Routine preoperative assessment for cataract surgery is a source of frustration for primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in older adults in the United States and is generally considered to be extremely low-risk. As of 2019, routine preoperative evaluation within 30 days of surgery is no longer mandated by the United States of America (USA) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for ambulatory surgery centers, but it is unclear how primary care providers perceive this change. METHODS: We performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with six primary care providers to explore primary care providers' perspectives on routine preoperative assessment for cataract surgery. RESULTS: Primary care providers commented on the large number of referrals they receive for preoperative assessment before cataract procedures. The analysis revealed an overarching sentiment of resentment over the time, effort, and resources expended on these assessments. Themes included the lack of awareness of the updated regulations that no longer require a history and physical to be completed within 30 days and the perception of a universal lack of medical necessity to perform preoperative assessment for cataract surgery. Providers also commented on the strain on limited resources and the burden on patients. The relationship between specialties and professional roles emerged as another important theme. CONCLUSIONS: Referrals for preoperative clearance for cataract surgery continue to burden providers, patients, and the health system, and represent an opportunity to streamline care in this patient population.

Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of same-day discharge following elective percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective observational cohort study using routinely-collected health data.

AIMS: To identify the prevalence, trends, and outcomes of same-day discharge following elective percutaneous coronary intervention among six public hospitals in one Australian State. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective observational research design was used. A total of 4387 cases were obtained from the State Cardiac Outcomes Registry and National Hospital Cost Data Collection. The two datasets were linked using identifiable data items. Patients were those who had elective percutaneous coronary intervention between December 2012 and December 2019 either discharged the same day of the procedure or the next day. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The overall same-day discharge prevalence was 6.5%, with a trend increasing from 0.2% in 2013 to 9.0% in 2019. The prevalence varied at the individual hospital level. Two hospitals did not perform same-day discharge during the study period. The remaining hospitals demonstrated variability in same-day discharge prevalence, with the highest from one hospital being 28.2% in 2019. Almost all same-day discharge patients experienced no complications during or following percutaneous coronary intervention within 24 hours. Compared to next-day discharge, same-day discharge reduced the length of stay by 18 hours and conferred an average of $3695 cost-savings per patient. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited implementation of same-day discharge in the six public hospitals contributing data to this study. Improvement in the same-day discharge rate could result in better hospital resource utilisation and reduce low-value care. Hence, strategies to implement and promote same-day discharge are warranted.

How do experts determine where to intervene on test ordering? An interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Lab testing is a high-volume activity that is often overused, leading to wasted resources and inappropriate care. Improving test ordering practices in tertiary care involves deciding where to focus scarce intervention resources, but clear guidance on how to optimize these resources is lacking. We aimed to explore context-sensitive factors and processes that inform individual decisions about laboratory stewardship interventions by speaking to key interest holders in this area. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with test-ordering intervention development experts and authors of test-ordering guidance documents to explore five broad topics: 1) processes used to prioritize tests for intervention; 2) factors considered when deciding which tests to target; 3) measurement of these factors; 4) interventions selected; 5) suggestions for a framework to support these decisions. Transcripts were double coded using directed-content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 intervention development experts. Experts noted they frequently consider test volume, test value, and patient care when deciding on a test to target. Experts indicated that quantifying many relevant factors was challenging. Processes to support these decisions often involved examining local data, obtaining buy-in, and relying on an existing guideline. Suggestions for building a framework emphasized the importance of collaboration, consideration of context and resources, and starting with "easy wins" to gain support and experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight into the factors and processes experts consider when deciding which tests to target for intervention and can inform the development of a framework to guide the selection of tests for intervention and guideline development.

