Don't just do something, stand there! The value and art of deliberate clinical inertia

Beyond guideline knowledge: a theory-based qualitative study of low-value preoperative testing

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely Canada and most major anesthesia and preoperative guidelines recommend against obtaining preoperative tests before low-risk procedures. However, these recommendations alone have not reduced low-value test ordering. In this study, the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to understand the drivers of preoperative electrocardiogram (ECG) and chest X-ray (CXR) ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgery ('low-value preoperative testing') among anesthesiologists, internal medicine specialists, nurses, and surgeons.

METHODS

Using snowball sampling, preoperative clinicians working in a single health system in Canada were recruited for semi-structured interviews about low-value preoperative testing. The interview guide was developed using the TDF to identify the factors that influence preoperative ECG and CXR ordering. Interview content was deductively coded using TDF domains and specific beliefs were identified by grouping similar utterances. Domain relevance was established based on belief statement frequency, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence over preoperative test ordering practices.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinicians (7 anesthesiologists, 4 internists, 1 nurse, and 4 surgeons) participated. Eight of the 12 TDF domains were identified as the drivers of preoperative test ordering. While most participants agreed that the guidelines were helpful, they also expressed distrust in the evidence behind them (knowledge). Both a lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the specialties involved in the preoperative process and the ease by which any clinician could order, but not cancel tests, were drivers of low-value preoperative test ordering (social/professional role and identity, social influences, belief about capabilities). Additionally, low-value tests could also be ordered by nurses or the surgeon and may be completed before the anesthesia or internal medicine preoperative assessment appointment (environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities). Finally, while participants agreed that they did not intend to routinely order low-value tests and understood that these would not benefit patient outcomes, they also reported ordering tests to prevent surgery cancellations and problems during surgery (motivation and goals, beliefs about consequences, social influences).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified key factors that anesthesiologists, internists, nurses, and surgeons believe influence preoperative test ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgeries. These beliefs highlight the need to shift away from knowledge-based interventions and focus instead on understanding local drivers of behaviour and target change at the individual, team, and institutional levels.

The future of teaching management reasoning: important questions and potential solutions

Management reasoning is distinct from but inextricably linked to diagnostic reasoning in the iterative process that is clinical reasoning. Complex and situated, management reasoning skills are distinct from diagnostic reasoning skills and must be developed in order to promote cogent clinical decisions. While there is growing interest in teaching management reasoning, key educational questions remain regarding when it should be taught, how it can best be taught in the clinical setting, and how it can be taught in a way that helps mitigate implicit bias. Here, we describe several useful tools to structure teaching of management reasoning across learner levels and educational settings. The management script provides a scaffold for organizing knowledge around management and can serve as a springboard for discussion of uncertainty, thresholds, high-value care, and shared decision-making. The management pause reserves space for management discussions and exploration of a learner's reasoning. Finally, the equity reflection invites learners to examine management decisions from a health equity perspective, promoting the practice of metacognition around implicit bias. These tools are easily deployable, and - when used regularly - foster a learning environment primed for the successful teaching of management reasoning.

Corticosteroids for patients with vestibular neuritis: an evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

A short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids as compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

From 149 titles, 5 systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and 2 reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These 2 reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient-reported vertigo or patient-reported dizziness disability. There was a wide confidence interval for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (1 study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI -8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of vestibular neuritis in the emergency department.

Ordering of computed tomography scans for head and cervical spine: a qualitative study exploring influences on doctors' decision-making

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.

Peripheral intravenous cannulation decision-making in emergency settings: a qualitative descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

Rates of unused ('idle') peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are high but can vary per setting. Understanding factors that influence the decision-making of doctors, nurses and paramedics in the emergency setting regarding PIVC insertion, and what factors may modify their decision is essential to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary cannulations and improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aimed to understand factors associated with clinicians' decision-making on whether to insert or use a PIVC in the emergency care setting.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.

SETTING

Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and local government ambulance service.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants recruited were ED clinicians (doctors, nurses) and paramedics who regularly insert PIVCs.

