How to Uncover Sources of Unwarranted Practice Variation: A Case Study in Emergency Medicine

Health Insurance Schemes and Their Influences on Healthcare Variation in Asian Countries: A Realist Review and Theory's Testing in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Various features in health insurance schemes may lead to variation in healthcare. Unwarranted variations raise concerns about suboptimal quality of care, differing treatments for similar needs, or unnecessary financial burdens on patients and health systems. This realist review aims to explore insurance features that may contribute to healthcare variation in Asian countries; and to understand influencing mechanisms and contexts.

METHODS

We undertook a realist review. First, we developed an initial theory. Second, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature in Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science to produce a middle range theory for Asian countries. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise the methodological quality of included studies. Finally, we tested the theory in Thailand by interviewing nine experts, and further refined the theory.

RESULTS

Our systematic search identified 14 empirical studies. We produced a middle range theory in a context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOc) which presented seven insurance features: benefit package, cost-sharing policies, beneficiaries, contracted providers, provider payment methods, budget size, and administration and management, that influenced variation through 20 interlinked demand- and supply-side mechanisms. The refined theory for Thailand added eight mechanisms and discarded six mechanisms irrelevant to the local context.

CONCLUSION

Our middle range and refined theories provide information about health insurance features associated with healthcare variation. We encourage policy-makers and researchers to test the CMOc in their specific contexts. Appropriately validated, it can help design interventions in health insurance schemes to prevent or mitigate the detrimental effects of unwarranted healthcare variation.

Shared Medical Decision Making Reconsidered: Challenging an Overly Cognitivist Perspective with a Linguistic Approach

This article critically examines the four patterns of shared medical decision making (physician-dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated) suggested by Lippa et al. (2017). The aim of the study is to challenge these patterns with a new data set of conversations between physicians and cancer patients in a hospital ward. We recorded 13 physician-patient-conversations during the medical round in an Austrian hospital, which in total lasted about 1.5 h (language: German). We then categorized the medical decisions found in the data following Lippa et al.'s instructions and further analyzed them with a fine-grained linguistic approach. The study revealed no patient-dominated decisions and one decision, which could not be categorized with one of the patterns. Results from the linguistic approach call into question the generalizability, distinctiveness and validity of the patterns. Finally, the relationship between shared decision making and clinical distributed cognition is discussed.

Real World Practice Deviation from Nationwide Guidelines in Patients with Intermittent Claudication

OBJECTIVE

Patients with intermittent claudication (IC) are initially treated with supervised exercise therapy (SET), as advised by national and international guidelines. Dutch health insurance companies and the Dutch National Health Care Institute suggested an 87% compliance rate with these guidelines in the Netherlands in 2017 and judged this to be undesirably low. The aim of this study was to evaluate compliance with IC guidelines and to elaborate on the reasons for deviating from them (practice variation) in a large teaching hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective single centre cohort study was conducted at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands. In total, 420 patients with newly diagnosed IC between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 were analysed. Data included risk profiles and prescribed therapies.

RESULTS

For all 420 included patients, the compliance rate with the guidelines for SET was 80.5%. The rate of adequately motivated and defensible practice variation was 15.7%; the rate of unjustified practice variation was 3.8%. Meaningful care was seen in 96.2% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Deviation from IC guidelines was found in 19.5% of patients. Almost three quarters of this deviation can be explained by the decision to provide personalised, meaningful care.

Becoming the temporary surgeon: A grounded theory examination of anaesthetists performing emergency front of neck access in inter-disciplinary simulation-based training

The time-critical 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' [CICO] emergency post-induction of anaesthesia is rare, but one which, should it occur, requires Anaesthetists to perform rapid emergency front of neck access [FONA] to the trachea, restoring oxygenation, and preventing death or brain hypoxia. The UK Difficult Airway Society [DAS] has directed all Anaesthetists to be trained with surgical cricothyroidotomy [SCT] as the primary emergency FONA method, sometimes referred to as 'Cric' as a shorthand. We present a longitudinal analysis using a classical approach to Grounded Theory methodology of ten Specialist Trainee Anaesthetists' data during a 6-month training programme delivered jointly by Anaesthetists and Surgeons. We identified with a critical realist ontology and an objectivist epistemology meaning data interpretation was driven by participants' narratives and accepted as true accounts of their experience. Our theory comprises three themes: 'Identity as an Anaesthetist'; 'The Role of a Temporary Surgeon'; and 'Training to Reconcile Identities', whereby training facilitated the psychological transition from a 'bloodless Doctor' (Anaesthetist) to becoming a 'temporary Surgeon'. The training programme enabled Specialist Trainees to move between the role of control and responsibility (Identity as an Anaesthetist), through self-described 'failure' and into a role of uncertainty about one's own confidence and competence (The Role of a Temporary Surgeon), and then return to the Anaesthetist's role once the airway had been established. Understanding the complexity of an intervention and providing a better insight into the training needs of Anaesthetic trainees, via a Grounded Theory approach, allows us to evaluate training programmes against the recognised technical and non-technical needs of those being trained.

Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: Definitions and proposal of an analytic framework

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Unwarranted clinical variation is a topic of heightened interest in health care systems around the world. While there are many publications and reports on clinical variation, few studies are conceptually grounded in a theoretical model. This study describes the empirical foundations of the field and proposes an analytic framework.

METHOD

Structured construct mapping of published empirical studies which explicitly address unwarranted clinical variation.

RESULTS

A total of 190 studies were classified in terms of three key dimensions: perspective (assessing variation across geographical areas or across providers); criteria for assessment (measuring absolute variation against a standard, or relative variation within a comparator group); and object of analysis (using process, structure/resource, or outcome metrics).

CONCLUSION

Consideration of the results of the mapping exercise-together with a review of adjustment, explanatory and stratification variables, and the factors associated with residual variation-informed the development of an analytic framework. This framework highlights the role that agency and motivation, evidence and judgement, and personal and organizational capacity play in clinical decision making and reveals key facets that distinguish warranted from unwarranted clinical variation. From a measurement perspective, it underlines the need for careful consideration of attribution, aggregation, models of care, and temporality in any assessment.

Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore differences and commonalities between diagnostic strategies used by clinicians in general practice and the emergency department.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTINGS

We videotaped 282 consultations of 12 general practitioners (GPs) in Germany, irrespective of presenting complaint or final diagnosis. Reflective interviews were performed after each consultation. In addition, 171 consultations of 16 emergency physicians (EPs) based at two tertiary care hospitals in the Midwest of the USA were observed, and their conversations recorded. Recordings of consultations and GP interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a coding system that was based on published literature and systematically checked for reliability.

RESULTS

EPs more often considered acute and severe conditions, even if pretest probabilities were low. In contrast, GPs more often involved their patients in the decision-making process and provided assurance concerning their complaints. To focus their workup, EPs used a more directive style of interviewing including a high proportion of routine questions and rarely used open questions or active listening.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies used by physicians in both settings seem to be well adapted to their respective environments. Whereas the physician-led diagnostic process in the emergency department is well suited to rule out life-threating disease, diagnosis and appropriate treatment of everyday problems may require a more patient-centred style.