Association of a Novel Electronic Form for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment With Reduction in Cardiac Consultations and Testing: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative cardiac risk assessment is an integral part of preoperative evaluation; however, there is significant variation among providers, leading to inappropriate referrals for cardiology consultation or excessive low-value cardiac testing. We implemented a novel electronic medical record (EMR) form in our preoperative clinics to decrease variation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the EMR form on the preoperative utilization of cardiology consultation and cardiac diagnostic testing (echocardiograms, stress tests, and cardiac catheterization) and evaluate postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients who underwent outpatient preoperative evaluation prior to an elective surgery over 2 years were divided into 2 cohorts: from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022 (pre-EMR form implementation), and from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023 (post-EMR form implementation). Demographics, comorbidities, resource utilization, and surgical characteristics were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences between the 2 cohorts. The primary outcomes were the utilization of preoperative cardiology consultation, cardiac testing, and 30-day postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: A total of 25,484 patients met the inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching yielded 11,645 well-matched pairs. The post-EMR form, matched cohort had lower cardiology consultation (pre-EMR form: n=2698, 23.2% vs post-EMR form: n=2088, 17.9%; P<.001) and echocardiogram (pre-EMR form: n=808, 6.9% vs post-EMR form: n=591, 5.1%; P<.001) utilization. There were no significant differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes, including MACE (all P>.05). While patients with "possible indications" for cardiology consultation had higher MACE rates, the consultations did not reduce MACE risk. Most algorithm end points, except for active cardiac conditions, had MACE rates <1%. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, preoperative cardiac risk assessment using a novel EMR form was associated with a significant decrease in cardiology consultation and testing utilization, with no adverse impact on postoperative outcomes. Adopting this approach may assist perioperative medicine clinicians and anesthesiologists in efficiently decreasing unnecessary preoperative resource utilization without compromising patient safety or quality of care.

Barriers and facilitators for reducing low-value home-based nursing care: A qualitative exploratory study among homecare professionals.

AIM: To explore barriers and facilitators for reducing low-value home-based nursing care. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory study. METHOD: Seven focus group interviews and two individual interviews were conducted with homecare professionals, managers and quality improvement staff members within seven homecare organizations. Data were deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases checklist. RESULTS: Barriers perceived by homecare professionals included lack of knowledge and skills, such as using care aids, interactions between healthcare professionals and general practitioners creating expectations among clients. Facilitators perceived included reflecting on provided care together with colleagues, clearly communicating agreements and expectations towards clients. Additionally, clients' and relatives' behaviour could potentially hinder reduction. In contrast, clients' motivation to be independent and involving relatives can promote reduction. Lastly, non-reimbursement and additional costs of care aids were perceived as barriers. Support from organization and management for the reduction of care was considered as facilitator. CONCLUSION: Understanding barriers and facilitators experienced by homecare professionals in reducing low-value home-based nursing care is crucial. Enhancing knowledge and skills, fostering cross-professional collaboration, involving relatives and motivating clients' self-care can facilitate reduction of low-value home-based nursing care. Implications for profession and patient care: De-implementing low-value home-based nursing care offers opportunities for more appropriate care and inclusion of clients on waitlists. IMPACT: Addressing barriers with tailored strategies can successfully de-implement low-value home-based nursing care. REPORTING METHOD: The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used. No patient or public contribution.

Unravelling Low-Value Care Decision-Making: Residents' Perspectives on the Influence of Contextual Factors.

BACKGROUND: Several initiatives have been developed to target low-value care (ie, waste) in decision-making with varying success. As such, decision-making is a complex process and context's influence on decisions concerning low-value care is limitedly explored. Hence, a more detailed understanding of residents' decision-making is needed to reduce future low-value care. This study explores which contextual factors residents experience to influence their decision-making concerning low-value care. METHODS: We employed nominal group technique (NGT) to select four low-value care vignettes. Prompted by these vignettes, we conducted individual interviews with residents. We analyzed the qualitative data thematically using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by Bronfenbrenner's social-ecological framework. This framework provided guidance to "context" in terms of sociopolitical, environmental, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels. RESULTS: In 2022, we interviewed 19 residents from a Dutch university medical center. We identified 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making, either encouraging or discouraging low-value care. The contextual factors resided in the following levels with corresponding categories: (1) environmental and sociopolitical: society, professional medical association, and governance; (2) organizational: facility characteristics, social infrastructure, and work infrastructure; (3) interpersonal: resident-patient, resident-supervising physician, and resident-others; and (4) individual: personal attributes and work structure. CONCLUSION: This paper describes 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making concerning low-value care. Residents are particularly influenced by factors related to interactions with patients and supervisors. Furthermore, organizational factors and the broader environment set margins within which residents make decisions. While acknowledging that a multi(faceted)-intervention approach targeting all contextual factors to discourage low-value care delivery may be warranted, improving communication skills in the resident-patient dynamics to recognize and explain low-value care seems a particular point of interest over which residents can exercise an influence themselves.

Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Reducing low-value care (LVC) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care while increasing the efficient use of scarce healthcare resources. Recently, strategies to de-implement LVC have been mapped against the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies. However, such strategies' effectiveness across different healthcare practices has not been addressed. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to investigate the effectiveness of de-implementation initiatives and specific ERIC strategy clusters. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) from 1 January 2010 to 17 April 2023 and used additional search strategies to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria, assessed the SR quality and extracted pre-specified data. We created harvest plots to display the results. RESULTS: Of 46 included SRs, 27 focused on drug treatments, such as antibiotics or opioids, twelve on laboratory tests or diagnostic imaging and seven on other healthcare practices. In categorising de-implementation strategies, SR authors applied different techniques: creating self-developed strategies (n = 12), focussing on specific de-implementation strategies (n = 14) and using published taxonomies (n = 12). Overall, 15 SRs provided evidence for the effectiveness of de-implementation interventions to reduce antibiotic and opioid utilisation. Reduced utilisation, albeit inconsistently significant, was documented in the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, as well as in laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging. Strategies within the adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, and change infrastructure and workflow ERIC clusters led to a consistent reduction in LVC practices. CONCLUSION: De-implementation initiatives were effective in reducing medication usage, and inconsistent significant reductions were observed for LVC laboratory tests and imaging. Notably, de-implementation clusters such as change infrastructure and workflow and develop stakeholder interrelationships emerged as the most encouraging avenues. Additionally, we provided suggestions to enhance SR quality, emphasising adherence to guidelines for synthesising complex interventions, prioritising appropriateness of care outcomes, documenting the development process of de-implementation initiatives and ensuring consistent reporting of applied de-implementation strategies. REGISTRATION: OSF Open Science Framework 5ruzw.

Use and Cost of Low-Value Services Among Veterans Dually Enrolled in VA and Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Over half of veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) are also enrolled in Medicare, potentially increasing their opportunity to receive low-value health services within and outside VA. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the use and cost of low-value services delivered to dually enrolled veterans from VA and Medicare. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare (FY 2017-2018). MAIN MEASURES: We used VA and Medicare administrative data to identify 29 low-value services across 6 established domains: cancer screening, diagnostic/preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing, and surgery. We determined the count of low-value services per 100 veterans delivered in VA and Medicare in FY 2018 overall, by domain, and by individual service. We applied standardized estimates to determine each service's cost. KEY RESULTS: Among 1.6 million dually enrolled veterans, the mean age was 73, 97% were men, and 77% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 63.2 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered, affecting 32% of veterans; 22.9 services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA and 40.3 services per 100 veterans were delivered in Medicare. The total cost was $226.3 million (M), of which $62.6 M was spent in VA and $163.7 M in Medicare. The most common low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing at 17.3 per 100 veterans (VA 55.9%, Medicare 44.1%). The costliest low-value service was percutaneous coronary intervention (VA $10.1 M, Medicare $32.8 M). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 3 dually enrolled veterans received a low-value service in FY18, with twice as many low-value services delivered in Medicare vs VA. Interventions to reduce low-value services for veterans should consider their substantial use of such services in Medicare.

Reducing low-value imaging-A qualitative evaluation of a pilot intervention in Norway.