RESULTS

From the 15 clinicians interviewed 4 key themes: knowledge and experience, complicated and multifactorial, convenience, anticipated patient clinical course, and several subthemes emerged relating to clinician decision-making across all disciplines. The first two themes focused on decision-making to gather data and evidence, such as knowledge and experience, and decisions being complicated and multifactorial. The remaining two themes related to the actions clinicians took such as convenience and anticipated patient clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The decision to insert a PIVC is more complicated than clinicians, administrators and policy-makers may realise. When explored, clinician decisions were multifaceted with many factors influencing the decision to insert a PIVC. In actual practice, clinicians routinely insert PIVCs in most patients as a learnt reflex with little cognitive input. When considering PIVC insertion, more time needs to be devoted to the awareness of: (1) decision-making in the context of the clinician's own experience, (2) cognitive biases and (3) patient-centred factors. Such awareness will support an appropriate risk assessment which will benefit the patient, clinician and healthcare system.

Engaging consumers and health professionals in collaborative decision-making to optimize care

Shared communication and collaborative decision-making between consumers and health professionals is essential in optimizing the quality of consumer care. However, the consumers' ability to ask questions and seek answers, as well as health professionals' communication skills to engage with the consumer, are necessary considerations for the collaborative decision-making process. This quality improvement initiative sought to understand the context of collaborative decision making from the perspective of consumers and health professionals adapted from the international Choosing Wisely program. Findings indicated health professionals acknowledged a problem with unnecessary and overuse of tests, treatments, and procedures. Consumers suggested they were confident asking questions about their health and care. The findings of this study highlight collaborative decision-making as a worthwhile and beneficial undertaking.

The Headache in Emergency Departments study: Opioid prescribing in patients presenting with headache. A multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patterns of opioid use in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with nontraumatic headache by severity and geography.

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recognize opioids are ineffective in treating primary headache disorders. Globally, many countries are experiencing an opioid crisis. The ED can be a point of initial exposure leading to tolerance for patients. More geographically diverse data are required to inform practice.

METHODS

This was a planned, multicenter, cross-sectional, observational substudy of the international Headache in Emergency Departments (HEAD) study. Participants were prospectively identified throughout March 2019 from 67 hospitals in Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Adult patients with nontraumatic headache were included as identified by the local site investigator.

RESULTS

Overall, 4536 patients were enrolled in the HEAD study. Opioids were administered in 1072/4536 (23.6%) patients in the ED, and 386/3792 (10.2%) of discharged patients. High opioid use occurred prehospital in Australia (190/1777, 10.7%) and New Zealand (55/593, 9.3%). Opioid use in the ED was highest in these countries (Australia: 586/1777, 33.0%; New Zealand: 221/593, 37.3%). Opioid prescription on discharge was highest in Singapore (125/442, 28.3%) and Hong Kong (12/49, 24.5%). Independent predictors of ED opioid administration included the following: severe headache (OR 4.2, 95% CI 3.1-5.5), pre-ED opioid use (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82), and long-term opioid use (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.26-2.58). ED opioid administration independently predicted opioid prescription at discharge (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.3-11.0).

CONCLUSION

Opioid prescription for nontraumatic headache in the ED and on discharge varies internationally. Severe headache, prehospital opioid use, and long-term opioid use predicted ED opioid administration. ED opioid administration was a strong predictor of opioid prescription at discharge. These findings support education around policy and guidelines to ensure adherence to evidence-based interventions for headache.

Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.

Objectives

Our objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.

Design

A realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.

Participants

In total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.

Data sources

Using keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.

Results

The concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.

Limitations

Some specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.

Conclusions

This review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge of information being presented to clinicians regarding this novel and deadly disease. There is a clear urgency to collate, review, appraise and act on this information if we are to do the best for clinicians and patients. However, the speed of the pandemic is a threat to traditional models of knowledge translation and practice change. In this concepts paper, we argue that clinicians need to be agile in their thinking and practice in order to find the right time to change. Adoption of new methods should be based on clinical judgement, the weight of evidence and the balance of probabilities that any new technique, test or treatment might work. The pandemic requires all of us to reach a new level of evidence-based medicine characterised by scepticism, thoughtfulness, responsiveness and clinically agility in practice.

Family and Community Medicine and its role in preventing health overuse (preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative)

In Medicine, it is critical "to offer 100% of what is needed and avoid 100% of what is not needed." Unfortunately, this primary issue is challenging, and generally, more than required is offered, and everything that is unnecessary is not avoided. This is a nonsystematic review with a teaching objective that reviews the general issue in primary care and suggests ways to avoid overuse and shortcomings concerning preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative interventions. Knowing not to do is science and art that is hardly taught and practiced less. The overuse that harm are an almost daily part of clinical practice in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. It is essential to promote "the art and science of not doing".