GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices - evidence from three national health services

Dual Agency in Hospitals: What Strategies Do Managers and Physicians Apply to Reconcile Dilemmas Between Clinical and Economic Considerations?

BACKGROUND

Hospital professionals are "dual agents" who may face dilemmas between their commitment to patients' clinical needs and hospitals' financial sustainability. This study examines whether and how hospital professionals balance or reconcile clinical and economic considerations in their decision-making in two countries with activity-based payment systems.

METHODS

We conducted 46 semi-structured interviews with hospital managers, chief physicians and practicing physicians in five German and five Israeli hospitals in 2018/2019. We used thematic analysis to identify common topics and patterns of meaning.

RESULTS

Hospital professionals report many situations in which activity-based payment incentivizes proper treatment, and clinical and economic considerations are aligned. This is the case when efficiency can be improved, eg, by curbing unnecessary expenditures or specializing in certain procedures. When considerations are misaligned, hospital professionals have developed a range of strategies that may contribute to balancing competing considerations. These include 'reshaping management,' such as better planning of the entire course of treatment and improvement of the coding; and 'reframing decision-making,' which involves working with averages and developing tool-kits for decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Misalignment of economic and clinical considerations does not necessarily have negative implications, if professionals manage to balance and reconcile them. Context is important in determining if considerations can be reconciled or not. Reconciling strategies are fragile and can be easily disrupted depending on context. Creating tool-kits for better decision-making, planning the treatment course in advance, working with averages, and having interdisciplinary teams to think together about ways to improve efficiency can help mitigate dilemmas of hospital professionals.

Do Residents and Healthcare Providers Differ in Preference for Family Doctor Contract Service? Evidence From a Discrete Choice Experiment

Objective

Few are known on how and to what extent residents and healthcare providers have different preferences for family doctor contract service (FDCS). This study aimed to elicit and compare the residents' and healthcare providers' preferences for FDCS through a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Methods

Residents and healthcare providers recruited for the DCE were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical service plans, which differed in six attributes: cost, service package, service delivery, type of service, accessibility of medicine, and level of healthcare team. We use mixed logit regression models to determine preferences for potential attributes.

Results

A total of 2,159 residents and 729 healthcare providers completed valid DCE questionnaires. The mixed logit model results suggested that cost, service package, service delivery, type of service, accessibility of medicine, and level of healthcare team all had a significant impact on residents' and healthcare providers' preference. The level of healthcare team was the most important characteristic of FDCS to both residents and healthcare providers, followed by types of service. They have different preferences on the cost and way of service delivery.

Conclusions

This study provides new evidence on how and to what extent residents and healthcare providers have different preferences for FDCS by determining their perception of various service attributes. These findings suggested that the optimal design and improvement of FDCS plans should consider not only residents but also healthcare providers' preferences to maximize contract service uptake.

Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals

INTRODUCTION

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care.

MAIN BODY

A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity.

CONCLUSIONS

For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant.

Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments

A randomized controlled discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 3,320 participating respondents was used to investigate the individual and combined impact of level overlap and color coding on task complexity, choice consistency, survey satisfaction scores, and dropout rates. The systematic differences between the study arms allowed for a direct comparison of dropout rates and cognitive debriefing scores and accommodated the quantitative comparison of respondents' choice consistency using a heteroskedastic mixed logit model. Our results indicate that the introduction of level overlap made it significantly easier for respondents to identify the differences and choose between the choice options. As a stand-alone design strategy, attribute level overlap reduced the dropout rate by 30%, increased the level of choice consistency by 30%, and avoided learning effects in the initial choice tasks of the DCE. The combination of level overlap and color coding was even more effective: It reduced the dropout rate by 40% to 50% and increased the level of choice consistency by more than 60%. Hence, we can recommend attribute level overlap, with color coding to amplify its impact, as a standard design strategy in DCEs.

Clinical and social barriers to antimicrobial stewardship in pulmonary medicine: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The treatment of pulmonary infections is one of the largest indications for antibiotics in human health care, offering significant potential for antibiotic optimization internationally. This study explores the perspectives of pulmonary clinicians on antibiotic use in hospital pulmonary infections.

METHODS

Twenty-eight pulmonary doctors and nurses from 2 hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews focusing on their experiences of antibiotic use.

RESULTS

Barriers to antibiotic optimization in pulmonary infections were identified. Clinical barriers are as follows. The first is differentiating pneumonia vs chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: differentiating pulmonary diagnoses was reported as challenging, leading to overtreatment. The second is differentiating viral vs bacterial: diagnostic differentiation was perceived to contribute to excess antibiotic use. The third is differentiating colonization vs pathogen: the interpretation of ambiguous results was reported to lead to under- or overprescribing depending on the perspective of the treating team. Social barriers are as follows. The first is the perception of resistance: antibiotic resistance was not perceived as an immediate threat. The second is the perceived value of antibiotic clinical guidelines: there was mistrust in antibiotic guidelines. The third is hospital hierarchies: hierarchical structures had a significant influence on prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial barriers to antibiotic optimization in pulmonary infections were identified. To facilitate change in antibiotic use there must be a systematic understanding and interventions to address specific clinical issues. In the case of pulmonary medicine, significant identified issues, such as mistrust in clinical guidelines and diagnostic challenges, need to be addressed.