Identifying potentially low value surgical care: A national ecological study in England

OBJECTIVES

High variation in clinical practice may indicate uncertainty and potentially low-value care. Methods to identify low value care are often not well defined or transparent and can be time intensive. In this paper we explore the usefulness of variation analysis of routinely-collected data about surgical procedures in England to identify potentially low-value surgical care.

METHODS

This is a national ecological study using Hospital Episode Statistics linked to mid-year population estimates and indices of multiple deprivation in England, 2014/15-2018/19. We identified the top 5% of surgical procedures in terms of growth in standardised procedure rates for 2014/15 to 2018/19 and variation in procedure rates between clinical commissioning groups as measured by the systematic component of variance (SCV). A targeted literature review was conducted to explore the evidence for each of the identified techniques. Procedures without evidence of cost-effectiveness were viewed as of potentially low value.

RESULTS

We identified six surgical procedures that had a high growth rate of 37% or more over 5 years, and four with higher geographical variation (SCV >1.6). There was evidence for two of the 10 procedures that surgery was more cost-effective than non-surgical treatment albeit with uncertainty around optimal surgical technique. The evidence base for eight procedures was less clear cut, with uncertainty around clinical- and/or cost-effectiveness. These were: deep brain stimulation; removing the prostate; surgical spine procedures; a procedure to alleviate pain in the spine; surgery for dislocated joints due to trauma and associated surgery for traumatic fractures; hip joint replacement with cemented pelvic component or cemented femoral component; and shoulder joint replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that variation analysis could be regularly used to identify potentially low-value procedures. This can provide important insights into optimising services and the potential de-adoption of costly interventions and treatments that do not benefit patients and the health system more widely. Early identification of potentially low value care can inform prioritisation of clinical trials to generate evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before treatments become established in clinical practice.

Nurse productivity: using evidence to enhance nurses' use of time

The UK is experiencing a nursing shortage, making it challenging to maintain the staffing levels required to deliver effective patient care. One way of enhancing the care delivered by the existing workforce could be to optimise nurse productivity; however, previous efforts to do this have been largely ineffective, due in part to a focus on the processes of care delivery rather than the nursing activities within these processes. In this article, the author explores the concept of nurse productivity and suggests that enhancing productivity requires the identification of nursing activities and consideration of how these may be undertaken in a more time-efficient manner - or removed altogether. The author discusses two such activities: intentional (hourly) rounding, and fixed-time manual vital signs for patients on general wards. The author also considers the potential of using automatic continuous remote monitoring on general hospital wards to free up nurses' time for other care activities.

Identifying Safety Practices Perceived as Low Value: An Exploratory Survey of Healthcare Staff in the United Kingdom and Australia

OBJECTIVES

Up to 30% of healthcare spending is considered unnecessary and represents systematic waste. While much attention has been given to low-value clinical tests and treatments, much less has focused on identifying low-value safety practices in healthcare settings. With increasing recognition of the problem of "safety clutter" in organizations, it is important to consider deimplementing safety practices that do not benefit patients, to create the time needed to deliver effective, person-centered, and safe care. This study surveyed healthcare staff to identify safety practices perceived to be of low value.

METHODS

Purposive and snowball sampling was used. Data collection was conducted from April 2018 to November 2019 (United Kingdom) and May 2020 to November 2020 (Australia). Participants completed the survey online or in hard copy to identify practices they perceived to not contribute to safe care. Responses were analyzed using content and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1394 responses from 1041 participants were analyzed. Six hundred sixty-three responses were collected from 526 UK participants and 515 Australian participants contributed 731 responses. Frequently identified categories of practices identified included "paperwork," "duplication," and "intentional rounding." Five cross-cutting themes (e.g., covering ourselves) offered an underpinning rationale for why staff perceived the practices to be of low value.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff identified safety practices that they perceived to be low value. In healthcare systems under strain, removing existing low-value practices should be a priority. Careful evaluation of these identified safety practices is required to determine whether they are appropriate for deimplementation and, if not, to explore how to better support healthcare workers to perform them.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.

RESULTS

Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

The Utilization and Costs of Grade D USPSTF Services in Medicare, 2007-2016

BACKGROUND

Low-value care, or patient care that offers no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is costly and often associated with patient harm. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendations represent one of the most scientifically sound and frequently delivered groups of low-value services, but a more contemporary measurement of the utilization and spending for Grade D services beyond the small number of previously studied measures is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2007 to 2016 to identify instances of Grade D services.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

NAMCS is a nationally representative survey of US ambulatory visits at non-federal and non-hospital-based offices that uses a multistage probability sampling design. We included all visits by Medicare enrollees, which included traditional fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, supplemental coverage, and dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured annual utilization of seven Grade D services among adult Medicare patients, using inclusion and exclusion criteria from prior studies and the USPSTF recommendations. We calculated annual costs by multiplying annual utilization counts by mean per-unit costs of services using publicly available sources.

KEY RESULTS

During the study period, we identified 95,121 unweighted Medicare patient visits, representing approximately 2.4 billion visits. Each year, these seven Grade D services were utilized 31.1 million times for Medicare beneficiaries and cost $477,891,886. Three services-screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, vitamin D supplements for fracture prevention, and colorectal cancer screening for adults over 85 years-comprised $322,382,772, or two-thirds of the annual costs of the Grade D services measured in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

US Medicare beneficiaries frequently received a group of rigorously defined and costly low-value preventive services. Spending on low-value preventive care concentrated among a small subset of measures, representing important opportunities to safely lower US health care spending while improving the quality of care.

A win-win scenario? Restrictive policies from alternative standpoints

PURPOSE

In this viewpoint article, the authors consider the challenges in implementing restrictive policies, with a particular focus on how these policies are experienced, in practice, from alternative standpoints.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The authors draw on social science studies of decommissioning work to highlight how patient and official versions of value often vary, creating difficulties and distrust as restrictive policies are implemented. Patients and the public are well aware that financial calculations are somehow embedded in concepts of "evidence" and "value" but are usually unfamiliar with the social infrastructures that produce and utilise such concepts. The authors discuss with reference to a contemporary restrictive programme in England.

FINDINGS

While policymakers and researchers frequently present restrictive policies as "win-win" scenarios (achieving both cost-savings for healthcare services and improved patient care), social science analyses highlight the potential for tensions and controversies between stakeholders. The authors recognise that cost containment is a necessary component of policymaking work but argue that policymakers and researchers should seek to map (and make visible) the socially organised reasoning, systems and processes that are involved in enacting restrictive policies. Although transparency may pose challenges, it is important for informed democratic engagement, allowing legitimate scrutiny of whose voices are being heard and interests served (the "winners" and "losers").

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The authors argue for social science analyses that explore overuse, value and restrictive practices from alternative (e.g. patient) standpoints. These can provide important insights to help identify priorities for intervention and support better communication.

An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered

BACKGROUND

Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions.

DESIGN

We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

Achievements of the Cochrane Iran Associate Centre: Lessons Learned

Healthcare decision-making is a process that mainly depends on evidence and involves increasing numbers of stakeholders, including the consumers. Cochrane evidence responds to this challenge by identifying, appraising, integrating and synthesizing high-quality evidence. Recently, a collaborative effort has been initiated in Iran with Cochrane to establish a representative local entity. A variety of multifaceted interventions were conducted according to Cochrane’s strategy to 2020, such as producing evidence, making Cochrane evidence accessible, advocating for evidence and building an effective and sustainable organization. In this report, the authors present the two and half year performance and achievements of Cochrane Iran based on a comprehensive and systematic approach. This case might be an example of health diplomacy, which is initiated by a successful international collaboration and proceed with recognizing the importance of adherence to the strategic action plans and goals.

An evidence-based framework for identifying technologies of no or low-added value (NLVT)

OBJECTIVE

To synthetize the state of the art of methods for identifying candidate technologies for disinvestment and propose an evidence-based framework for executing this task.

