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

Multicomponent processes to identify and prioritise low-value care in hospital settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review mapped and synthesised original research that identified low-value care in hospital settings as part of multicomponent processes.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL) and grey literature were last searched 11 July and 3 June 2022, respectively, with no language or date restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included original research targeting the identification and prioritisation of low-value care as part of a multicomponent process in hospital settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Screening was conducted in duplicate. Data were extracted by one of six authors and checked by another author. A framework synthesis was conducted using seven areas of focus for the review and an overuse framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven records were included (21 original studies, 4 abstracts and 2 reviews), originating from high-income countries. Benefit or value (11 records), risk or harm (10 records) were common concepts referred to in records that explicitly defined low-value care (25 records). Evidence of contextualisation including barriers and enablers of low-value care identification processes were identified (25 records). Common components of these processes included initial consensus, consultation, ranking exercise or list development (16 records), and reviews of evidence (16 records). Two records involved engagement of patients and three evaluated the outcomes of multicomponent processes. Five records referenced a theory, model or framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps identified included applying systematic efforts to contextualise the identification of low-value care, involving people with lived experience of hospital care and initiatives in resource poor contexts. Insights were obtained regarding the theories, models and frameworks used to guide initiatives and ways in which the concept 'low-value care' had been used and reported. A priority for further research is evaluating the effect of initiatives that identify low-value care using contextualisation as part of multicomponent processes.

Behavioral Strategies in Diagnostic Stewardship

Diagnostic stewardship refers to the responsible and judicious use of diagnostic tests to reduce low value care and improve patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of behavioral strategies, their relevance to diagnostic stewardship and highlights behavioral determinants that drive diagnostic testing behavior, drawing on theoretic frameworks. Additionally, we provide concrete examples of evidence-based behavioral strategies for promoting appropriate diagnostic testing while acknowledging associated challenges. Finally, we highlight the significance of evaluating these strategies and provide an overview of evaluation frameworks and methods.

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.

Machine learning-based prediction of low-value care for hospitalized patients

Objective

Low-value care (i.e., costly health care treatments that provide little or no benefit) is an ongoing problem in United States hospitals. Traditional strategies for reducing low-value care are only moderately successful. Informed by behavioral science principles, we sought to use machine learning to inform a targeted prompting system that suggests preferred alternative treatments at the point of care but before clinicians have made a decision.

Methods

We used intravenous administration of albumin for fluid resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients as an exemplar of low-value care practice, identified using the electronic health record of a multi-hospital health system. We divided all ICU episodes into 4-h periods and defined a set of relevant clinical features at the period level. We then developed two machine learning models: a single-stage model that directly predicts if a patient will receive albumin in the next period; and a two-stage model that first predicts if any resuscitation fluid will be administered and then predicts albumin only among the patients with a high probability of fluid use.

Results

We examined 87,489 ICU episodes divided into approximately 1.5 million 4-h periods. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 for both prediction models. The positive predictive value was 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.23) for the single-stage model and 0.22 (0.20, 0.23) for the two-stage model. Applying either model in a targeted prompting system could prevent 10% of albumin administrations, with an attending physician receiving one prompt every 4.2 days of ICU service.

Conclusion

Prediction of low-value care is feasible and could enable a point-of-care, targeted prompting system that offers suggestions ahead of the moment of need before clinicians have already decided. A two-stage approach does not improve performance but does interject new levers for the calibration of such a system.

Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access.

RESULTS

We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Causes of Inappropriate Laboratory Test Ordering from the Perspective of Medical Laboratory Technical Professionals: Implications for Research and Education

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate laboratory test ordering is a significant and persistent problem. Many causes have been identified and studied. Medical laboratory professionals (MLPs) are technical staff within clinical laboratories who are uniquely positioned to comment on why inappropriate ordering occurs. We aimed to characterize existing MLP perceptions in this domain to reveal new or underemphasized interventional targets.

METHODS

We developed and disseminated a self-administered survey to MLPs in Canada, including open-ended responses to questions about the causes of inappropriate laboratory test ordering.

RESULTS

Four primary themes were identified from qualitative analysis: ordering-provider factors, communication factors, existing test-ordering processes, and patient factors. Although these factors can largely be found in previous literature, some are under-studied.

CONCLUSION

MLP insights into nonphysician triage ordering and poor result communication provide targets for further investigation. A heavy focus on individual clinician factors suggests that current understandings and interprofessional skills in the MLP population can be improved.

Beyond implementation: Uncovering the parallels between de-implementation and antimicrobial stewardship

De-implementation is defined as the process of discontinuing, removing, reducing, or replacing a harmful, ineffective, or low-value clinical practice or intervention. The goal of de-implementation strategies is to minimize patient harm, maximize use of resources, and reduce healthcare costs and inequities. Both antibiotic and diagnostic stewardship programs focus on reducing low-value interventions (tests or antimicrobials). Stewardship interventions commonly involve de-implementation and deprescribing strategies. This commentary explores unique aspects of deimplementing low-value testing and unnecessary antimicrobial use, similarities between de-implementation and stewardship approaches, multilevel factors that impact de-implementation, and opportunities for future research.

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.

Implementation of clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis together (IMPACT): protocol for a participatory health research approach to implementing high value care

Background

The evidence-based interventions of exercise and education have been strongly recommended as part of prominent clinical guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) for more than ten years. Despite the wealth of strong evidence that exists, implementation in practice is sub-optimal. This paper describes the key methodologies used in the co-design, tailoring, and evaluation of the IMPACT project implementation strategies, to confront this problem across multiple levels (micro, meso, macro) in public and private healthcare settings in Ireland.

Methods

Using a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness design, a participatory, dynamic and iterative process will be used to tailor and evaluate multi-level implementation strategies using the following stages: 1) Co-design the implementation strategies with key stakeholders using best evidence, a theory-driven implementation framework (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), local context and expert consensus; 2) Pilot and evaluate the implementation strategies by training physiotherapists to deliver the evidence-based Good Life with osteoArthritis Denmark (GLA:D®) education and exercise programme using the implementation strategies, and conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation; 3) Adapt the implementation strategies based on implementation process evaluation indicators from stage two. The adapted strategies will be used for scale-up and sustainability in subsequent GLA:D® Ireland training programmes that will be rolled out nationally. Evaluation of effectiveness on patient and cost outcomes will continue up to 12 months post-programme delivery, using an online patient registry and pre-post design.

Discussion

This implementation science project aims to use participatory health research to address a gap in management of OA across public and private healthcare settings. This research has the potential to change practice and promote a policy of exercise and physical activity referral for chronic musculoskeletal disease that utilises community engagement effectively and enacts change ‘together’, with involvement of researchers, decision-makers, clinicians and patients.

Understanding low-value care and associated de-implementation processes: a qualitative study of Choosing Wisely Interventions across Canadian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Seventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not 'patient facing'; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation.