Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries.

METHODS

Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results.

RESULTS

Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

[Implementing systematically: To what extent can implementation science make an educational contribution to health care practice?]

BACKGROUND

Implementation science is currently struggling with the challenge to translate its findings into implementation practice in health care. Therefore, it is of interest to explore to what extent advanced trainings are relevant for health care practice to support knowledge circulation, and what needs to be considered in their design.

DESIGN OF EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES AND TRAINING

Internationally, numerous initiatives have emerged in recent years to make implementation science more accessible to health care implementers. They focus, in particular, on the development of curricula for actors in health care practice and the widespread implementation of these qualification programs. In German-speaking countries, the interest in health services research is particularly evident at the level of Master's degree programs to make implementation science accessible to health care. However, these efforts need to be complemented by a participatory, needs-oriented and theory-based approach to advanced training for implementers in health care practice. This will enable the required competencies to be addressed on different levels of training and the further development of training formats.

DISCUSSION

Recent literature shows that implementers in German-speaking countries can benefit from a training program tailored to their needs. International experience in the field of advanced training in implementation science for health care practice allows us to derive essential components for the development of advanced training for the German-speaking region.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care for the management of low back pain in Iran: a qualitative multi-professional study

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder with a wide range of etiologies, ranging from self-limiting conditions to life-threatening diseases. Various modalities are available for the diagnosis and management of patients with LBP. However, many of these health services, known as low-value care (LVC), are unnecessary and impose undue financial costs on patients and health systems. The present study aimed to explore the perceptions of service providers regarding the facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC in the management of LBP in Iran.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study interviewed a total of 20 participants, including neurosurgeons, physiatrists, orthopedists, and physiotherapists, who were selected through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The collected data were analyzed using the thematic content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine sub-themes, with 183 citations, were identified as barriers, and 31 sub-themes, with 120 citations, were defined as facilitators. Facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC for LBP, according to the interviewees, were categorized into five themes, including: (1) individual provider characteristics; (2) individual patient characteristics; (3) social context; (4) organizational context; and (5) economic and political context. The ten most commonly cited barriers included unrealistic tariffs, provider-induced demand, patient distrust, insufficient time allocation, a lack of insurance coverage, a lack of a comprehensive referral system, a lack of teamwork, cultural challenges, a lack of awareness, and defensive medicine. Barriers such as adherence to clinical guidelines, improving the referral system, improving the cultural status of patients, and facilitators such as strengthening teamwork, developing an appropriate provider-patient relationship, improving the cultural status of the public, motivating the patients, considering an individualized approach, establishing a desirable payment mechanism, and raising the medical tariffs were most repeatedly stated by participants.

CONCLUSION

This study has pointed out a great number of barriers and facilitators that shape the provision of LVC in the management of LBP in Iran. Therefore, it is essential for relevant stakeholders to consider these findings in order to de-implement LVC interventions in the process of LBP management.

Collaboration and Partnership in a 5-Level Engagement Framework for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Management: A Patient-oriented Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is complex, and patient engagement is essential for DFU healing, but it often comes down to the patient's consultation. Therefore, we sought to document patients' engagement in terms of collaboration and partnership for DFUs in 5 levels (direct care, organizational, policy level, research, and education), as well as strategies for patient engagement using an adapted engagement framework.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature from inception to April 2022 using the Joanna Briggs Institute method and a patient-oriented approach. We also consulted DFU stakeholders to obtain feedback on the findings. The data were extracted using PROGRESS+ factors for an equity lens. The effects of engagement were described using Bodenheimer's quadruple aims for value-based care.

RESULTS

Of 4,211 potentially eligible records, 15 studies met our eligibility criteria, including 214 patients involved in engagement initiatives. Most studies were recent (9 of 15 since 2020) and involved patient engagement at the direct medical care level (8 of 15). Self-management (7 of 15) was the principal way to clinically engage the patients. None of the studies sought to define the direct influence of patient engagement on health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Very few studies described patients' characteristics. Engaged patients were typically men from high-income countries, in their 50s, with poorly managed type 2 diabetes. We found little rigorous research of patient engagement at all levels for DFUs. There is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in this area and to engage a diversity of patients.