METHODS

An interpretative review was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed to identify secondary or tertiary research related to disinvestment initiatives and/or any type of research that specifically described one or more methods for identifying potential candidates technologies, services, or practices for disinvestment. An iterative and critical analysis of the methods described alongside the disinvestment initiatives was performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen systematic reviews on disinvestment or related terms (health technology reassessment or medical reversal) were retrieved and methods of 45 disinvestment initiatives were compared. On the basis of this evidence, we proposed a new framework for identifying these technologies based on the wide definition of evidence provided by Lomas et al. The framework comprises seven basic approaches, eleven triggers and thirteen methods for applying these triggers, which were grouped in embedded and ad hoc methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Although identification methods have been described in the literature and tested in different contexts, the proliferation of terms and concepts used to describe this process creates considerable confusion. The proposed framework is a rigorous and flexible tool that could guide the implementation of strategies for identifying potential candidates for disinvestment.

A comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in three medical journals reveals 396 medical reversals

The ability to identify medical reversals and other low-value medical practices is an essential prerequisite for efforts to reduce spending on such practices. Through an analysis of more than 3000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in three leading medical journals (the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine), we have identified 396 medical reversals. Most of the studies (92%) were conducted on populations in high-income counties, cardiovascular disease was the most common medical category (20%), and medication was the most common type of intervention (33%).

Factors influencing current low-value follow-up care after basal cell carcinoma and suggested strategies for de-adoption: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Providing follow-up to patients with low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can be considered as low-value care. However, dermatologists still provide substantial follow-up care to this patient group, for reasons not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors influencing current BCC follow-up practices among dermatologists and suggested strategies to de-adopt this low-value care. In addition, views of patients regarding follow-up care were explored.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted consisting of 18 semistructured interviews with dermatologists and three focus groups with a total of 17 patients with low-risk BCC who had received dermatological care. The interviews focused on current follow-up practices, influencing factors and suggested strategies to de-adopt the follow-up care. The focus groups discussed preferred follow-up schedules and providers, as well as the content of follow-up. All (group) interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers using ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

Factors influencing current follow-up care practices among dermatologists included complying with patients' preferences, lack of trust in general practitioners (GPs), financial incentives and force of habit. Patients reported varying needs regarding periodic follow-up visits, preferred to be seen by a dermatologist and indicated a need for improved information provision. Suggested strategies by dermatologists to de-adopt the low-value care encompassed educating patients with improved information, educating GPs to increase trust of dermatologists, realizing appropriate financial reimbursement and informing dermatologists about the low value of care.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixture of factors appear to contribute to current follow-up practices after low-risk BCC. In order to de-adopt this low-value care, strategies should be aimed at dermatologists and GPs, and also patients.

Limit, lean or listen? A typology of low-value care that gives direction in de-implementation

Background

Overuse of unnecessary care is widespread around the world. This so-called low-value care provides no benefit for the patient, wastes resources and can cause harm. The concept of low-value care is broad and there are different reasons for care to be of low-value. Hence, different strategies might be necessary to reduce it and awareness of this may help in designing a de-implementation strategy. Based on a literature scan and discussions with experts, we identified three types of low-value care.

Results

The type ineffective care is proven ineffective, such as antibiotics for a viral infection. Inefficient care is in essence effective, but is of low-value through inefficient provision or inappropriate intensity, such as chronic benzodiazepine use. Unwanted care is in essence appropriate for the clinical condition it targets, but is low-value since it does not fit the patients’ preferences, such as a treatment aimed to cure a patient that prefers palliative care. In this paper, we argue that these three types differ in their most promising strategy for de-implementation and that our typology gives direction in choosing whether to limit, lean or listen.

Conclusion

We developed a typology that provides insight in the different reasons for care to be of low-value. We believe that this typology is helpful in designing a tailor-made strategy for reducing low-value care.

Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis

Background

Health systems are increasingly focusing on the issue of ‘overuse’ of health services and how to address it. We developed a framework focused on (1) the rationale and context for health systems prioritising addressing overuse, (2) elements of a comprehensive process and approach to reduce overuse and (3) implementation considerations for addressing overuse.

Methods

We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis informed by a stakeholder-engagement process. The synthesis identified relevant empirical and non-empirical articles about system-level overuse. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed for inclusion and conceptually mapped included articles. From these, we selected a purposive sample, created structured summaries of key findings and thematically synthesised the results.

