Perceived barriers among physicians for stopping non-cost-effective blood-saving measures in total hip and total knee arthroplasties

Effectiveness of de-implementation strategies for low-value prescribing in secondary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Considerable efforts have been made to improve guideline adherence in healthcare through de-implementation, such as decreasing the prescription of inappropriate medicines. However, we have limited knowledge about the effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences of de-implementation strategies targeting inappropriate medication prescribing in secondary care settings. This review was conducted to understand these factors to contribute to better replication and optimisation of future de-implementation efforts to reduce low-value care.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised control trials was conducted. Papers were identified through CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane register of controlled trials to February 2021. Eligible studies were randomised control trials evaluating behavioural strategies to de-implement inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Intervention characteristics, effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences were identified in the study text and tabulated.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, of which seven were reported as effectively de-implementing low-value prescribing. Included studies were judged to be mainly at low to moderate risk for selection biases and generally high risk for performance and reporting biases. The majority of these strategies were clinical decision support at the 'point of care'. Clinical decision support tools were the most common and effective. They were found to be a low-cost and simple strategy. However, barriers such as clinician's reluctance to accept recommendations, or the clinical setting were potential barriers to their success. Educational strategies were the second most reported intervention type however the utility of educational strategies for de-implementation remains varied. Multiple barriers and facilitators relating to the environmental context, resources and knowledge were identified across studies as potentially influencing de-implementation. Various consequences were identified; however, few measured the impact of de-implementation on usual appropriate practice.

CONCLUSION

This review offers insight into the intervention strategies, potential barriers, facilitators and consequences that may affect the de-implementation of low-value prescribing in secondary care. Identification of these key features helps understand how and why these strategies are effective and the wider (desirable or undesirable) impact of de-implementation. These findings can contribute to the successful replication or optimisation of strategies used to de-implement low-value prescribing practices in future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021243944).

Using theories and frameworks to understand how to reduce low-value healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care.

METHODS

We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care.

Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC.

AIM

The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group.

RESULTS

In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC.

REGISTRATION

The review has not been registered.

Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians

Background

The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC.

Methods

Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach.

Results

Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients.

Conclusions

Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.

Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature

Background

The aim of this scoping review was to identify theories, models, and frameworks for understanding the processes and determinants of de-implementing low-value care (LVC). We investigated theories, models, and frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (conceptual studies) and those that were originally developed for implementation of evidence-based practices but were applied in studies to analyze de-implementation of LVC (empirical studies).

Methods

We performed a scoping review to identify theories, models, and frameworks used to describe, guide, or explain de-implementation of LVC, encompassing four stages following the identification of the research question: (1) identifying relevant studies; (2) study selection; (3) charting the data; and (4) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The database searches yielded 9,642 citations. After removing duplicates, 6,653 remained for the abstract screening process. After screening the abstracts, 76 citations remained. Of these, 10 studies were included in the review.

Results

We identified 10 studies describing theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to understand de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented theories, models, or frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (i.e., conceptual studies) and five studies applied an existing theory, model, or framework concerning implementation of evidence-based practices (i.e., empirical studies).

Conclusion

Most of the theories, models, and frameworks that are used to analyze LVC suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC. The role of the patient is inconsistent in these theories, models, and frameworks; patients are accounted for in some but not in others. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation.

Plain language abstract

Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., "theoretical approaches") to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.

Reduction of routine radiographs in the follow-up of distal radius and ankle fractures: Barriers and facilitators perceived by orthopaedic trauma surgeons

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Studies suggest that routine radiographs during follow-up of distal radius and ankle fractures result in increased radiation exposure and health care costs, without influencing treatment strategies. Encouraging clinicians to omit these routine radiographs is challenging, and little is known about barriers and facilitators that influence this omission. Therefore, this study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among orthopaedic trauma surgeons that might prove valuable towards the design of a deimplementation strategy.

