Making wise choices about low-value health care in the COVID-19 pandemic

Trends in low-value GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies showed that during the pandemic patients have refrained from visiting their general practitioner (GP). This resulted in medical care being delayed, postponed or completely forgone. The provision of low-value care, i.e. care which offers no net benefit for the patient, also could have been affected. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on three types of low-value GP care: 1) imaging for back or knee problems, 2) antibiotics for otitis media acuta (OMA), and 3) repeated opioid prescriptions, without a prior GP visit.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using registration data from GPs part of an academic GP network over the period 2017-2022. The COVID-19 period was defined as the period between April 2020 to December 2021. The periods before (January 2017 to April 2020) and after the COVID-19 period (January 2022 to December 2022) are the pre- and post-restrictions periods. The three clinical practices examined were selected by two practicing GPs from a top 30 of recommendations originating from the Dutch GP guidelines, based on their perceived prevalence and relevance in practice (van Dulmen et al., BMC Primary Care 23:141, 2022). Multilevel Poisson regression models were built to examine changes in the incidence rates (IR) of both registered episodes and episodes receiving low-value treatment.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 restrictions period, the IRs of episodes of all three types of GP care decreased significantly. The IR of episodes of back or knee pain decreased by 12%, OMA episodes by 54% and opioid prescription rate by 13%. Only the IR of OMA episodes remained significantly lower (22%) during the post-restrictions period. The provision of low-value care also changed. The IR of imaging for back or knee pain and low-value prescription of antibiotics for OMA both decreased significantly during the COVID-restrictions period (by 21% and 78%), but only the low-value prescription rate of antibiotics for OMA remained significantly lower (by 63%) during the post-restrictions period. The IR of inappropriately repeated opioid prescriptions remained unchanged over all three periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that both the rate of episodes as well as the rate at which low-value care was provided have generally been affected by the COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, it shows that the magnitude of the impact of the restrictions varies depending on the type of low-value care. This indicates that deimplementation of low-value care requires tailored (multiple) interventions and may not be achieved through a single disruption or intervention alone.

Combination of health care service use and the relation to demographic and socioeconomic factors for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a descriptive cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) access health care in different ways. Despite the high prevalence and significant costs, we know little about the different ways patients use health care. We aim to fill this gap by identifying which combinations of health care services patients use for new MSDs, and its relation to clinical characteristics, demographic and socioeconomic factors, long-term use and costs, and discuss what the implications of this variation are.

METHODS

The study combines Norwegian registers on health care use, diagnoses, comorbidities, demographic and socioeconomic factors. Patients (≥ 18 years) are included by their first health consultation for MSD in 2013-2015. Latent class analysis (LCA) with count data of first year consultations for General Practitioners (GPs), hospital consultants, physiotherapists and chiropractors are used to identify combinations of health care use. Long-term high-cost patients are defined as total cost year 1-5 above 95th percentile (≥ 3 744€).

RESULTS

We identified seven latent classes: 1: GP, low use; 2: GP, high use; 3: GP and hospital; 4: GP and physiotherapy, low use; 5: GP, hospital and physiotherapy, high use; 6: Chiropractor, low use; 7: GP and chiropractor, high use. Median first year health care contacts varied between classes from 1-30 and costs from 20€-838€. Eighty-seven percent belonged to class 1, 4 or 6, characterised by few consultations and treatment in primary care. Classes with high first year use were characterised by higher age, lower education and more comorbidities and were overrepresented among the long-term high-cost users.

CONCLUSION

There was a large variation in first year health care service use, and we identified seven latent classes based on frequency of consultations. A small proportion of patients accounted for a high proportion of total resource use. This can indicate the potential for more efficient resource use. However, the effect of demographic and socioeconomic variables for determining combinations of service use can be interpreted as the health care system transforming unobserved patient needs into variations in use. These findings contribute to the understanding of clinical pathways and can help in the planning of future care, reduction in disparities and improvement in health outcomes for patients with MSDs.

Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

BACKGROUND

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.  SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.