Development of a Metric to Detect and Decrease Low-Value Prescribing in Older Adults.

Importance: Metrics that detect low-value care in common forms of health care data, such as administrative claims or electronic health records, primarily focus on tests and procedures but not on medications, representing a major gap in the ability to systematically measure low-value prescribing. Objective: To develop a scalable and broadly applicable metric that contains a set of quality indicators (EVOLV-Rx) for use in health care data to detect and reduce low-value prescribing among older adults and that is informed by diverse stakeholders' perspectives. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used an online modified-Delphi method to convene an expert panel of 15 physicians and pharmacists. This panel, comprising clinicians, health system leaders, and researchers, was tasked with rating and discussing candidate low-value prescribing practices that were derived from medication safety criteria; peer-reviewed literature; and qualitative studies of patient, caregiver, and physician perspectives. The RAND ExpertLens online platform was used to conduct the activities of the panel. The panelists were engaged for 3 rounds between January 1 and March 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate and then discuss the scientific validity and clinical usefulness of the criteria to detect low-value prescribing practices. Candidate low-value prescribing practices were rated as follows: 1 to 3, indicating low validity or usefulness; 3.5 to 6, uncertain validity or usefulness; and 6.5 to 9, high validity or usefulness. Agreement among panelists and the degree of scientific validity and clinical usefulness were assessed using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method. Results: Of the 527 low-value prescribing recommendations identified, 27 discrete candidate low-value prescribing practices were considered for inclusion in EVOLV-Rx. After round 1, 18 candidate practices were rated by the panel as having high scientific validity and clinical usefulness (scores of ≥6.5). After round 2 panel deliberations, the criteria to detect 19 candidate practices were revised. After round 3, 18 candidate practices met the inclusion criteria, receiving final median scores of 6.5 or higher for both scientific validity and clinical usefulness. Of those practices that were not included in the final version of EVOLV-Rx, 3 received high scientific validity (scores ≥6.5) but uncertain clinical usefulness (scores <6.5) ratings, whereas 6 received uncertain scientific validity rating (scores <6.5). Conclusions and Relevance: This study culminated in the development of EVOLV-Rx and involved a panel of experts who identified the 18 most salient low-value prescribing practices in the care of older adults. Applying EVOLV-Rx may enhance the detection of low-value prescribing practices, reduce polypharmacy, and enable older adults to receive high-value care across the full spectrum of health services.

Primary care physicians' approaches to low-value prescribing in older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value prescribing may result in adverse patient outcomes and increased medical expenditures. Clinicians' baseline strategies for navigating patient encounters involving low-value prescribing remain poorly understood, making it challenging to develop acceptable deprescribing interventions. Our objective was to characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) approaches to reduce low-value prescribing in older adults through qualitative analysis of clinical scenarios. METHODS: As part of an overarching qualitative study on low-value prescribing, we presented two clinical scenarios involving potential low-value prescribing during semi-structured interviews of 16 academic and community PCPs from general internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics who care for patients aged greater than or equal to 65. We conducted a qualitative analysis of their responses to identify salient themes related to their approaches to prescribing, deprescribing, and meeting patients' expectations surrounding low-value prescribing. RESULTS: We identified three key themes. First, when deprescribing, PCPs were motivated by their desire to mitigate patient harms and follow medication safety and deprescribing guidelines. Second, PCPs emphasized good communication with patients when navigating patient encounters related to low-value prescribing; and third, while physicians emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, they prioritized patients' well-being over satisfying their expectations. CONCLUSIONS: When presented with real-life clinical scenarios, PCPs in our cohort sought to reduce low-value prescribing in a guideline-concordant fashion while maintaining good communication with their patients. This was driven primarily by a desire to minimize the potential for harm. This suggests that barriers other than clinician knowledge may be driving ongoing use of low-value medications in clinical practice.

Perinatal Outcomes of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. METHODS: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. RESULTS: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.

Prescriber perspectives on low-value prescribing: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly implementing interventions to reduce older patients' use of low-value medications. However, prescribers' perspectives on medication value and the acceptability of interventions to reduce low-value prescribing are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify the characteristics that affect the value of a medication and those factors influencing low-value prescribing from the perspective of primary care physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Academic and community primary care practices within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health system. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS: We elicited 16 prescribers' perspectives on definitions and examples of low-value prescribing in older adults, the factors that incentivize them to engage in such prescribing, and the characteristics of interventions that would make them less likely to engage in low-value prescribing. RESULTS: We identified three key themes. First, prescribers viewed low-value prescribing among older adults as common, characterized both by features of the medications themselves and of the particular patients to whom they were prescribed. Second, prescribers described the causes of low-value prescribing as multifactorial, with factors related to patients, prescribers, and the health system as a whole, making low-value prescribing a default practice pattern. Third, interventions addressing low-value prescribing must minimize the cognitive load and time pressures that make low-value prescribing common. Interventions increasing time pressure or cognitive load, such as increased documentation, were considered less acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that low-value prescribing is a well-recognized phenomenon, and that interventions to reduce low-value prescribing must consider physicians' perspectives and address the specific patient, prescriber and health system factors that make low-value prescribing a default practice.