Selecting and quantifying low-value nursing care in clinical practice: A questionnaire survey

Understanding Healthcare Personnel's Perceptions About Reducing Low-Value Care: A Scoping Review

Objective

To systematically and comprehensively search the studies describing healthcare personnel's perceptions about reducing low-value care.

Design

Scoping review.

Methods

Evidence sources included PubMed, ProQuest and CINAHL databases from inception to 13th September 2023, along with grey literature, expert suggestions and reference lists from the included articles. Studies were included if they contained information about healthcare personnel's perceptions and involvement in reducing low-value care. The extracted data included general study characteristics, the type of low-value care of interest, clinical settings, and main findings related to healthcare personnel's perceptions. Three frameworks were used to guide the data synthesis. First, the main findings from the included studies were mapped onto the Process of De-adoption Framework to capture the aspects of low-value care that healthcare personnel focused on, including the identification of low-value care, barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care, and intervention strategies. The identified barriers and facilitators were then mapped onto the relevant domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Finally, the intervention strategies, as informed by healthcare personnel's perceptions, were mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy framework.

Results

The 37 included studies were those published since 2011. Of these, 15 studies were conducted in the United States. Most included studies (n = 19) described low-value care not specific to a care measure. Twelve of the included studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding the identification of low-value care, 34 studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding influence factors to reducing low-value care and 18 studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding intervention strategies to reduce low-value care. "Knowledge" (n = 16) and 'environmental context and resources' (n = 16) were the most common influence factors of reducing low-value care. "Education" was the most commonly discussed intervention strategy for reducing low-value care (n = 14).

Conclusion

Healthcare personnel's perceptions focused on identifying low-value care, barriers and facilitators of reducing low-value care and intervention strategies to reduce low-value care. Education was potentially the main effect of the intervention strategies in addressing lack of knowledge, which is the main barrier to reducing low-value care. Future research should develop and implement intervention strategies to reduce low-value care based on healthcare personnel's perceptions.

Low-value and high-value care recommendations in nursing: A systematic assessment of clinical practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization defines quality of care as providing effective, evidence-based care, and avoiding harm. Low-value care provides little or no benefit to the patient, causes harm, and wastes limited resources. In 2017, shortly after the start of the International Choosing Wisely campaign, the first Dutch nursing "Do-not-do" list was published and has become a widely used practical tool for nurses working in daily practice. However, over the last years new guidelines are published. Therefore, an update of the list is necessary with an addition of high-value care recommendations as alternative care practices for low-value care.

DESIGN/METHODS

In this study, a combination of designs was used. First, we searched Dutch clinical practice guidelines for low-value or high-value care recommendations. All nursing care recommendations were assessed and specified to several healthcare sectors, including hospital care, district care, nursing home care, disability care, and mental health care. Second, a prioritization among nurses regarding low-value care recommendations was done by a cross-sectional survey for each healthcare sector.

RESULTS

In total, 66 low-value care recommendations were found, for example, "avoid unnecessary layers under the patient at risk of pressure ulcers" and "never flush the bladder to prevent urinary tract infection." Furthermore, 414 high-value care recommendations were selected, such as "use the Barthel Index to assess and to evaluate the degree of ADL independence" and "application of cold therapy may be considered for oncological patients with pain." In total, 539 nurses from all healthcare sectors prioritized the low-value care recommendations, resulting in a top five low-value care practices per healthcare sector. The top five low-value care recommendations differed per healthcare sector, although "do not use physical restraints in case of a delirium" was prioritized by four out of five sectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing low-value and high-value care recommendations for nurses will help and inspire nurses to deliver fundamental care for their patients. These initiatives regarding low-value and high-value care are essential to generate a culture of continuous quality improvement based on evidence. This is also essential to meeting the current challenges of the healthcare delivery system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper provides an update of low-value care recommendations for nurses based on Dutch guidelines from 2017 to 2023, specified to five healthcare sectors, including hospital care, district care, nursing home care, disability care and mental health care, with an accompanying prioritization of these low-value care recommendations to facilitate de-implementation. This paper provides a first overview of high-value care recommendations to reflect on and create alternative care practices for low-value care. The recommendations regarding low-value and high-value care are essential to generate a culture of continuous improvement of appropriateness based on evidence, finally leading to better quality of care and improving patient outcomes.

A Tailored De-Implementation Strategy to Reduce Low-Value Home-Based Nursing Care: A Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study

AIM

To facilitate the delivery of appropriate care, the aim was to test if a tailored, multifaceted de-implementation strategy (RENEW) (1) would lead to less low-value nursing care and (2) was acceptable, implementable, cost effective and scalable in the home-based nursing care context.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods design.

METHODS

The RENEW strategy with components on education, persuasion, enablement, incentives and training was introduced in seven teams from two organisations in the Netherlands. To estimate the effect size, data were collected at baseline (T0) and follow-up measurement (T1), on the volume of care in both frequency and time in minutes per week and independent samples t-tests were performed. A qualitative evaluation was conducted to understand feasibility aspects, see how the strategy works and identify influencing factors and used document analyses and semi-structured interviews. Deductive coding was used to analyse the results.

RESULTS

The time spent on low-value nursing care (mean, minutes per week per client) in seven teams for 210 clients in T1 compared to 222 clients in T0 reduced statistically significant. The difference between T0 and T1 equals 17.94%. The frequency of delivered low-value nursing care (mean per week) reduced but not statistically significant. From the transcripts of eight semi-structured interviews and documents, a list of 79 influencing factors were identified. Practical implementation tools, workplace coaching and sharing experiences within and between teams were considered as the most contributing elements.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that for the seven home-healthcare teams in this study, the RENEW strategy (1) leads to a reduction in low-value care and (2) is-conditional upon minor modifications-acceptable, implementable, cost effective and scalable.