Results

Our search identified 3545 references, from which we included 251. Most articles (76%; n = 192) were published within 5 years of conducting the review and addressed processes for addressing overuse (63%; n = 158) or political and health system context (60%; n = 151). Besides negative outcomes at the patient, system and global level, there were various contextual factors to addressing service overuse that seem to be key issue drivers. Processes for addressing overuse can be grouped into three elements comprising a comprehensive approach, including (1) approaches to identify overused health services, (2) stakeholder- or patient-led approaches and (3) government-led initiatives. Key implementation considerations include the need to develop ‘buy in’ from stakeholders and citizens.

Conclusions

Health systems want to ensure the use of high-value services to keep citizens healthy and avoid harm. Our synthesis can be used by policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers to understand how the issue has been prioritised, what approaches have been used to address it and implementation considerations.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the final paper in a thematic series reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was established to explore a systematic, integrated, evidence-based organisation-wide approach to disinvestment in a large Australian health service network. This paper summarises the findings, discusses the contribution of the SHARE Program to the body of knowledge and understanding of disinvestment in the local healthcare setting, and considers implications for policy, practice and research.

Discussion

The SHARE program was conducted in three phases. Phase One was undertaken to understand concepts and practices related to disinvestment and the implications for a local health service and, based on this information, to identify potential settings and methods for decision-making about disinvestment. The aim of Phase Two was to implement and evaluate the proposed methods to determine which were sustainable, effective and appropriate in a local health service. A review of the current literature incorporating the SHARE findings was conducted in Phase Three to contribute to the understanding of systematic approaches to disinvestment in the local healthcare context.

SHARE differed from many other published examples of disinvestment in several ways: by seeking to identify and implement disinvestment opportunities within organisational infrastructure rather than as standalone projects; considering disinvestment in the context of all resource allocation decisions rather than in isolation; including allocation of non-monetary resources as well as financial decisions; and focusing on effective use of limited resources to optimise healthcare outcomes.

Conclusion

The SHARE findings provide a rich source of new information about local health service decision-making, in a level of detail not previously reported, to inform others in similar situations. Multiple innovations related to disinvestment were found to be acceptable and feasible in the local setting. Factors influencing decision-making, implementation processes and final outcomes were identified; and methods for further exploration, or avoidance, in attempting disinvestment in this context are proposed based on these findings. The settings, frameworks, models, methods and tools arising from the SHARE findings have potential to enhance health care and patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3172-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Overuse in cancer care: do European studies provide information useful to support policies?

Health services overuse has been acknowledged as a relevant policy issue. In this study, we assessed the informative value of research on the quality of cancer care, exploring to what extent it is actually concerned with care overuse, thus providing policy-makers with sound estimates of overuse prevalence. We searched Medline for European studies, reporting information on the rate of use of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures/interventions in breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer patients, published in English between 2006 and 2016. Individual studies were classified with regards to their orientation towards overuse according to the quality metrics adopted in assessing rates of use of procedures and interventions.

Out of 1882 papers identified, 100 accounting for 94 studies met our eligibility criteria, most of them on breast (n = 38) and colorectal (n = 30) cancer. Of these, 46 (49%) studies relied on process indicators allowing a direct measure of under- or overuse, the latter being addressed in 22 (24%) studies. Search for overuse in patterns of care did not increase over time, with overuse being measured in 24% of the studies published before 2010, and in only 13% of those published in 2015–2016. Information on its prevalence was available only for a relatively limited number of procedures/interventions. Overall, estimates of overuse tended to be higher for diagnostic procedures (median prevalence across all studies, 24%) than for drugs, surgical procedures or radiotherapy (median overuse prevalence always lower than 10%). Despite its increasing policy relevance, overuse is still an often overlooked issue in current European research on the quality of care for cancer patients.

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

BACKGROUND

This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

DATA SOURCES

We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.

RESULTS

The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish^® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Savings from reducing low-value general surgical interventions

Background

Finding opportunities for improving efficiency is important, given the pressure on national health budgets. Identifying and reducing low-value interventions that deliver little benefit is key. A systematic literature evaluation was done to identify low-value interventions in general surgery, with further assessment of their cost.

Methods

A multiplatform method of identifying low value interventions was undertaken, including a broad literature search, a targeted database search, and opportunistic sampling. The results were then stratified by impact, assessing both frequency and cost.