What works for and what hinders deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Low-value care can harm patients and healthcare systems. Despite a decade of global endeavours, low value care has persisted. Identification of barriers and enablers is essential for effective deimplementation of low-value care. This scoping review is an evidence summary of barriers, enablers and features of effective interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice worldwide.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to 5 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies which employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore deimplementation of low-value care in an EM setting and reported barriers, enablers or interventions were included. Reviews, protocols, perspectives, comments, opinions, editorials, letters to editors, news articles, books, chapters, policies, guidelines and animal studies were excluded. No language limits were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study selection, data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Barriers, enablers and interventions were mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 167 studies. A majority were quantitative studies (90%, 150/167) that evaluated interventions (86%, 143/167). Limited provider abilities, diagnostic uncertainty, lack of provider insight, time constraints, fear of litigation, and patient expectations were the key barriers. Enablers included leadership commitment, provider engagement, provider training, performance feedback to providers and shared decision-making with patients. Interventions included one or more of the following facets: education, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback, clinical decision support, nudge, clinical champions and training. Multifaceted interventions were more likely to be effective than single-faceted interventions. Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions was influenced by fidelity of the intervention facets. Use of behavioural change theories such as the Theoretical Domains Framework in the published studies appeared to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to deimplement low-value care.

CONCLUSION

High-fidelity, multifaceted interventions that incorporated education, stakeholder engagement, audit/feedback and clinical decision support, were administered daily and lasted longer than 1 year were most effective in achieving deimplementation of low-value care in emergency departments. This review contributes the best available evidence to date, but further rigorous, theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are needed to supplement the growing body of evidence to effectively deimplement low-value care in emergency medicine practice.

Patient perceptions of in-hospital laboratory blood testing: A patient-oriented and patient co-designed qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low-value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in-hospital laboratory testing.

OBJECTIVES

To understand patient experience with the process of in-hospital laboratory blood testing.

METHODS

We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached.

RESULTS

We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in-hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care.

CONCLUSION

Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision-making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in-hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient-centred. To bring a lived-experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9-11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co-developed participant recruitment strategies, co-conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co-authors of this manuscript.

Testing Theory-Based Messages to Encourage Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer to Consider Biennial Mammography Screening

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend routine annual mammography screening for women aged 40-49 at average risk. Little research has been done to develop theory-based communication interventions to facilitate informed decision-making about reducing potentially low-value mammography screening.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the effects of theory-based persuasive messages on women's willingness to consider delaying screening mammography until age 50 or have mammograms biennially.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled communication experiment online with a population-based sample of U.S. women aged 40-49 (N = 383) who screened to be at average risk for breast cancer. Women were randomly assigned to the following messaging summaries: annual mammography risks in 40s (Arm 1, n = 124), mammography risks plus family history-based genetic risk (Arm 2, n = 120), and mammography risks, genetic risk, and behavioral alternatives (Arm 3, n = 139). Willingness to delay screening or reduce screening frequency was assessed post-experiment by a set of 5-point Likert scale items.

RESULTS

Women in Arm 3 reported significantly greater willingness to delay screening mammography until age 50 (mean = 0.23, SD = 1.26) compared with those in Arm 1 (mean = -0.17, SD = 1.20; p = .04). There were no significant arm differences in willingness to reduce screening frequency. Exposure to the communication messages significantly shifted women's breast cancer-related risk perceptions without increasing unwarranted cancer worry across all three arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing women with screening information and options may help initiate challenging discussions with providers about potentially low-value screening.

Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

Acceptability of a Hypothetical Reduction in Routinely Scheduled Clinic Visits Among Patients With History of a Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

After treatment for a localized melanoma, patients attend routinely scheduled clinics to monitor for new primary or recurrent melanoma. Patient-led surveillance (skin self-examination with patient-performed teledermoscopy) is an alternative model of follow-up that could replace some routinely scheduled visits.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits among participants of the Melanoma Self Surveillance (MEL-SELF) pilot randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance (intervention) versus usual care (control).

METHODS

Patients previously treated for localized melanoma in New South Wales who were participating in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized clinical trial were asked to respond to a web-based questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months on trial. We used mixed methods to analyze the data. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits for melanoma surveillance.

RESULTS

Of 100 randomized participants, 87 answered the questionnaire at baseline, 66 answered the questionnaire at 6 months, and 79 provided a free-text explanation at either time point. At 6 months, 33% (17/51) of the control group and 35% (17/49) of the intervention group indicated that a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits with all melanoma doctors was at least slightly acceptable (difference in proportions -1%, 95% CI -20% to 17%; P=.89). Participants suggested that prerequisites for a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would include that sufficient time had elapsed since the previous diagnosis without a new primary melanoma or recurrence, an unscheduled appointment could be made at short notice if the patient noticed something concerning, their melanoma doctor had suggested reducing their clinic visit frequency, and patients had confidence that patient-led surveillance was a safe and effective alternative. Participants suggested that a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would not be acceptable where they perceived a very high risk of new or recurrent melanoma, low self-efficacy in skin self-examination and in the use of technologies for the patient-led surveillance intervention, and where they had a preference for clinician-led surveillance. Some patients said that a partial reduction to once a year may be acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients may be receptive to a reduction in routinely scheduled visits if they are assured that patient-led surveillance is safe and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865&isReview=true; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03581188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581188.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4704.