RATIONAL: Low-value radiological imaging threatens patient safety and efficient use of limited health resources. It is important to evaluate measures for reducing low-value utilisation, to learn and to improve. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to qualitatively evaluate a pilot intervention for reducing low-value imaging in Norway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted aimed at describing stakeholders' experience with a multicomponent pilot intervention consisting of a standardised procedure for referral assessment, a standardised return letter, and information about the value and possible risks of magnetic resonance imaging-examinations to the public. Data were analysed in line with qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach. RESULTS: Seven healthcare providers were interviewed, including two radiologists, two radiographers, one manual therapist, one practice consultant and one general practitioner. Data analysis yielded four categories: (1) information and reception, (2) referral- and assessment processes, (3) suggestions for improvement and facilitation and (4) outcomes of the pilot intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot intervention was deemed acceptable, feasible, engaging and relevant. Specific training in the use of the new procedure was suggested to improve the intervention. The simple design, as well as the positive acceptance demonstrated and the few resources needed, make the pilot intervention and methodology highly relevant for other settings or when aiming to reduce the number of other low-value radiology examinations.

Mapping the Environmental Co-Benefits of Reducing Low-Value Care: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.

Reducing low-value care (LVC) and improving healthcare's climate readiness are critical factors for improving the sustainability of health systems. Care practices that have been deemed low or no-value generate carbon emissions, waste and pollution without improving patient or population health. There is nascent, but growing, research and evaluation to inform practice change focused on the environmental co-benefits of reducing LVC. The objective of this study was to develop foundational knowledge of this field through a scoping review and bibliometric analysis. We searched four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL, and followed established scoping review and bibliometric analysis methodology to collect and analyze the data. A total of 145 publications met the inclusion criteria and were published between 2013 and July 2023, with over 80% published since 2020. Empirical studies comprised 21%, while commentary or opinions comprised 51% of publications. The majority focused on healthcare generally (27%), laboratory testing (14%), and medications (14%). Empirical publications covered a broad range of environmental issues with general and practice-specific 'Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions', 'waste management' and 'resource use' as most common topics. Reducing practice-specific 'GHG emissions' was the most commonly reported environmental outcome. The bibliometric analysis revealed nine international collaboration networks producing work on eight key healthcare areas. The nineteen 'top' authors were primarily from the US, Australia and Canada.

Estimating oncologist variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies to patients in the last 30 days of life.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives have identified reducing the use of end-of-life cancer therapies as an opportunity to improve care. We examined the extent to which oncologists differed in prescribing systemic therapies in the last 30 days of life. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we identified patients who died of cancer from 2012 to 2017 (N = 17,609), their treating oncologists (N = 960), and the corresponding physician practice (N = 388). We used multilevel models to estimate oncologists' rates of providing cancer therapy for patients in their last 30 days of life, adjusted for patient characteristics and practice variation. RESULTS: Patients' median age at the time of death was 74 years (interquartile range, 69-79); patients had lung (62%), colorectal (17%), breast (13%), and prostate (8%) cancers. We observed substantial variation across oncologists in their adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life: oncologists in the 95th percentile exhibited a 45% adjusted rate of treatment, versus 17% among the 5th percentile. A patient treated by an oncologist with a high end-of-life prescribing behavior (top quartile), compared to an oncologist with a low prescribing behavior (bottom quartile), had more than four times greater odds of receiving end-of-life cancer therapy (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89). CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists show substantial variation in end-of-life prescribing behavior. Future research should examine why some oncologists more often continue systemic therapy at the end of life than others, the consequences of this for patient and care outcomes, and whether interventions shaping oncologist decision-making can reduce overuse of end-of-life cancer therapies.

