results: Awareness of the five recommendations ranged from 62% to 89% for nurses and 46% to 85% for physicians. However, up to 15% of the nurses and 28% of physicians were aware but did not adhere to the recommendations. Barriers to adhering were a lack of knowledge, the work environment and perceptions of patients' preferences. Repeated attention, cost‐consciousness and an open culture facilitated the implementation. Conclusion: Although most nurses and physicians were aware of the recommendations, not all adhered to them. Increasing awareness is not enough for successful implementation. A tailored approach that removes the barriers is necessary, such as increasing knowledge about wounds and changing the work environment. Summary statement: What is already known on this topic? Less wound care is sometimes better: cleaning wounds with tap water only, not bathing wounds, using simple bandages and not using bandages on wounds healing by primary intention leads to better wound care for lower costs.It is unknown to what extent this is known and practiced by nurses and physicians and what barriers and facilitators they experience in practicing this. What this paper adds? Although the majority of nurses and physicians were aware of the Choosing Wisely recommendations for acute wounds, not all adhered to them.Awareness is not always sufficient for successful implementation, which requires a broader approach that targets the barriers. The implications of this paper Implementation of these recommendations can be improved by increasing knowledge about wounds and wound care, changing the work environment, and verifying the patient's presumed preferences regarding wound care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries. Methods: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a ‘more is better’ culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy. Conclusion: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective General practitioners have an important role in reducing low-value care as gatekeepers of the health system. The aim of this study was to assess the experiences of Dutch general practitioners regarding low-value care and to identify their needs to decrease low-value primary care. Design We performed a cross-sectional study. Participants We sent a survey to 500 general practitioners. Setting Primary care in the Netherlands. Primary and secondary outcomes The survey contained questions about the provision of low-value care and on clinical cases about lumbosacral spine X-rays in patients with low back pain and vitamin B12 laboratory tests without an evidence-based indication. We also asked general practitioners what they needed to reduce low-value care. Results A total of 182 general practitioners (37%) responded. 67% indicated that low-value care practices are regularly provided in general practice. 57% of the general practitioners have seen negative consequences of low-value care, in particular side effects of medication. The most provided low-value care practices are medication prescriptions such as antibiotics and laboratory tests such as vitamin B12 tests. The most reported drivers are patient-related. General practitioners want to maintain a good relationship with their patients by offering their patients an intervention instead of watchful waiting. Lack of time also plays a major role. In order to reduce low-value care, general practitioners suggested that educating patients on the value of tests and treatments might help. Supporting general practitioners and other healthcare professionals with clear guidelines as well as having more time for consultation were also mentioned by general practitioners. Conclusion General practitioners are aware of providing unnecessary care despite their role as gatekeepers and have reasons for this. They need support in order to change their practice. This support might consist of better education of healthcare professionals and providing more time for consultation. Local and national media, such as websites and television, could be used to educate patients while guidelines could support professionals in reducing low-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) often deal with patient requests, yet little is known about the types of requests and how GPs respond. We used real-life Dutch consultations (recorded in 2015) to identify how care is requested in clinical practice., Methods: We analysed sixty-six consultations using an inductively and deductively developed codebook. Coders categorised five items of patient requests: type, speaker, formulation, GP response, and resolution. Correlations between these items were analysed with chi-square analyses., Results: We identified 257 patient requests. Most requests concerned information or advice (n = 191, 74.3 %). When patients requested medical care, they often did so indirectly (χ 2 (1)= 69.66, p < .001). Request type predicted the resolution: GPs were more likely to meet requests for information than for medical care (χ 2 (1) = 5.45, p = .019). More than half of the medical care requests that were followed by an explanation were not met (n = 5, 55.6 %). When a request was not met, GPs used communication strategies such as offering alternatives, referencing examination results, and depersonalisation., Conclusions: Asking questions, co-construction of a request, and explaining are important diagnostic and therapeutic tools for GPs in conversing with the patient., Practice Implications: These conversational strategies could be trained to help GPs evaluate requests while maintaining a good GP-patient relationship., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Increasing pressure on the healthcare system makes it essential that we use limited resources efficiently. In addition to implementation of (cost-)effective care, de-implementation, the abolishment of ineffective care, is important. In two recent Dutch examples, on de-implementation of back pain care and tonsillectomies/adenotomies, it appears that de-implementation can take up to decades. Based on the literature, we describe facilitators and barriers for de-implementation: personal factors of the practitioner (e.g. knowledge), socio-political (e.g. insured care) factors, factors related to the innovation (e.g. guidelines) and organizational (e.g. healthcare procurement) factors. De-implementation can be accelerated by focusing on these factors; e.g. through further adjustment of compensation systems and improvement of (applicability of) guidelines in combination with (de)implementation activities (such as training and campaigns).