REPORTING METHOD

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Barriers and facilitators for reducing low-value home-based nursing care: A qualitative exploratory study among homecare professionals

AIM

To explore barriers and facilitators for reducing low-value home-based nursing care.

DESIGN

Qualitative exploratory study.

METHOD

Seven focus group interviews and two individual interviews were conducted with homecare professionals, managers and quality improvement staff members within seven homecare organizations. Data were deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases checklist.

RESULTS

Barriers perceived by homecare professionals included lack of knowledge and skills, such as using care aids, interactions between healthcare professionals and general practitioners creating expectations among clients. Facilitators perceived included reflecting on provided care together with colleagues, clearly communicating agreements and expectations towards clients. Additionally, clients' and relatives' behaviour could potentially hinder reduction. In contrast, clients' motivation to be independent and involving relatives can promote reduction. Lastly, non-reimbursement and additional costs of care aids were perceived as barriers. Support from organization and management for the reduction of care was considered as facilitator.

CONCLUSION

Understanding barriers and facilitators experienced by homecare professionals in reducing low-value home-based nursing care is crucial. Enhancing knowledge and skills, fostering cross-professional collaboration, involving relatives and motivating clients' self-care can facilitate reduction of low-value home-based nursing care. Implications for profession and patient care: De-implementing low-value home-based nursing care offers opportunities for more appropriate care and inclusion of clients on waitlists.

IMPACT

Addressing barriers with tailored strategies can successfully de-implement low-value home-based nursing care.

REPORTING METHOD

The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used. No patient or public contribution.

Low-value health care, de-implementation, and implications for nursing research: A discussion paper

Globally, the nursing profession constitutes the largest proportion of the health workforce; however, it is challenged by widespread workforce shortages relative to need. Strategies to promote recruitment of the nursing workforce are well-established, with a lesser focus on strategies to alleviate the burden on the existing workforce. This burden may be exacerbated by the impact of low-value health care, characterised as health care that provides little or no benefit for patients, or has the potential to cause harm. Low-value health care is a global problem, a major contributor to the waste of healthcare resources, and a key focus of health system reform. Evidence of variation in low-value health care has been identified across countries and system levels. Research on low-value health care has largely focused on the medical profession, with a paucity of research examining either low-value health care or the de-implementation of low-value health care from a nursing perspective. The objective of this paper is to provide a scholarly discussion of the literature around low-value health care and de-implementation, with the purpose of identifying implications for nursing research. With increasing pressures on the global nursing workforce, research identifying low-value health care and developing approaches to de-implement this care, is crucial.

Low-value home-based nursing care: A national survey study

AIMS

To explore potential areas of low-value home-based nursing care practices, their prevalence and related influencing factors of nurses and nursing assistants working in home-based nursing care.

DESIGN

A quantitative, cross-sectional design.

METHODS

An online survey with questions containing scaled frequencies on five-point Likert scales and open questions on possible related influencing factors of low-value nursing care. The data collection took place from February to April 2022. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to summarize and analyse the results.

RESULTS

A nationwide sample of 776 certified nursing assistants, registered nurses and nurse practitioners responded to the survey. The top five most delivered low-value care practices reported were: (1) 'washing the client with water and soap by default', (2) 'application of zinc cream, powders or pastes when treating intertrigo', (3) 'washing the client from head to toe daily', (4) 're-use of a urinary catheter bag after removal/disconnection' and (5) 'bladder irrigation to prevent clogging of urinary tract catheter'. The top five related influencing factors reported were: (1) 'a (general) practitioner advices/prescribes it', (2) 'written in the client's care plan', (3) 'client asks for it', (4) 'wanting to offer the client something' and (5) 'it is always done like this in the team'. Higher educational levels and an age above 40 years were associated with a lower provision of low-value care.

CONCLUSION

According to registered nurses and certified nursing assistants, a number of low-value nursing practices occurred frequently in home-based nursing care and they experienced multiple factors that influence the provision of low-value care such as (lack of) clinical autonomy and handling clients' requests, preferences and demands. The results can be used to serve as a starting point for a multifaceted de-implementation strategy.

REPORTING METHOD

STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Nursing care is increasingly shifting towards the home environment. Not all nursing care that is provided is effective or efficient and this type of care can therefore be considered of low-value. Reducing low-value care and increasing appropriate care will free up time, improve quality of care, work satisfaction, patient safety and contribute to a more sustainable healthcare system.

Low-value wound care: Are nurses and physicians choosing wisely? A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely is an international movement that stimulates conversations about unnecessary care. The campaign created five recommendations including a statement that less wound care is sometimes better.

AIMS

The study aims to evaluate nurses' and physicians' adherence to the Choosing Wisely recommendations for acute wound care in the Netherlands and the barriers and facilitators to improve this.

DESIGN

This is a mixed methods study using a survey and interviews.

METHODS

The survey was completed by 171 nurses and 71 physicians from November 2017 to February 2018. A total of 17 nurses and 6 physicians were interviewed.

RESULTS

Awareness of the five recommendations ranged from 62% to 89% for nurses and 46% to 85% for physicians. However, up to 15% of the nurses and 28% of physicians were aware but did not adhere to the recommendations. Barriers to adhering were a lack of knowledge, the work environment and perceptions of patients' preferences. Repeated attention, cost-consciousness and an open culture facilitated the implementation.

CONCLUSION

Although most nurses and physicians were aware of the recommendations, not all adhered to them. Increasing awareness is not enough for successful implementation. A tailored approach that removes the barriers is necessary, such as increasing knowledge about wounds and changing the work environment.

Effects of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing low-value nursing procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the ‘Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care’ (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel–Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20).

Conclusions

The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used.

Trial registration

The review is registered in Prospero (CRD42018105100).