METHODS

A mixed-method approach was used. First, interviews were conducted with orthopaedic trauma surgeons and patients (n = 16). Subsequently, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire was presented to 228 orthopaedic trauma surgeons in the Netherlands. Regression analyses were performed in order to identify which variables were independently associated to the decision to stop performing routine radiographs 6 and 12 weeks after trauma if proven not effective in a large randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

In total, 130 (57%) respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 71% indicated they would stop ordering routine radiographs if they were proven not effective. Three facilitators were independent predictors for the intention to omit routine radiographs: This will "lead to lower health care costs" (Odds Ratio [OR]: 5.38 and 4.38), the need for "incorporation in the regional protocol" (OR: 3.66 and 2.66), and this will "result in time savings for the patient" (OR: 4.84).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified three facilitators that could provide backing for a deimplementation strategy aimed at a reduction of routine radiographs for patients with distal radius and ankle fractures.

Towards a systematic approach for (de)implementation of patient blood management strategies

Despite the increasing availability of evidence in transfusion medicine literature, this evidence does not automatically find its way into practice. This is also applicable to patient blood management (PBM). It may concern the lack of implementation of effective new techniques or treatments, or it may apply to the (over)use of techniques and treatments (e.g. inappropriate transfusions) that have proven to be of limited benefit for patients (low-value care) and could be abandoned (de-implementation). In PBM literature, the implementation of restrictive transfusion thresholds and the de-implementation of inappropriate transfusions are described. However, most implementation strategies were not preceded by the identification of relevant barriers, and the used strategies were not often supported by literature on behavioural changes. In this article, we describe implementation vs de-implementation, highlight the current situation of (de)implementation in PBM and describe a systematic approach for (de)implementation illustrated by an example of a PBM de-implementation study regarding '(cost-) effective patient blood management in total hip and knee arthroplasty'. The systematic approach used for (de)implementation is based on the implementation model of Grol, which consists of the following five steps: the detection of improvement goals, a problem analysis, the selection of (de)implementation strategies, the execution of the (de)implementation strategy and an evaluation. Based on the description of the current situation and the experiences in our de-implementation study, we can conclude that de-implementation may be more difficult than expected as other factors may play a role in effective de-implementation compared to implementation.

How the dual process model of human cognition can inform efforts to de-implement ineffective and harmful clinical practices: A preliminary model of unlearning and substitution

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

One way to understand medical overuse at the clinician level is in terms of clinical decision-making processes that are normally adaptive but become maladaptive. In psychology, dual process models of cognition propose 2 decision-making processes. Reflective cognition is a conscious process of evaluating options based on some combination of utility, risk, capabilities, and/or social influences. Automatic cognition is a largely unconscious process occurring in response to environmental or emotive cues based on previously learned, ingrained heuristics. De-implementation strategies directed at clinicians may be conceptualized as corresponding to cognition: (1) a process of unlearning based on reflective cognition and (2) a process of substitution based on automatic cognition.

RESULTS

We define unlearning as a process in which clinicians consciously change their knowledge, beliefs, and intentions about an ineffective practice and alter their behaviour accordingly. Unlearning has been described as "the questioning of established knowledge, habits, beliefs and assumptions as a prerequisite to identifying inappropriate or obsolete knowledge underpinning and/or embedded in existing practices and routines." We hypothesize that as an unintended consequence of unlearning strategies clinicians may experience "reactance," ie, feel their professional prerogative is being violated and, consequently, increase their commitment to the ineffective practice. We define substitution as replacing the ineffective practice with one or more alternatives. A substitute is a specific alternative action or decision that either precludes the ineffective practice or makes it less likely to occur. Both approaches may work independently, eg, a substitute could displace an ineffective practice without changing clinicians' knowledge, and unlearning could occur even if no alternative exists. For some clinical practice, unlearning and substitution strategies may be most effectively used together.

CONCLUSIONS

By taking into account the dual process model of cognition, we may be able to design de-implementation strategies matched to clinicians' decision-making processes and avoid unintended consequence.

Intraoperative blood salvage may shorten the lifespan of red blood cells within 3 days postoperatively: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) recovers most lost blood, and is widely used in the clinic. It is unclear why IBS does not reduce long-term postoperative requirements for red blood cells (RBCs), and 1 possibility is that IBS affects RBC lifespan.

METHODS

Prospectively enrolled patients who underwent spine, pelvic, or femur surgery not involving allogeneic RBC transfusion were grouped based on whether they received IBS or not. Volumes of blood lost and of RBCs salvaged during surgery were recorded. Total blood cell counts, levels of plasma-free hemoglobin, and CD235a-positive granulocytes were determined perioperatively.