Identification of barriers, enablers and interventions to inform deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice: A protocol for a mixed methods scoping review informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework

INTRODUCTION

Low-value care can lead to patient harm, misdirected clinician time and wastage of finite healthcare resources. Despite worldwide endeavours, deimplementing low-value care has proved challenging. Multifaceted, context and barrier-specific interventions are essential for successful deimplementation. The aim of this literature review is to summarise the evidence about barriers to, enablers of and interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed methods scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework will be conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature will be searched from inception. Primary studies will be included. Barriers, enablers and interventions will be mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Study selection, data collection and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. NVivo software will be used for qualitative data analysis. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework will be used to present results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. This review will generate an evidence summary regarding barriers to, enablers of and interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice. This review will facilitate discussions about deimplementation with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, consumers and managers. These discussions are expected to inform the design and conduct of planned future projects to identify context-specific barriers and enablers then codesign, implement and evaluate barrier-specific interventions.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes.

METHODS

Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized.

RESULTS

The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Beyond Microsystem Fixes: Targeting National Drivers of Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Low-value care drivers and interventions are often focused on a microsystem (eg, clinic or inpatient ward) or within a health system. Identification of national drivers such as payment structure and medical culture of overuse can help identify regional approaches to reducing low-value care. However, these approaches in isolation are insufficient and require additional strategies. These can include policy and payment changes and adopting shared decision-making (SDM). SDM has the potential to move medical culture away from the 'more is better' paternalistic and physician-centric culture to one that actively engages patients as full partners in managing their care.

Context, Culture, and the Complexity of De-Implementing Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Low-value care contributes to poor quality of care and wasteful spending in healthcare systems. In Verkerk and colleagues' recent qualitative study, interviews with low-value care experts from Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands identified a broad range of nationally relevant social, system, and knowledge factors that promote ongoing use of low-value care. These factors highlight the complexity of the problem that is persistent use of low-value care and how it is heavily influenced by public and medical culture as well as healthcare system features. This commentary discusses how these findings integrate within current low-value care and de-implementation literature and uses specific low-value care examples to highlight the importance of considering context, culture, and clinical setting when considering how to apply these factors to future de-implementation initiatives.

Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries.

METHODS

We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a 'more is better' culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy.

CONCLUSION

Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care.

Factors Associated with Mammography Screening Choices by Women Aged 40-49 at Average Risk

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) does not recommend routine mammogram screening for women aged 40-49 years at average risk for breast cancer. We aimed to assess the extent to which women were following guideline recommendations and to examine whether guideline awareness and other individual-level factors were associated with adherence. Materials and Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative panel of 383 U.S. women aged 40-49 years at low risk for hereditary breast cancer in October 2019. Results: Only 29% of women reported not having initiated screening mammography. Most women (80%) were unaware of the USPSTF screening guideline related to age of initiation and frequency of mammography. Being aware of the recommendation to initiate screening at age 50 increased the odds of not initiating screening (odds ratio [OR] = 6.70, p < 0.001), whereas being older than 45 years (OR = 0.22, p < 0.001) and having a primary care doctor decreased the odds of not initiating screening (OR = 0.25, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Mammogram screening in excess of USPSTF recommendations is prevalent among U.S. women aged 40-49 years. Efforts are needed to increase women's awareness of the rationale for guidelines and the opportunities to discuss with providers whether delaying mammograms is appropriate.

Acceptability of a companion patient guide to support expert consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors

Purpose

To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

Methods

The “Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?” guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions.

Results

We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit).

Conclusion

Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide’s impact mammography utilization.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06676-3.

Identifying and prioritizing do-not-do recommendations in Dutch primary care

BACKGROUND

Low-value care provides minimal or no benefit for the patient, wastes resources, and can cause harm. Explicit do-not-do recommendations in clinical guidelines are a first step in reducing low-value care. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize do-not-do recommendations in general practice guidelines with priority for implementation.