Results

Seventy-one low-value general surgical procedures were identified, of which five were of high frequency and high cost (highest impact), 22 were of high cost and low frequency, 23 were of low cost and high frequency, and 21 were of low cost and low frequency (lowest impact). Highest impact interventions included inguinal hernia repair in minimally symptomatic patients, inappropriate gastroscopy, interval cholecystectomy, CT to diagnose appendicitis and routine endoscopy in those who had CT-confirmed diverticulitis. Their estimated cost was €153 383 953.

Conclusion

Low-value services place a burden on health budgets. Stopping only five high-volume, high-cost general surgical procedures could save the National Health Service €153 million per annum.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the ninth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The disinvestment literature has broadened considerably over the past decade; however there is a significant gap regarding systematic, integrated, organisation-wide approaches. This debate paper presents a discussion of the conceptual aspects of disinvestment from the local perspective.

DISCUSSION

Four themes are discussed: Terminology and concepts, Motivation and purpose, Relationships with other healthcare improvement paradigms, and Challenges to disinvestment. There are multiple definitions for disinvestment, multiple concepts underpin the definitions and multiple alternative terms convey these concepts; some definitions overlap and some are mutually exclusive; and there are systematic discrepancies in use between the research and practice settings. Many authors suggest that the term 'disinvestment' should be avoided due to perceived negative connotations and propose that the concept be considered alongside investment in the context of all resource allocation decisions and approached from the perspective of optimising health care. This may provide motivation for change, reduce disincentives and avoid some of the ethical dilemmas inherent in other disinvestment approaches. The impetus and rationale for disinvestment activities are likely to affect all aspects of the process from identification and prioritisation through to implementation and evaluation but have not been widely discussed. A need for mechanisms, frameworks, methods and tools for disinvestment is reported. However there are several health improvement paradigms with mature frameworks and validated methods and tools that are widely-used and well-accepted in local health services that already undertake disinvestment-type activities and could be expanded and built upon. The nature of disinvestment brings some particular challenges for policy-makers, managers, health professionals and researchers. There is little evidence of successful implementation of 'disinvestment' projects in the local setting, however initiatives to remove or replace technologies and practices have been successfully achieved through evidence-based practice, quality and safety activities, and health service improvement programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the construct of 'disinvestment' may be problematic at the local level. A new definition and two potential approaches to disinvestment are proposed to stimulate further research and discussion.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation

Background

This is the tenth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. After more than a decade of research, there is little published evidence of active and successful disinvestment. The paucity of frameworks, methods and tools is reported to be a factor in the lack of success. However there are clear and consistent messages in the literature that can be used to inform development of a framework for operationalising disinvestment. This paper, along with the conceptual review of disinvestment in Paper 9 of this series, aims to integrate the findings of the SHARE Program with the existing disinvestment literature to address the lack of information regarding systematic organisation-wide approaches to disinvestment at the local health service level.

Discussion

A framework for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting is proposed. Definitions for essential terms and key concepts underpinning the framework have been made explicit to address the lack of consistent terminology. Given the negative connotations of the word ‘disinvestment’ and the problems inherent in considering disinvestment in isolation, the basis for the proposed framework is ‘resource allocation’ to address the spectrum of decision-making from investment to disinvestment. The focus is positive: optimising healthcare, improving health outcomes, using resources effectively.

The framework is based on three components: a program for decision-making, projects to implement decisions and evaluate outcomes, and research to understand and improve the program and project activities. The program consists of principles for decision-making and settings that provide opportunities to introduce systematic prompts and triggers to initiate disinvestment. The projects follow the steps in the disinvestment process. Potential methods and tools are presented, however the framework does not stipulate project design or conduct; allowing application of any theories, methods or tools at each step. Barriers are discussed and examples illustrating constituent elements are provided.

Conclusions

The framework can be employed at network, institutional, departmental, ward or committee level. It is proposed as an organisation-wide application, embedded within existing systems and processes, which can be responsive to needs and priorities at the level of implementation. It can be used in policy, management or clinical contexts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS

OBJECTIVES

Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.

