Search

Objectives: High variation in clinical practice may indicate uncertainty and potentially low-value care. Methods to identify low value care are often not well defined or transparent and can be time intensive. In this paper we explore the usefulness of variation analysis of routinely-collected data about surgical procedures in England to identify potentially low-value surgical care. Methods: This is a national ecological study using Hospital Episode Statistics linked to mid-year population estimates and indices of multiple deprivation in England, 2014/15-2018/19. We identified the top 5% of surgical procedures in terms of growth in standardised procedure rates for 2014/15 to 2018/19 and variation in procedure rates between clinical commissioning groups as measured by the systematic component of variance (SCV). A targeted literature review was conducted to explore the evidence for each of the identified techniques. Procedures without evidence of cost-effectiveness were viewed as of potentially low value. Results: We identified six surgical procedures that had a high growth rate of 37% or more over 5 years, and four with higher geographical variation (SCV >1.6). There was evidence for two of the 10 procedures that surgery was more cost-effective than non-surgical treatment albeit with uncertainty around optimal surgical technique. The evidence base for eight procedures was less clear cut, with uncertainty around clinical- and/or cost-effectiveness. These were: deep brain stimulation; removing the prostate; surgical spine procedures; a procedure to alleviate pain in the spine; surgery for dislocated joints due to trauma and associated surgery for traumatic fractures; hip joint replacement with cemented pelvic component or cemented femoral component; and shoulder joint replacement. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that variation analysis could be regularly used to identify potentially low-value procedures. This can provide important insights into optimising services and the potential de-adoption of costly interventions and treatments that do not benefit patients and the health system more widely. Early identification of potentially low value care can inform prioritisation of clinical trials to generate evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before treatments become established in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Bronchiolitis is the commonest reason for hospitalisation amongst infants and is often a target for low‐value care (LVC) reduction. We aimed to assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention (clinician education, parent engagement, audit‐feedback) on rates of chest x‐rays (CXR) in bronchiolitis. Methods: Longitudinal study of CXRs ordered in infants (1–12 months) diagnosed with bronchiolitis in the Emergency Department (ED) of an Australian paediatric hospital between May 2016 and February 2023. We used logistic regression to measure the impact of the intervention on unwarranted CXR orders, controlling for other potential impacting variables such as time, patient characteristics (age/sex), clinical variables (fever, hypoxia, tachypnoea), seasonal factors (month, day of the week, business hours) and time passed since intervention. Results: Ten thousand one hundred and nine infants were diagnosed with bronchiolitis in the ED over the study period, with 939 (9.3%) receiving a CXR, of which 69% (n = 651) were considered unwarranted. Rates of unwarranted CXRs reduced from 7.9% to 5.4% post‐intervention (P < 0.0001). Logistic regression showed the intervention had no significant effect (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65–1.23) once other variables and underlying time‐based trends were accounted for. Conclusions: Although pre‐post rates appeared significantly improved, a robust analysis demonstrated that our multi‐faceted intervention was not effective in reducing CXRs in bronchiolitis. The decision to order CXR was associated with clinical features that overlap with pneumonia suggesting ongoing misconceptions regarding the role of CXR for this indication. Our study highlights the value of large electronic medical record datasets and robust methodology to avoid falsely attributing underlying trends to the LVC intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Hospital costs continue to rise unsustainably. Up to 20% of care is wasteful including low value care (LVC). This study aimed to understand whether electronic medical record (EMR) alerts are effective at reducing pediatric LVC and measure the impact on hospital costs. Materials and Methods Using EMR data over a 76-month period, we evaluated changes in 4 LVC practices following the implementation of EMR alerts, using time series analysis to control for underlying time-based trends, in a large pediatric hospital in Australia. The main outcome measure was the change in rate of each LVC practice. Balancing measures included the rate of alert adherence as a proxy measure for risk of alert fatigue. Hospital costs were calculated by the volume of LVC avoided multiplied by the unit costs. Costs of the intervention were calculated from clinician and analyst time required. Results All 4 LVC practices showed a statistically significant reduction following alert implementation. Two LVC practices (blood tests) showed an abrupt change, associated with high rates of alert adherence. The other 2 LVC practices (bronchodilator use in bronchiolitis and electrocardiogram ordering for sleeping bradycardia) showed an accelerated rate of improvement compared to baseline trends with lower rates of alert adherence. Hospital savings were $325 to $180 000 per alert. Discussion and Conclusion EMR alerts are effective in reducing pediatric LVC practices and offer a cost-saving opportunity to the hospital. Further efforts to leverage EMR alerts in pediatric settings to reduce LVC are likely to support future sustainable healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project’s patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis. Results The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity. Conclusions Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.