METHODS

We used a mixed method design in Dutch primary care. First, we identified do-not-do recommendations through a systematic assessment of 92 Dutch guidelines for general practitioners (GPs), resulting in 385 do-not-do recommendations. Second, we selected 146 recommendations addressing high prevalent conditions. Third, a random sample of 5000 Dutch GPs was invited for an online survey to prioritize recommendations based on the prevalence of the condition and low-value care practice, potential harm, and potential cost reduction on a scale from 1 to 5/6. Total scores could range from 4 to 22. Recommendations with a median score > 12 were included. In total, 440 GPs completed the survey.

RESULTS

The selection process led to 30 prioritised recommendations. These covered drug treatments (n = 12), diagnostics (n = 10), referral to other healthcare professions (n = 5), and non-drug treatment (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Dutch clinical guidelines include many do-not-do recommendations that are perceived as highly relevant by the GPs. The list of 30 high-priority do-not-do recommendations can be used to raise awareness of low-value care among GPs. As the recommendations are supported with the latest evidence from international studies, primary healthcare professionals and policy makers worldwide can use the list for further validating the list in their local context and designing strategies to reduce low-value care.

Reducing low-value radiological services in Norway -a qualitative multi-professional study on measures and facilitators for change

BACKGROUND

Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities' representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into various stakeholders' perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work.

Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Patients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour.

METHODS

Three phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions "would this change your health behaviour" and "would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider". Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

From the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question "would this change your health behaviour" two patient partners agreed 'yes' on 27% of patient resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.

Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study

Background

There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation.

Methods

This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). ‘Raw text’ determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews.

Results

In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included ‘lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation’ (n = 90, 21%), ‘entrenched norms and clinicians’ resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and ‘patient demands and preferences’ (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included ‘stakeholder collaboration and communication’ (n = 43, 15%), and ‘availability of credible evidence’ (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care.

Conclusions

The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives.

Trial registration

The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07827-4.

Does de-implementation of low-value care impact the patient-clinician relationship? A mixed methods study

Background

The importance of reducing low-value care (LVC) is increasingly recognized, but the impact of de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship is not well understood. This mixed-methods study explored the impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship.

Methods

Adult primary care patients from a large Virginia health system volunteered to participate in a survey (n = 232) or interview (n = 24). Participants completed the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) after reading a vignette about a clinician declining to provide a low-value service: antibiotics for acute sinusitis (LVC-antibiotics); screening EKG (LVC-EKG); screening vitamin D test (LVC-vitamin D); or an alternate vignette about a high-value service, and imagining that their own primary care clinician had acted in the same manner. A different sample of participants was asked to imagine that their own primary care clinician did not order LVC-antibiotics or LVC-EKG and then respond to semi-structured interview questions. Outcomes data included participant demographics, PDRQ-9 scores (higher score = greater relationship integrity), and content analysis of transcribed interviews. Differences in PDRQ-9 scores were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Data were integrated for analysis and interpretation.

Results

Although participants generally agreed with the vignette narrative (not providing LVC), many demonstrated difficulty comprehending the broad concept of LVC and potential harms. The topic triggered memories of negative experiences with healthcare (typically poor-quality care, not necessarily LVC). The most common recommendation for reducing LVC was for patients to take greater responsibility for their own health. Most participants believed that their relationship with their clinician would not be negatively impacted by denial of LVC because they trusted their clinician’s guidance. Participants emphasized that trusted clinicians are those who listen to them, spend time with them, and offer understandable advice. Some felt that not providing LVC would actually increase their trust in their clinician. Similar PDRQ-9 scores were observed for LVC-antibiotics (38.9), LVC-EKG (37.5), and the alternate vignette (36.4), but LVC-vitamin D was associated with a significantly lower score (31.2) (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

In this vignette-based study, we observed minimal impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship, although service-specific differences surfaced. Further situation-based research is needed to confirm study findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07345-9.

Views of healthcare consumer representatives on defensive practice: 'We are your biggest advocate and supporter… not the enemy'

Background

The patient–clinician interaction is a site at which defensive practice could occur, when clinicians provide tests, procedures and treatments mainly to reduce perceived legal risks, rather than to advance patient care. Defensive practice is a driver of low‐value care and exposes patients to the risks of unnecessary interventions. To date, patient perspectives on defensive practice and its impacts on them are largely missing from the literature. This exploratory study conducted in Australia aimed to examine the views and experiences of healthcare consumer representatives in this under‐examined area.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with healthcare consumer representatives involved in healthcare consumer advocacy organisations in Australia. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

Nine healthcare consumer representatives participated. Most had over 20 years of involvement and advocacy in healthcare, including personal experiences as a patient or carer and/or formal service roles on committees or complaint bodies for healthcare organisations. Participants uniformly viewed defensive practice as having a negative impact on the clinician–patient relationship. Themes identified the importance of fostering patient–clinician partnership, effective communication and informed decision‐making. The themes support a shift from the concept of defensive practice to preventive practice in partnership, which focuses on the shared interests of patients and clinicians in achieving safe and high‐value care.