Levers for addressing medical underuse and overuse: achieving high-value health care

The preceding papers in this Series have outlined how underuse and overuse of health-care services occur within a complex system of health-care production, with a multiplicity of causes. Because poor care is ubiquitous and has considerable consequences for the health and wellbeing of billions of people around the world, remedying this problem is a morally and politically urgent task. Universal health coverage is a key step towards achieving the right care. Therefore, full consideration of potential levers of change must include an upstream perspective-ie, an understanding of the system-level factors that drive overuse and underuse, as well as the various incentives at work during a clinical encounter. One example of a system-level factor is the allocation of resources (eg, hospital beds and clinicians) to meet the needs of a local population to minimise underuse or overuse. Another example is priority setting using tools such as health technology assessment to guide the optimum diffusion of safe, effective, and cost-effective health-care services. In this Series paper we investigate a range of levers for eliminating medical underuse and overuse. Some levers could operate effectively (and be politically viable) across many different health and political systems (eg, increase patient activation with decision support) whereas other levers must be tailored to local contexts (eg, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio). Ideally, policies must move beyond the purely incremental; that is, policies that merely tinker at the policy edges after underuse or overuse arises. In this regard, efforts to increase public awareness, mobilisation, and empowerment hold promise as universal methods to reset all other contexts and thereby enhance all other efforts to promote the right care.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY DISINVESTMENT WORLDWIDE: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE DETERMINANTS

Objectives:In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in health technology disinvestment. A disinvestment process should involve all relevant stakeholders to identify and deliver the most effective, safe, and cost-effective healthcare interventions. The aim of the present study was to describe the state of the art of health technology disinvestment around the world and to identify parameters that could be associated with the implementation of disinvestment programs.

Methods:A systematic review of the literature was performed from database inception to November 2014, together with the collection of original data on socio-economic indicators from forty countries.

Results:Overall, 1,456 records (1,199 from electronic databases and 257 from other sources) were initially retrieved. After analyzing 172 full text articles, 38 papers describing fifteen disinvestment programs/experiences in eight countries were included. The majority (12/15) of disinvestment programs began after 2006. As expected, these programs were more common in developed countries, 63 percent of which had a Beveridge model healthcare system. The univariate analysis showed that countries with disinvestment programs had a significantly higher level of Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product per capita, public expenditure on health and social services, life expectancy at birth and a lower level of infant mortality rate, and of perceived corruption. The existence of HTA agencies in the country was a strong predictor (p= .034) for the development of disinvestment programs.

Conclusions:The most significant variables in the univariate analysis were connected by a common factor, potentially related to the overall development stage of the country.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the seventh in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately.

METHODS

Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes.

RESULTS

Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment.

METHODS

Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed.

RESULTS

Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: a controlled before-and-after study

Background

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Great Britain.Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: The Stationery Office; 2012) has mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements. We evaluated whether or not access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners, compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.

Design

Controlled before-and-after study.

Setting

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the north of England.

Main outcome measures

Change at 12 months from baseline of a CCG’s ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes measured individual clinical leads’ and managers’ intentions to use research evidence in decision-making.

Methods

Nine CCGs received one of three interventions: (1) access to an evidence briefing service; (2) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (3) an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months post intervention, using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisation’s ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. In addition, documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service was sought and interviews with CCG participants were undertaken.

Results

Most of the requests were conceptual; they were not directly linked to discrete decisions or actions but were intended to provide knowledge about possible options for future actions. Symbolic use to justify existing decisions and actions were less frequent and included a decision to close a walk-in centre and to lend weight to a major initiative to promote self-care already under way. The opportunity to impact directly on decision-making processes was limited to work to establish disinvestment policies. In terms of impact overall, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCGs’ capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCGs’ relationships with researchers. Regardless of the intervention received, at baseline participating CCGs indicated that they felt that they were inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and their capacity to acquire research remained so at follow-up. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little or no traceability of the use of evidence.

Limitations

Low baseline and follow-up response rates (of 68% and 44%, respectively) and missing data limit the reliability of these findings.

Conclusions

Access to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear to be well intentioned but ad hoc users of research.

Future work

Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research. Resource-intensive approaches to providing evidence may best be employed to support instrumental decision-making. Comparative evaluation of the impact of less intensive but targeted strategies on the uptake and use of research by commissioners is warranted.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list

BACKGROUND

The term 'lower value services' concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted.

METHODS

Dutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease.

RESULTS

A total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them.

Les considérations éthiques relatives à la désadoption d'aspects inefficaces ou nuisibles des soins de santé

La désadoption désigne l'abandon d'une pratique médicale ou d'un service de santé inefficace ou nuisible après une période d'adoption. Tandis que les dépenses croissantes en matière de santé menacent de paralyser les sociétés qui les financent, le fait de faciliter la désadoption peut faire partie intégrante de systèmes de santé durables qui prodiguent des soins de qualité. Le présent article explore des enjeux éthiques qui se rapportent à la désadoption, y compris les principes sous-jacents de bénéficience, de non-maléficience, de justice et d'autonomie.

Ethical considerations in the de-adoption of ineffective or harmful aspects of healthcare

De-adoption refers to the discontinuance of a medical practice or health service found to be ineffective or harmful following a previous period of adoption. As growing healthcare budgets threaten to cripple the societies that fund them, facilitating de-adoption may be integral to sustainable healthcare systems that provide high-quality care. This article explores ethical issues pertinent to de-adoption including the underpinnings of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy.

Why Do Health Economists Promote Technology Adoption Rather Than the Search for Efficiency? A Proposal for a Change in Our Approach to Economic Evaluation in Health Care

At a time of intense pressure on health care budgets, the technology management challenge is for disinvestment in low-value technologies and reinvestment in higher value alternatives. The aim of this article is to explore ways in which health economists might begin to redress the observed imbalance between the evaluation of new and existing in-use technologies. The argument is not against evaluating new technologies but in favor of the “search for efficiency,” where the ultimate objective is to identify reallocations that improve population health in the face of resource scarcity. We explore why in-use technologies may be of low value and consider how economic evaluation analysts might embrace a broader efficiency lens, first through “technology management” (a process of analysis and evidence-informed decision making throughout a technology’s life cycle) and progressing through “pathway management” (the search for efficiency gains across entire clinical care pathways). A number of model-based examples are used to illustrate the approaches.

A survey of UK practice patterns in the delivery of intravitreal injections

PURPOSE

To assess UK practice patterns related to the prescription of antibiotics before, during and after intravitreal injections, the location where injections are carried out and the qualifications of those administering the injections.

METHODS

Every ophthalmology unit featured in the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (UK) training directory was contacted. A healthcare professional involved in giving intravitreal injections at each institution completed a questionnaire regarding local practice patterns.

RESULTS

A response rate of 85% (115/136) was achieved. Seventy four percent of hospitals (85/115) gave take home antibiotics post intravitreal injection. Twenty three percent (26/115) of hospitals employed non-medical healthcare professionals to administer injections and 83% (96/115) administered intravitreal injections in a dedicated clean room as opposed to an operating theatre.

CONCLUSION

Practice patterns for intravitreal injection vary considerably. Guidelines alone do not appear to be effective in reducing practices which are considered wasteful and other approaches need to be developed.

[Overtreatment: Initiatives to identify ineffective and inappropriate medical interventions]

A growing number of international initiatives rise to the challenge of reduction of medical overuse. Increasingly, these activities are promoted by physicians and clinicians, and aim to identify and avoid inappropriate health interventions. This article places the Choosing Wisely initiative within the context of less well-known activities, 13 all together, and briefly describes their characteristics; in addition, similarities and differences regarding their methods are elaborated.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are at the top of the 'evidence hierarchy' when assessing the effectiveness of health interventions. As such, they are important sources of synthesized information for decision-makers including consumers, clinicians, funders, payers, regulators, and researchers. The main reasons for undertaking systematic reviews and meta-analyses are to minimize bias and to maximize data by collating all the relevant, available evidence on a particular topic. In order to correctly inform decision-makers, but not mislead them, a number of key methodological conditions need to be met when undertaking these types of analysis. In this article we first review the history of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and then outline those conditions that may lead to the correct, or incorrect, use of these types of study. Also, new variations on standard systematic review methods are explored, with the pros and cons of each outlined.