Background: The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project's patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis. Results: The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity. Conclusions: Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects. Plain English Summary: Evaluating patient engagement in research is often not done or not reported, making it hard to know what engagement strategies work best and when. Here, we provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Innovative Clinical Trial Multi-Year Grant. The project focuses on strategies to reduce two low-value care practices (pre-operative testing in low-risk day surgery and imaging for low back pain). An online survey was sent to project researchers, study staff and patient partners to get their opinions on the patient engagement in the project. Generally, there were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in the project. Both patient partners and research study staff were very willing to be involved with patient engagement in future projects. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. An important part of showing the value of patient partners was working together to design the project and making sure that the patient partners were considered full members of the research team. Areas for improvement included better communication among all team members and earlier training about patient engagement with a focus on patient roles and expectations. The results from this survey will be used to improve the patient engagement in this project but will also help patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative.Methods The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (ie, potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting.Results An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game).Conclusion The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user’s ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

Abstract Background As health care spending reaches unsustainable levels, improving value has become an increasingly important policy priority. Relatively little research has explored factors driving value. As a first step towards filling this gap, we performed a scoping review of the literature to identify potential drivers of health care value. Methods Searches of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Policy File, and SCOPUS were conducted between February and March 2020. Empirical studies that explored associations between any range of factors and value (loosely defined as quality or outcomes relative to cost) were eligible for inclusion. We created a template in Microsoft Excel for data extraction and evaluated the quality of included articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality appraisal tool. Data was synthesized using narrative methods. Results Twenty-two studies were included in analyses, of which 20 focused on low value service utilization. Independent variables represented a range of system-, hospital-, provider-, and patient-level characteristics. Although results were mixed, several consistent findings emerged. First, insurance incentive structures may affect value. For example, patients in Accountable Care Organizations had reduced rates of low value care utilization compared to patients in traditionally structured insurance plans. Second, higher intensity of care was associated with higher rates of low value care. Third, culture is likely to contribute to value. This was suggested by findings that recent medical school graduation and allopathic training were associated with reduced low value service utilization and that provider organizations had larger effects on value than did individual physicians. Conclusions System, hospital, provider, and community characteristics influence low value care provision. To improve health care value, strategies aiming to reduce utilization of low value services and promote high value care across various levels will be essential.

Abstract Background Ordering of computed tomography (CT) scans needs to consideration of diagnostic utility as well as resource utilisation and radiation exposure. Several factors influence ordering decisions, including evidence-based clinical decision support tools to rule out serious disease. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing Emergency Department (ED) doctors’ decisions to order CT of the head or cervical spine. Methods In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED doctors from two affiliated public hospitals. An interview tool with 10 questions, including three hypothetical scenarios, was developed and validated to guide discussions. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with field notes. Transcribed data were imported into NVivo Release 1.3 to facilitate coding and thematic analysis. Results In total 21 doctors participated in semi-structured interviews between February and December 2020; mean interview duration was 35 min. Data saturation was reached. Participants ranged from first-year interns to experienced consultants. Five overarching emerging themes were: 1) health system and local context, 2) work structure and support, 3) professional practices and responsibility, 4) reliable patient information, and 5) holistic patient-centred care. Mapping of themes and sub-themes against a behaviour change model provided a basis for future interventions. Conclusions CT ordering is complex and multifaceted. Multiple factors are considered by ED doctors during decisions to order CT scans for head or c-spine injuries. Increased education on the use of clinical decision support tools and an overall strategy to improve awareness of low-value care is needed. Strategies to reduce low-yield CT ordering will need to be sustainable, sophisticated and supportive to achieve lasting change.

Abstract Background Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians’ ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour. Methods A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in ‘Choosing Wisely’ initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change. Results All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians’ perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians’ desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences. Conclusions The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians’ understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care.

