Low-value chronic prescription of acid reducing medication among Dutch general practitioners: impact of a patient education intervention

BACKGROUND

Dyspepsia is a commonly encountered clinical condition in Dutch general practice, which is often treated through the prescription of acid-reducing medication (ARM). However, recent studies indicate that the majority of chronic ARM users lack an indication for their use and that their long-term use is associated with adverse outcomes. We developed a patient-focussed educational intervention aiming to reduce low-value (chronic) use of ARM.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled study, and evaluated its effect on the low-value chronic prescription of ARM using data from a subset (n = 26) of practices from the Nivel Primary Care Database. The intervention involved distributing an educational waiting room posters and flyers informing both patients and general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriate indications for prescription of an ARM for dyspepsia, which also referred to an online decision aid. The interventions' effect was evaluated through calculation of the odds ratio of a patient receiving a low-value chronic ARM prescription over the second half of 2021 and 2022 (i.e. pre-intervention vs. post-intervention).

RESULTS

In both the control and intervention groups, the proportion of patients receiving chronic low-value ARM prescriptions slightly increased. In the control group, it decreased from 50.3% in 2021 to 49.7% in 2022, and in the intervention group it increased from 51.3% in 2021 to 53.1% in 2022. Subsequent statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in low-value chronic prescriptions between the control and intervention groups (Odds ratio: 1.11 [0.84-1.47], p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our educational intervention did not result in a change in the low-value chronic prescription of ARM; approximately half of the patients of the intervention and control still received low-value chronic ARM prescriptions. The absence of effect might be explained by selection bias of participating practices, awareness on the topic of chronic AMR prescriptions and the relative low proportion of low-value chronic ARM prescribing in the intervention as well as the control group compared to an assessment conducted two years prior.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

10/31/2023 NCT06108817.

Trends in low-value GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies showed that during the pandemic patients have refrained from visiting their general practitioner (GP). This resulted in medical care being delayed, postponed or completely forgone. The provision of low-value care, i.e. care which offers no net benefit for the patient, also could have been affected. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on three types of low-value GP care: 1) imaging for back or knee problems, 2) antibiotics for otitis media acuta (OMA), and 3) repeated opioid prescriptions, without a prior GP visit.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using registration data from GPs part of an academic GP network over the period 2017-2022. The COVID-19 period was defined as the period between April 2020 to December 2021. The periods before (January 2017 to April 2020) and after the COVID-19 period (January 2022 to December 2022) are the pre- and post-restrictions periods. The three clinical practices examined were selected by two practicing GPs from a top 30 of recommendations originating from the Dutch GP guidelines, based on their perceived prevalence and relevance in practice (van Dulmen et al., BMC Primary Care 23:141, 2022). Multilevel Poisson regression models were built to examine changes in the incidence rates (IR) of both registered episodes and episodes receiving low-value treatment.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 restrictions period, the IRs of episodes of all three types of GP care decreased significantly. The IR of episodes of back or knee pain decreased by 12%, OMA episodes by 54% and opioid prescription rate by 13%. Only the IR of OMA episodes remained significantly lower (22%) during the post-restrictions period. The provision of low-value care also changed. The IR of imaging for back or knee pain and low-value prescription of antibiotics for OMA both decreased significantly during the COVID-restrictions period (by 21% and 78%), but only the low-value prescription rate of antibiotics for OMA remained significantly lower (by 63%) during the post-restrictions period. The IR of inappropriately repeated opioid prescriptions remained unchanged over all three periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that both the rate of episodes as well as the rate at which low-value care was provided have generally been affected by the COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, it shows that the magnitude of the impact of the restrictions varies depending on the type of low-value care. This indicates that deimplementation of low-value care requires tailored (multiple) interventions and may not be achieved through a single disruption or intervention alone.

Overuse of diagnostic testing in healthcare: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overuse of diagnostic testing substantially contributes to healthcare expenses and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary harm. Our objective was to systematically identify and examine studies that assessed the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse across healthcare settings to estimate the overall prevalence of low-value diagnostic overtesting.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception until 18 February 2020 to identify articles published in the English language that examined the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse using database data. Each of the assessments was categorised as using a patient-indication lens, a patient-population lens or a service lens.

RESULTS

118 assessments of diagnostic testing overuse, extracted from 35 studies, were included in this study. Most included assessments used a patient-indication lens (n=67, 57%), followed by the service lens (n=27, 23%) and patient-population lens (n=24, 20%). Prevalence estimates of diagnostic testing overuse ranged from 0.09% to 97.5% (median prevalence of assessments using a patient-indication lens: 11.0%, patient-population lens: 2.0% and service lens: 30.7%). The majority of assessments (n=85) reported overuse of diagnostic testing to be below 25%. Overuse of diagnostic imaging tests was most often assessed (n=96). Among the 33 assessments reporting high levels of overuse (≥25%), preoperative testing (n=7) and imaging for uncomplicated low back pain (n=6) were most frequently examined. For assessments of similar diagnostic tests, major variation in the prevalence of overuse was observed. Differences in the definitions of low-value tests used, their operationalisation and assessment methods likely contributed to this observed variation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that substantial overuse of diagnostic testing is present with wide variation in overuse. Preoperative testing and imaging for non-specific low back pain are the most frequently identified low-value diagnostic tests. Uniform definitions and assessments are required in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of diagnostic testing overuse.