RESULTS

Although intraoperative blood loss was higher in the IBS group (n = 45) than in the non-IBS group (n = 52) (P < .001), hemoglobin levels were similar between groups (P = .125) at the end of surgery. Hemoglobin levels increased in non-IBS patients (4 ± 11 g/L), but decreased in IBS patients (-7 ± 12 g/L) over the first 3 postoperative days. Nadir hemoglobin levels after surgery were higher in the non-IBS group (107 ± 12 g/L) than in the IBS group (91 ± 12 g/L). Salvaged RBC volume correlated with hemoglobin decrease (r = 0.422, P = .004). In multivariate analysis, salvaged RBC volume was an independent risk factor for hemoglobin decrease (adjusted odds ratio 1.002, 95% confidence interval 1.001-1.004, P = .008). Flow cytometry showed the numbers of CD235a-positive granulocytes after surgery to be higher in the IBS group than in the non-IBS group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

IBS may shorten the lifespan of RBCs by triggering their engulfment upon re-infusion (China Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-OCH-14005140).

The effectiveness of a de-implementation strategy to reduce low-value blood management techniques in primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Perioperative autologous blood salvage and preoperative erythropoietin are not (cost) effective to reduce allogeneic transfusion in primary hip and knee arthroplasty, but are still used. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a theoretically informed multifaceted strategy to de-implement these low-value blood management techniques.

Methods

Twenty-one Dutch hospitals participated in this pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. At baseline, data were gathered for 924 patients from 10 intervention and 1040 patients from 11 control hospitals undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. The intervention included a multifaceted de-implementation strategy which consisted of interactive education, feedback on blood management performance, and a comparison with benchmark hospitals, aimed at orthopedic surgeons and anesthesiologists. After the intervention, data were gathered for 997 patients from the intervention and 1096 patients from the control hospitals. The randomization outcome was revealed after the baseline measurement. Primary outcomes were use of blood salvage and erythropoietin. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hemoglobin, length of stay, allogeneic transfusions, and use of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) and tranexamic acid (TXA).

Results

The use of blood salvage (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30) and erythropoietin (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) reduced significantly over time, but did not differ between intervention and control hospitals (blood salvage OR 1.74 95% CI 0.27 to 11.39, erythropoietin OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.84). Postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher (β 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.34) and length of stay shorter (β −0.36, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.09) in hospitals receiving the multifaceted strategy, compared with control hospitals and after adjustment for baseline. Transfusions did not differ between the intervention and control hospitals (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.78). Both LIA (OR 0.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.0) and TXA (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5) were significantly associated with the reduction in blood salvage over time.

Conclusions

Blood salvage and erythropoietin use reduced over time, but not differently between intervention and control hospitals. The reduction in blood salvage was associated with increased use of local infiltration analgesia and tranexamic acid, suggesting that de-implementation is assisted by the substitution of techniques. The reduction in blood salvage and erythropoietin did not lead to a deterioration in patient-related secondary outcomes.

Trial registration

www.trialregister.nl, NTR4044

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0601-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers and Facilitators Associated with Non-Surgical Treatment Use for Osteoarthritis Patients in Orthopaedic Practice

Introduction

International evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with (a combination of) non-surgical treatments, and using surgical intervention only if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that non-surgical treatments are not optimally used in orthopaedic practice. To improve the adoption of non-surgical treatments, more insight is needed into barriers and facilitators of these treatments. Therefore, this study assessed which barriers and facilitators are associated with the use and prescription of different non-surgical treatments before hip and knee OA in orthopaedic practice among patients and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands.

Materials and Methods

We performed two internet-based surveys among 172 orthopaedic surgeons and 174 OA patients. Univariate association and multivariable regression techniques are used to identify barriers and facilitators associated with the use of non-surgical treatments.

Results

Most barriers and facilitators among patients were associated with the use of physical therapy, lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. Among orthopaedic surgeons, most were associated with prescription of acetaminophen, dietary therapy and physical therapy. Examples of barriers and facilitators among patients included “People in my environment had positive experiences with a surgery” (facilitator for education about OA), and “Advice of people in my environment to keep on moving” (facilitator for lifestyle and dietary advice). For orthopaedic surgeons, examples were “Lack of knowledge about guideline” (barrier for lifestyle advice), “Agreements/ deliberations with primary care” and “Easy communication with a dietician” (facilitators for dietary therapy). Also the belief in the efficacy of these treatments was associated with increased prescription.

