To do or not to do-balancing governance and professional autonomy to abandon low-value practices: a study protocol

Coping with in-locus factors and systemic contradictions affecting antibiotic prescription and dispensing practices in primary care-A qualitative One Health study in Brazil

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing threat to global health. The risks and sanitary consequences of AMR are disproportionately experienced by those living in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). While addressing antibiotic use has largely been documented in hospital settings, the understanding of social drivers affecting antibiotic prescribing and dispensing practices in the context of human and animal health in primary care (PC) in LMICs remains extremely limited. We seek to explore how in-locus and multi-level social factors influence antibiotic prescriptions and dispensing practices in the context of human and animal health in primary care in Brazil. This is a baseline qualitative One Health study; semi-structured interviews and field observations were undertaken in primary care sites located in a socioeconomically vulnerable area in the city of São Paulo, the most populated city of Brazil. Twenty-five human and animal healthcare professionals (HP) were purposely sampled. Interview data were subject to thematic analysis. Three overlapping social drivers were identified across HPs' discourses: individual and behavioral challenges; relational and contextual factors influencing the overprescription of antibiotics (AB); and structural barriers and systemic contradictions in the health system. As a result of the interaction between multilevel in-locus and structural and contextual factors, HPs experience contextual and territorial challenges that directly influence their risk perception, diagnosis, use of laboratorial and image exams, time and decision to undergo treatment, choice of AB and strategies in coping with AB prescriptions. Additionally, in-locus factors influencing antibiotic prescriptions and dispensing practices are intertwined with individual accounts of risk management, systemic contradictions and ambivalences in the national health system. Our findings suggest interventions tackling AB use and AMR in Brazil should consider the social context, the complex health system structure and current integrated programs and services in PC.

An Australian interpretive description of Contact Precautions through a bioethical lens; recommendations for ethically improved practice

BACKGROUND

Contact Precautions (CP) were developed to control multi-resistant organisms (MROs) in hospitals. However, MROs persist and harms are associated with CP. Research objectives were to understand the bioethical impact of CP on patients and health-professionals, and make recommendations for ethically-improved management of MRO-colonised patients.

METHOD

Interpretive description methodology scaffolded upon bioethical principles framed this qualitative study. Findings were explored alongside contemporary published reports to make recommendations for practice and research.

RESULTS

9 patients and 24 health professionals participated. Four themes were found: Powerlessness moving to acceptance; You feel a bit of a pariah; Others need protection, but I need looking after too; Doing Contact Precautions is not easy.

DISCUSSION

CP conflict with the principle of respect for autonomy due to non-adherence to informed consent, and sub-optimal communication. Patients experience healthcare inequality, and discriminatory practices breaching the principle of justice. CP elicit stigma for patients, and moral distress and inter-personal conflict for staff, breaching the principle of non-maleficence. Under the principle of beneficence, pluralistic cost-benefit assessment situates CP as low-value practice.

CONCLUSION

CP challenge organisational culture, professional well-being, and person-centred ethical care. Ethical costs of CP outweigh benefits, obliging policy-makers to reconsider CP in managing MRO-colonised patients.

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.

A Health Systems Ethical Framework for De-implementation in Health Care

INTRODUCTION

Unnecessary health care not only drive up costs, but also contribute to avoidable patient harms, underscoring an ethical obligation to eliminate practices which are harmful, lack evidence, and prevent spending on more beneficial services. To date, de-implementation ethics discussions have been limited and focused on clinical ethics principles. An analysis of de-implementation ethics in the broader context of the health care system is lacking.

METHODS

To better understand the ethical considerations of de-implementation, recognizing it as a health care systems issue, we applied Krubiner and Hyder's bioethical framework for health systems activity. We examine ethics principles relevant to de-implementation, which either call for or facilitate the reduction of low value surgery.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From 11 health systems principles proposed by Krubiner and Hyder, we identified the 5 principles most pertinent to the topic of de-implementation: evidence and effectiveness, transparency and public engagement, efficiency, responsiveness, and collaboration. An analysis of de-implementation through the lens of these principles not only supports de-implementation but proves an obligation at the health system level to eliminate low value care. Recognizing the challenge of defining "value," the proposed framework may increase the legitimacy and objectivity of de-implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is no single ideal ethical framework from which to approach de-implementation, a health systems framework allows for consideration of the systems-level factors impacting de-implementation. Framing de-implementation as a health systems issue with systems-wide ethical implications empowers providers to think about new ways to approach potential roadblocks to reducing low-value care.

How do healthcare professionals make decisions concerning low-value care practices? Study protocol of a factorial survey experiment on de-implementation

BACKGROUND

A large number of practices used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm. As such, they should be de-implemented. While there are multiple actors involved in de-implementation of such low-value care (LVC) practices, ultimately, the decision to abandon a practice is often made by each health care professional. A recent scoping review identified 6 types of factors affecting the utilization vs. abandonment of LVC practices. These factors concern health care professionals, patients, outer context, inner context, processes, and the characteristics of LVC practice itself. However, it is unclear how professionals weigh these different factors in and how these determinants influence their decisions about abandoning LVC practices. This project aims to investigate how health care professionals account for various factors as they make decisions regarding de-implementation of LVC practices.

METHODS

This project will be carried out in two main steps. First, a factorial survey experiment (a vignette study) will be applied to empirically test the relevance of factors previously identified in the literature for health care professionals' decision-making about de-implementation. Second, interactive workshops with relevant stakeholders will be carried out to develop a framework for professionals' decision-making and to offer suggestions for interventions to support de-implementation of LVC practices.

DISCUSSION

The project has the potential to contribute to improved understanding of the decision-making involved in de-implementation of LVC practices. We will identify which factors are more important when they make judgments about utilizing versus abandoning LVC practices. The results will provide the basis for recommendations concerning appropriate interventions to support de-implementation decision-making processes.

Is the end in sight? A study of how and why services are decommissioned in the English National Health Service

The decommissioning of a health-care service is invariably a highly complex and contentious process which faces many implementation challenges. There has been little specific theorisation of this phenomena, although insights can be transferred from wider literatures on policy implementation and change processes. In this paper, we present findings from empirical case studies of three decommissioning processes initiated in the English National Health Service. We apply Levine's (1979, Public Administration Review, 39(2), 179-183) typology of decommissioning drivers and insights from the empirical literature on pluralistic health-care contexts, complex change processes and institutional constraints. Data include interviews, non-participant observation and documents analysis. Alongside familiar patterns of pluralism and political partisanship, our results suggest the important role played by institutional factors in determining the outcome of decommissioning processes and in particular the prior requirement of political vulnerability for services to be successfully closed. Factors linked to the extent of such vulnerability include the scale of the proposed changes and extent to which they are supported at the macrolevel.