Identifying low-value clinical practices in critical care medicine: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Reducing unnecessary, low-value clinical practice (ie, de-adoption) is key to improving value for money in healthcare, especially among patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) where resource consumption exceeds other medical and surgical populations. Research suggests that low-value clinical practices are common in medicine, however systematically and objectively identifying them is a widely cited barrier to de-adoption. We will conduct a scoping review to identify low-value clinical practices in adult critical care medicine that are candidates for de-adoption.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically search the literature to identify all randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews that focus on diagnostic or therapeutic interventions in adult patients admitted to medical, surgical or specialty ICUs, and are published in 3 general medical journals with the highest impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association). 2 investigators will independently screen abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion criteria, and extract data from included citations. Included citations will be classified according to whether or not they represent a repeat examination of the given research question (ie, replication research), and whether the results are similar or contradictory to the original study. Studies with contradictory results will determine clinical practices that are candidates for de-adoption.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our scoping review will use robust methodology to systematically identify a list of clinical practices in adult critical care medicine with evidence supporting their de-adoption. In addition to adding to advancing the study of de-adoption, this review may also serve as the launching point for clinicians and researchers in critical care to begin reducing the number of low-value clinical practices. Dissemination of these results to relevant stakeholders will include tailored presentations at local, national and international meetings, and publication of a manuscript. Ethical approval is not required for this study.

Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed 'related articles' function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65%) were original research with the majority (59%) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption-the most frequently cited was "disinvest" (39% of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50%), followed by identifying low-value practices (47%), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40%). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16% to 46%, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41%) that demonstrate harm (73%) and/or lack of efficacy (63%) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Background

NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.

Objectives

We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.

Results

There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.

Conclusions

Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies.

DISCUSSION

Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

BACKGROUND

To ensure evidence-based decision-making in pediatric oral health, Cochrane systematic reviews that address topics pertinent to this field are necessary. We aimed to identify all systematic reviews of paediatric dentistry and oral health by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), summarize their characteristics and assess their methodological quality. Our second objective was to assess implications for practice in the review conclusions and provide an overview of clinical implications about the usefulness of paediatric oral health interventions in practice.

METHODS

We conducted a methodological survey including all paediatric dentistry reviews from the COHG. We extracted data on characteristics of included reviews, then assessed the methodological quality using a validated 11-item quality assessment tool (AMSTAR). Finally, we coded each review to indicate whether its authors concluded that an intervention should be implemented in practice, was not supported or was refuted by the evidence, or should be used only in research (inconclusive evidence).

RESULTS

We selected 37 reviews; most concerned the prevention of caries. The methodological quality was high, except for the assessment of reporting bias. In 7 reviews (19%), the research showed that benefits outweighed harms; in 1, the experimental intervention was found ineffective; and in 29 (78%), evidence was insufficient to assess benefits and harms. In the 7 reviews, topical fluoride treatments (with toothpaste, gel or varnish) were found effective for permanent and deciduous teeth in children and adolescents, and sealants for occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochrane reviews of paediatric dentistry were of high quality. They provided strong evidence that topical fluoride treatments and sealants are effective for children and adolescents and thus should be implemented in practice. However, a substantial number of reviews yielded inconclusive evidence.

Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: past and future

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group aims to produce, update, and disseminate systematic reviews on the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of problematic drug and alcohol use. This paper describes what the Group has done since the 1990s to produce evidence to guide policy, practice, and research.

METHOD

We analyze the coverage of topics by our reviews, the body of studies they have included, and the evidence produced.

RESULTS

By July 2013, the Group had published 67 reviews, with 376 authors from 25 different countries. These reviews included 906 studies, of 3061 studies considered for inclusion. Most (90%) included studies were randomized trials. Considering the 'Implications for practice' section of each review, 41% interventions were classified as 'do it', 15% as 'do not do', and 44% as 'do only in research'. These proportions varied according to the type of substance of abuse studied. The proportion of 'do it' interventions were 46% for alcohol, 40% for opioids, 20% for psychostimulants, 40% for polydrugs, and 62% for prevention.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane Reviews produced by the Drugs and Alcohol Group provide evidence on the effectiveness of several interventions, and identify areas of uncertainty where new research is needed.