Conclusion

This Australian study offers healthcare consumers' perspectives on the impacts of defensive practice on patients. The findings highlight the features of clinician–patient partnership that will help to improve communication and decision‐making, and prevent the defensive provision of low‐value care.

Patient or Public Contribution

Healthcare consumer representatives were involved as participants in this study.

Effectiveness of professional and patient-oriented strategies in reducing vitamin D and B12 test ordering in primary care: a cluster randomised intervention study

Background

Vitamin tests are increasingly ordered by GPs, but a clinical and evidence-based indication is often lacking. Harnessing technology (that is, decision support tools and redesigning request forms) have been shown to reduce vitamin requests.

Aim

To investigate whether the number of vitamin tests may be reduced by providing a multi-level intervention programme based on training, monitoring, and feedback.

Design & setting

This was a cluster randomised intervention study performed in 26 primary care health centres (>195 000 patients) in the Netherlands. The relative reduction in ordered vitamin D and B12 tests was determined after introduction of two de-implementation strategies (1 May 2017 to 30 April 2018).

Method

Health centres randomised to de-implementation strategy 1 received education and benchmarking of their own vitamin test ordering behaviour every 3 months. Health centres in de-implementation strategy 2 received the same education and benchmarking, but supplemented with educational material for patients.

Results

The number of vitamin D tests decreased by 23% compared to the 1-year pre-intervention period (1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017). For vitamin B12 tests an overall reduction of 20% was found. Provision of patient educational information showed additional value over training and benchmarking of GPs alone for vitamin D test ordering (10% extra reduction, odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 0.92), but not for vitamin B12 ordering (4% extra reduction, OR 0.96, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.02). Nationwide, this would result in over €3 200 000 in savings on healthcare expenditure a year.

Conclusion

A structured intervention programme, including training and benchmarking of GPs regarding their diagnostic test ordering, resulted in a significant reduction in ordered vitamin tests. Additional information provision to patients resulted in a small but still relevant additional reduction. If implemented on a national level, a substantial cost saving could be achieved.

De-implementing low-value care in endocrinology

Low-value care exposes patients to ineffective, costly, and potentially harmful care. In endocrinology, low-value care practices are common in the care of patients with highly prevalent conditions. There is an urgent need to move past the identification of these practices to an active process of de-implementation. However, clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders might lack familiarity with the frameworks and processes that can help guide successful de-implementation. To address this gap and support the de-implementation of low-value care, we provide a summary of low-value care practices in endocrinology and a primer on the fundamentals of de-implementation science. Our goal is to increase awareness of low-value care within endocrinology and suggest a path forward for addressing low-value care using principles of de-implementation science.

Patient education materials to implement choosing wisely recommendations for internal medicine at the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely aims to reduce low-value care to improve quality and lower costs. In the Netherlands, this campaign offers three recommendations for internal medicine applicable in emergency departments (EDs): (1) do not place an indwelling urinary catheter in non-critically ill patients who can void; (2) do not order plain abdominal radiographs in patients with acute abdominal pain; and (3) discuss whether treatment limitations are needed. This quality improvement project aims to increase the implementation of the recommendations by patient information leaflets.

METHODS

In a prospective before-after study, we collected data every other week during baseline and intervention periods (both 7 months) in two university medical centres. The primary outcomes were the adherence rates to the recommendations.

RESULTS

805 patients visited the EDs for internal medicine, of whom 391 (48.6%) were hospitalised. Only 153 (19%) patients received the information leaflet. We found no change in implementation rates of the recommendations after the introduction of the patient information leaflet. In the baseline period, 28 patients received a urinary catheter, of whom 5 (17.9%) had no appropriate indication, compared with 4 (25.0%) of 16 patients in the intervention period (p=0.572). Unnecessary abdominal X-ray occurred once in the baseline period and not in the intervention period. Treatment limitations were not reported in 13 (6.5%) of 200 hospitalised patients in the baseline period, and in 17 (8.9%) of 191 patients in the intervention period (p=0.373).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient information leaflets did not increase the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations, which can be due to a high baseline rate and a poor dissemination of leaflets. Our ED seems not to be a practicable setting for dissemination of leaflets, since staff engagement was not possible due to high workload and shortage of qualified nursing staff in the Netherlands.