According to the Lancet, "climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century". The containment of global warming, in line with the goals set at the Glasgow conference of 2021, should therefore be placed above all else. In reality, the answers are still insufficient and surprisingly the health sector, at least in Italy, seems to be among the least sensitive, as if the production of CO2 did not concern it. Yet, given the heavy health consequences associated with climate change, doctors and health professionals should be at the forefront. Especially since the health sector, with 4-5% of the total, contributes significantly to the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. A value that places it in first place among services, more or less double that of all air transport. Important international associations such as Health Care Without Harm, recommend that all those with decision-making responsibilities in the health sector should have their own "Road Map" to move closer to the Glasgow goals. Interventions should be directed on several fronts: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; limiting transfers and improve transport efficiency; reducing the volume of medical waste; promoting healthy and sustainable nutrition; containing environmental pollution by drugs and anesthetic gases and reducing unnecessary tests and treatments. It is now time for action and health professionals should always evaluate the consequences of their choices on ecosystems, trying to adopt the safest alternatives. Even small changes in current practice, if generalized, can achieve important results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative. Methods: The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (ie, potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting. Results: An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game). Conclusion: The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Objective: Certain medical practices, both diagnostic and therapeutic, that have not been proven to be effective and do not add value to healthcare, are not uncommon. The aim of this document is to provide a list of «Not to do» recommendations in the medical specialty of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation., Material and Method: For the development of this project, which is coordinated by the Vocalía de Sociedades Filiales, Sociedades Autonómicas y Grupos de Trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación (SERMEF), specific recommendations are requested from Grupos de Trabajo and Sociedades Filiales of each specific field of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, as experts in the corresponding intervention areas. A maximum of three recommendations per sub-specialty area are selected., Results: Recommendations «Not to do» are collected from SENR/SERDACE/NRN (Sociedad Española de Neurorrehabilitación/Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación en Daño Cerebral/Grupo de Trabajo Neurorrehabilitación Norte), SORECAR (Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación Cardiorrespiratoria), ArtroReha (Grupo de Trabajo de Rehabilitación en Artrosis), GTRVEST (Grupo de Trabajo de Rehabilitación Vestibular), GTLINF (Grupo de Trabajo de Rehabilitación de Linfedema), GTRO (Grupo de Trabajo de Rehabilitación en Osteoporosis), Rehabilitación Parálisis Facial. Out of a total of 35 recommendations, supported by scientific evidence and medical experience, 18 have been selected. The selection criteria are based on the relevance, pragmatism and specificity of the recommendations. Each recommendation is accompanied by a text that clarifies and/or develops the statement., Conclusions: This project includes a series of recommendations, by expert rehabilitation physicians, of actions not to be performed while delivering medical assistance. SERMEF offers a list of recommendations «Not to do in Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine», supported by scientific evidence and clinical experience., (Copyright © 2024 Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación y Medicina Física. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: As health care spending reaches unsustainable levels, improving value has become an increasingly important policy priority. Relatively little research has explored factors driving value. As a first step towards filling this gap, we performed a scoping review of the literature to identify potential drivers of health care value.Methods: Searches of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Policy File, and SCOPUS were conducted between February and March 2020. Empirical studies that explored associations between any range of factors and value (loosely defined as quality or outcomes relative to cost) were eligible for inclusion. We created a template in Microsoft Excel for data extraction and evaluated the quality of included articles using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality appraisal tool. Data was synthesized using narrative methods.Results: Twenty-two studies were included in analyses, of which 20 focused on low value service utilization. Independent variables represented a range of system-, hospital-, provider-, and patient-level characteristics. Although results were mixed, several consistent findings emerged. First, insurance incentive structures may affect value. For example, patients in Accountable Care Organizations had reduced rates of low value care utilization compared to patients in traditionally structured insurance plans. Second, higher intensity of care was associated with higher rates of low value care. Third, culture is likely to contribute to value. This was suggested by findings that recent medical school graduation and allopathic training were associated with reduced low value service utilization and that provider organizations had larger effects on value than did individual physicians.Conclusions: System, hospital, provider, and community characteristics influence low value care provision. To improve health care value, strategies aiming to reduce utilization of low value services and promote high value care across various levels will be essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ordering of computed tomography (CT) scans needs to consideration of diagnostic utility as well as resource utilisation and radiation exposure. Several factors influence ordering decisions, including evidence-based clinical decision support tools to rule out serious disease. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing Emergency Department (ED) doctors' decisions to order CT of the head or cervical spine.Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED doctors from two affiliated public hospitals. An interview tool with 10 questions, including three hypothetical scenarios, was developed and validated to guide discussions. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with field notes. Transcribed data were imported into NVivo Release 1.3 to facilitate coding and thematic analysis.Results: In total 21 doctors participated in semi-structured interviews between February and December 2020; mean interview duration was 35 min. Data saturation was reached. Participants ranged from first-year interns to experienced consultants. Five overarching emerging themes were: 1) health system and local context, 2) work structure and support, 3) professional practices and responsibility, 4) reliable patient information, and 5) holistic patient-centred care. Mapping of themes and sub-themes against a behaviour change model provided a basis for future interventions.Conclusions: CT ordering is complex and multifaceted. Multiple factors are considered by ED doctors during decisions to order CT scans for head or c-spine injuries. Increased education on the use of clinical decision support tools and an overall strategy to improve awareness of low-value care is needed. Strategies to reduce low-yield CT ordering will need to be sustainable, sophisticated and supportive to achieve lasting change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have looked at health system factors associated with laboratory test use. Objective: To determine the association between health system factors and routine laboratory test use in medical inpatients. Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult patients admitted to clinical teaching units over a 3-year period (January 2015 to December 2017) at three tertiary care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta. Participants: Patients were assigned to a Case Mix Group+ (CMG+) category based on their clinical characteristics, and patients in the top 10 CMG+ groups were included in the cohort. Exposures: The examined health system factors were (1) number of primary attending physicians seen by a patient, (2) number of attending medical teams seen by a patient, (3) structure of the medical team, and (4) day of the week. Main Measures: The primary outcome was the total number of routine laboratory tests ordered on a patient during their admission. Statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, length of stay, Charlson comorbidity index, and CMG+ group. Results: The final cohort consisting of 36,667 patient-days in hospital (mean (SD) age 62.5 (18.4) years) represented 5071 unique hospitalizations and 4324 unique patients. Routine laboratory test use was increased when patients saw multiple attending physicians; with an adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.37–1.55) for two attending physicians, and 2.50 (95% CI, 2.23-2.79) for three or more attending physicians compared to a single attending physician. The number of routine laboratory tests was slightly lower on weekends (IRR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.96–0.99) and on teams without a senior resident as part of their team structure (IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.830.96). Conclusions: The associations observed in this study suggest that breaks in continuity of care, including increased frequency in patient transfer of care, may impact the utilization of routine laboratory tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians' ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour.Methods: A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in 'Choosing Wisely' initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change.Results: All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians' perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians' desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences.Conclusions: The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians' understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The overuse of diagnostic imaging for low back pain (LBP) in Australia results in unnecessary cost to the health system and, for patients, avoidable exposure to radiation. The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program aimed to reduce unnecessary diagnostic imaging for non-specific acute LBP in the Australian primary care setting. The LBP program delivered referral pattern feedback, a decision support tool and patient information to 19,997 (60%) of registered Australian general practitioners (GPs). This study describes the findings from evaluation of the effectiveness of the 2013 LBP program at reducing X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans of the lower back, and the financial costs and benefits of the program to the government funder. Methods The effectiveness of the 2013 LBP program was evaluated using population-based time-series analysis of administrative claims data of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) funded X-ray and CT scan services of the lower back. The CT scan referral trend of non-GP health professionals was used as an observational control group in a Bayesian structural time-series model. A retrospective cost–benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using program costs from organisational records and reimbursement data from the MBS. Results The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program was associated with a statistically significant 10.85% relative reduction in the volume of CT scans of the lumbosacral region, equating to a cost reduction to the MBS of AUD$11,600,898. The best available estimate of program costs was AUD$141,154. Every dollar of funding spent on the 2013 LBP program saved AUD$82 of funding to the MBS for CT scan reimbursements. Therefore, from the perspective of the Australian Government Department of Health, the 2013 LBP program was cost saving. The program cost AUD$2.82 per CT scan averted in comparison to the scenario of no program. No association between the 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program and the volume of X-ray items on the MBS was observed. Conclusions The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program reduced CT scan referral by GPs, in line with the program’s messages and clinical guidelines. Reducing this low-value care produced savings to the health system that exceeded the costs of program implementation.