Conclusions

Strategies to improve non-surgical treatment use in orthopaedic practice should be targeted at changing the beliefs of orthopedic surgeons, communication with other OA care providers and involving patient’s environment in OA treatment.

The "Choosing Wisely" initiative to reduce low value care: has endocrinology been wise enough?

The challenges of practicing medicine manifest at multiple levels from the clinician-patient interaction to society. Among these are excess health care costs related to overuse and use of low-value care, services which do not provide benefits worth the cost. Physicians have a role as stewards of finite resources. The Choosing Wisely initiative seeks to address this issue and involves multiple professional societies. We describe the recommendations of the Endocrine Society and others as they apply to the practicing endocrinologist.

Variation in use of non-surgical treatments among osteoarthritis patients in orthopaedic practice in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with non-surgical treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatments, but there are indications that these are not optimally used. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which all recommended non-surgical treatments were used by patients with hip or knee OA who receive(d) a total hip or knee replacement, as reported by patients and orthopaedic surgeons.

SETTING

We performed two cross-sectional internet-based surveys among patients and orthopaedic surgeons throughout the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

195 OA patients either have undergone total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty no longer than 12 months ago or being on the waiting list for surgery with a confirmed date within 3 months and 482 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The use of recommended non-surgical treatments including education about OA/treatment options, lifestyle advice, dietary therapy, physical therapy, acetaminophen, NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injections.

RESULTS

174 OA patients (93%) and 172 orthopaedic surgeons (36%) completed the surveys. Most recommended non-surgical treatments were given to the majority of patients (eg, 80% education about OA, 73% physical therapy, 72% acetaminophen, 80% NSAIDs). However, only 6% of patients and 10% of orthopaedic surgeons reported using a combination of all recommended treatments. Dietary therapy was used least frequently. Only 11% of overweight and 30% of obese participants reported having received dietary therapy and 28% of orthopaedic surgeons reported to prescribe dietary therapy to overweight patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While most recommended non-surgical treatments were used frequently as single therapy, the combination is used in only a small percentage of OA patients. Especially, use of dietary therapy may be improved to help patients manage their symptoms, and potentially delay the need for joint arthroplasty.

Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice

BACKGROUND

Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.

De-implementation of expensive blood saving measures in hip and knee arthroplasties: study protocol for the LISBOA-II cluster randomized trial

Background

Despite evidence that erythropoietin and intra- and postoperative blood salvage are expensive techniques considered to be non-cost-effective in primary elective total hip and knee arthroplasties in the Netherlands, Dutch medical professionals use them frequently to prevent the need for allogeneic transfusion. To actually change physicians’ practice, a tailored strategy aimed at barriers that hinder physicians in abandoning the use of erythropoietin and perioperative blood salvage was systematically developed. The study aims to examine the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of this tailored de-implementation strategy compared to a control strategy.

Methods/Design

A cluster randomized controlled trial including an effect, process and economic evaluation will be conducted in a minimum of 20 Dutch hospitals. Randomisation takes place at hospital level. The hospitals in the intervention group will receive a tailored de-implementation strategy that consists of four components: interactive education, feedback in educational outreach visits, electronically sent reports on hospital performance (all aimed at orthopedic surgeons and anesthesiologists), and information letters or emails aimed at other involved professionals within the intervention hospital (transfusion committee, OR-personnel, pharmacists). The hospitals in the control group will receive a control strategy (i.e., passive dissemination of available evidence). Outcomes will be measured at patient level, using retrospective medical record review. This will be done in all hospitals at baseline and after completion of the intervention period. The primary outcome of the effect evaluation is the percentage of patients undergoing primary elective total hip or knee arthroplasty in which erythropoietin or perioperative blood salvage is applied. The actual exposure to the tailored strategy and users’ experiences will be assessed in the process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the costs of the tailored strategy and the control strategy in relation to the difference in their effectiveness will be compared.

Discussion

This study will show whether a systematically developed tailored strategy is more effective for de-implementation of non-cost-effective blood saving measures than the control strategy. This knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives to make healthcare more efficient. It also provides more generalized knowledge regarding de-implementation strategies.

Trial registration

This trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register NTR4044.