Unnecessary health care not only drive up costs, but also contribute to avoidable patient harms, underscoring an ethical obligation to eliminate practices which are harmful, lack evidence, and prevent spending on more beneficial services. To date, de-implementation ethics discussions have been limited and focused on clinical ethics principles. An analysis of de-implementation ethics in the broader context of the health care system is lacking. To better understand the ethical considerations of de-implementation, recognizing it as a health care systems issue, we applied Krubiner and Hyder's bioethical framework for health systems activity. We examine ethics principles relevant to de-implementation, which either call for or facilitate the reduction of low value surgery. From 11 health systems principles proposed by Krubiner and Hyder, we identified the 5 principles most pertinent to the topic of de-implementation: evidence and effectiveness, transparency and public engagement, efficiency, responsiveness, and collaboration. An analysis of de-implementation through the lens of these principles not only supports de-implementation but proves an obligation at the health system level to eliminate low value care. Recognizing the challenge of defining "value," the proposed framework may increase the legitimacy and objectivity of de-implementation. While there is no single ideal ethical framework from which to approach de-implementation, a health systems framework allows for consideration of the systems-level factors impacting de-implementation. Framing de-implementation as a health systems issue with systems-wide ethical implications empowers providers to think about new ways to approach potential roadblocks to reducing low-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brain MRIs are considered essential in the evaluation of children diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), but there is uncertainty about the appropriate cut-off for diagnosis of GHD and little data about the yield of significant abnormal findings in patients with peak growth hormone (GH) of 7–10 ng/mL. We aimed to assess the frequency of pathogenic MRIs and associated risk factors in relation to peak GH concentrations. In this retrospective multicenter study, charts of patients diagnosed with GHD who subsequently had a brain MRI were reviewed. MRIs findings were categorized as normal, incidental, of uncertain significance, or pathogenic (pituitary hypoplasia, small stalk and/or ectopic posterior pituitary and tumors). Charges for brain MRIs and sedation were collected. In 499 patients, 68.1% had normal MRIs, 18.2% had incidental findings, 6.6% had uncertain findings, and 7.0% had pathogenic MRIs. Those with peak GH<3 ng/mL had the highest frequency of pathogenic MRIs (23%). Only three of 194 patients (1.5%) with peak GH 7–10 ng/mL had pathogenic MRIs, none of which altered management. Two patients (0.4%) with central hypothyroidism and peak GH<4 ng/mL had craniopharyngioma. Pathogenic MRIs were uncommon in patients diagnosed with GHD except in the group with peak GH<3 ng/mL. There was a high frequency of incidental findings which often resulted in referrals to neurosurgery and repeat MRIs. Given the high cost of brain MRIs, their routine use in patients diagnosed with isolated GHD, especially patients with peak GH of 7–10 ng/mL, should be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background Active management of existing health technologies (e.g., devices, diagnostic, and/or medical procedures) to ensure the delivery of high value care is increasingly recognized around the world. A number of initiatives have raised awareness of technologies that may be overused, mis-used, or potentially harmful by compiling them into lists of low value care. However, despite the growing number of lists, changes to local healthcare practices remain challenging for many systems. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a process, leveraging existing initiatives and data assets, to produce a list of prioritized low value technologies for health technology reassessment (HTR). Methods An expert advisory committee comprised of clinical experts and health system decision-makers was convened to determine key process requirements. Once developed, the process was piloted to assess feasibility in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Results The expert advisory committee identified five required attributes for the process: data-driven, routine and replicable, actionable, stakeholder collaboration, and high return on investment. Guided by these attributes, a 5-step process was developed. First, over 1300 published low value technologies (i.e., from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] “do not do” recommendations, low value technologies in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, and Choosing Wisely “Top 5” lists) were identified. Using appropriate coding systems for BC’s administrative health data (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD]), the low value technologies were queried to examine frequencies and costs of technology use. This information was used to rank potential candidates for reassessment based on high annual budgetary impact. Lastly, clinical experts reviewed the ranked technologies prior to broad dissemination and stakeholder action. Pilot testing of the process in BC resulted in the prioritization of 9 initial candidate technologies for reassessment. Conclusions This is the first account of a systematic approach to move a collective body of low value technology recommendations into action in a healthcare setting. This work demonstrates the feasibility and strength of using administrative data to identify and prioritize low value technologies for HTR at a population-level.

Abstract Health services overuse has been acknowledged as a relevant policy issue. In this study, we assessed the informative value of research on the quality of cancer care, exploring to what extent it is actually concerned with care overuse, thus providing policy-makers with sound estimates of overuse prevalence. We searched Medline for European studies, reporting information on the rate of use of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures/interventions in breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer patients, published in English between 2006 and 2016. Individual studies were classified with regards to their orientation towards overuse according to the quality metrics adopted in assessing rates of use of procedures and interventions. Out of 1882 papers identified, 100 accounting for 94 studies met our eligibility criteria, most of them on breast (n = 38) and colorectal (n = 30) cancer. Of these, 46 (49%) studies relied on process indicators allowing a direct measure of under- or overuse, the latter being addressed in 22 (24%) studies. Search for overuse in patterns of care did not increase over time, with overuse being measured in 24% of the studies published before 2010, and in only 13% of those published in 2015–2016. Information on its prevalence was available only for a relatively limited number of procedures/interventions. Overall, estimates of overuse tended to be higher for diagnostic procedures (median prevalence across all studies, 24%) than for drugs, surgical procedures or radiotherapy (median overuse prevalence always lower than 10%). Despite its increasing policy relevance, overuse is still an often overlooked issue in current European research on the quality of care for cancer patients.

Background: The overuse of diagnostic imaging for low back pain (LBP) in Australia results in unnecessary cost to the health system and, for patients, avoidable exposure to radiation. The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program aimed to reduce unnecessary diagnostic imaging for non-specific acute LBP in the Australian primary care setting. The LBP program delivered referral pattern feedback, a decision support tool and patient information to 19,997 (60%) of registered Australian general practitioners (GPs). This study describes the findings from evaluation of the effectiveness of the 2013 LBP program at reducing X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans of the lower back, and the financial costs and benefits of the program to the government funder.Methods: The effectiveness of the 2013 LBP program was evaluated using population-based time-series analysis of administrative claims data of Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) funded X-ray and CT scan services of the lower back. The CT scan referral trend of non-GP health professionals was used as an observational control group in a Bayesian structural time-series model. A retrospective cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using program costs from organisational records and reimbursement data from the MBS.Results: The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program was associated with a statistically significant 10.85% relative reduction in the volume of CT scans of the lumbosacral region, equating to a cost reduction to the MBS of AUD$11,600,898. The best available estimate of program costs was AUD$141,154. Every dollar of funding spent on the 2013 LBP program saved AUD$82 of funding to the MBS for CT scan reimbursements. Therefore, from the perspective of the Australian Government Department of Health, the 2013 LBP program was cost saving. The program cost AUD$2.82 per CT scan averted in comparison to the scenario of no program. No association between the 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program and the volume of X-ray items on the MBS was observed.Conclusions: The 2013 NPS MedicineWise LBP program reduced CT scan referral by GPs, in line with the program's messages and clinical guidelines. Reducing this low-value care produced savings to the health system that exceeded the costs of program implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical decisions often rely on pattern recognition, simple rules of thumb, tacit knowledge and habit. In many instances, such intuitive decisions are fast and accurate, but they can be subject to cognitive biases leading to delivery of care of low value at odds with scientific evidence of best practice. If programmes, such as EVOLVE (Evaluating Evidence, Enhancing Efficiencies) and Choosing Wisely are to have maximal impact in minimising low value care, such biases, and the factors that hide and accentuate them, need to be exposed and addressed in a collegiate and non-judgemental manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in primary health care in-person visits and a simultaneous increase in virtual encounters., Objective: To quantify the change in the total volume of primary care visits and mix of visit types during the two years of the pandemic in Israel., Design: Cross-sectional study., Participants: All primary care visits by members of the largest healthcare organization in Israel, during three one-year periods: the pre-COVID-19 year (March 2019-February 2020), the first year of COVID-19 (March 2020-February 2021), and the second year of COVID-19 (March 2021-February 2022)., Main Measures: Total volume of primary care visits and mix of visit types., Results: More than 112 million primary care visits were included in the study. The total visit rate per 1000 members did not change significantly between the pre-COVID year (19) and the first COVID year (19.8), but was 21% higher in the second COVID-19 year (23). The rate of in-person visits per 1000 members decreased from 12.0 in the pre-COVID year to 7.7 in the first COVID year and then increased to 9.6 in the second. The rate of phone visits and asynchronous communication increased from 0.7 and 6.3, respectively, in the pre-COVID year, to 4.1 and 8, respectively, in the first COVID year, and remained unchanged in the second. There was substantial variation across age groups and sectors in the adoption of virtual platforms., Conclusions: The rapid introduction of virtual encounters in primary care tended to displace in-person visits in the first year of the pandemic, but they appear to have been additive in the second. This transition should be monitored, with the goal of ensuring appropriate planning efforts and resource allocation to deal with the potential added burden on medical staff. Efforts should be invested in encouraging the use of virtual platforms in patient groups that currently underutilize it, such as minorities.