Pharmaceutical company funding of cancer patient advocacy organizations in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) of medical professionals and associated organizations with pharmaceutical companies (pharma) might contribute to the use of low value oncological treatments. Value criteria for oncological drug approvals in the Netherlands have recently become more stringent leading to objections by cancer patient advocacy organizations (cPAOs). Considering the importance of cPAOs input in cancer patient care we analyzed whether pharma funding of cPAOs occurs in the Netherlands. METHODS: The cPAO websites and available annual reports were evaluated for disclosure of pharma funding for the years 2021 and 2022. Also, data from the Dutch Healthcare Transparency Registry (DHTR) were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 34 (61.8 %) cPAOs received pharma funding (with 20 registered in the DHTR), and for 13 (29.4 %) cPAOs no reporting of pharma funding could be found. Three of the cPAOs disclosed pharma funding directly on their main website. Online educational material was available from 22 cPAOs on their websites with pharma funding disclosed on the educational material in 5. The total registered amount of pharmaceutical funding was €667,232.00 in 2021 and €536,098.00 in 2022. The median (and interquartile ranges) DHTR registered amount of support per cPAO that received funding in the studied period was €23,799.50 (14,823.75-84,663.30). The most common funding category as defined in the DHTR was project sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS: Financial support by the pharmaceutical industry is common for Dutch cPAOs. Given the importance of cPAOs and their objective input in the societal debate on the availability of cancer drugs, the potential influence of pharma sponsoring should be critically evaluated.

Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results. RESULTS: Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

Low-value health care, de-implementation, and implications for nursing research: A discussion paper.

Globally, the nursing profession constitutes the largest proportion of the health workforce; however, it is challenged by widespread workforce shortages relative to need. Strategies to promote recruitment of the nursing workforce are well-established, with a lesser focus on strategies to alleviate the burden on the existing workforce. This burden may be exacerbated by the impact of low-value health care, characterised as health care that provides little or no benefit for patients, or has the potential to cause harm. Low-value health care is a global problem, a major contributor to the waste of healthcare resources, and a key focus of health system reform. Evidence of variation in low-value health care has been identified across countries and system levels. Research on low-value health care has largely focused on the medical profession, with a paucity of research examining either low-value health care or the de-implementation of low-value health care from a nursing perspective. The objective of this paper is to provide a scholarly discussion of the literature around low-value health care and de-implementation, with the purpose of identifying implications for nursing research. With increasing pressures on the global nursing workforce, research identifying low-value health care and developing approaches to de-implement this care, is crucial.

Appropriateness of exercise therapy delivery in chronic low back pain management: cross-sectional online survey of physiotherapy practice in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, exercise therapy represents the most commonly prescribed physiotherapy service for non-specific, chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). So far, little is known about current practice patterns of German physiotherapists in delivering this intervention. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of exercise therapy delivered to NSCLBP patients in German physiotherapy care and to identify practitioner-related drivers of appropriate exercise delivery. METHODS: We used a vignette-based, exploratory, cross-sectional, online-survey study design (76-items; data collection between May and July 2023). Eligible participants were required to hold a professional degree in physiotherapy and were required to be practicing in Germany. Access links to anonymous online surveys were spread via established German physiotherapy networks, educational platforms, social media, e-mail lists, and snowball sampling. Appropriateness of exercise therapy was calculated by an equally weighted total score (400 points) including scales on shared-decision-making, exercise dose selection, pain knowledge and self-management promotion. "Appropriate exercise delivery" was determined by a relative total score achievement of > 80%. "Partly appropriate exercise delivery" was determined by a relative total score achievement of 50-79%, and "inappropriate exercise delivery" by a score achievement of < 50%. Practitioner-related drivers of exercise appropriateness were calculated by bivariate and multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: 11.9% (N = 35) of 298 physiotherapists' exercise delivery was considered "appropriate", 83.3% (N = 245) was "partly appropriate", and 4.8% (N = 14) was "inappropriate". In the final multiple regression model, most robust parameters positively influencing appropriate delivery of exercise therapy were increased scientific literacy (B = 10.540; 95% CI [0.837; 20.243]), increased average clinical assessment time (B = 0.461; 95% CI [0.134; 0.789]), increased self-perceived treatment competence (B = 7.180; 95% CI [3.058; 11.302], and short work experience (B = - 0.520; 95% CI [-0.959; - 0.081]). CONCLUSION: Appropriate exercise delivery in NSCLBP management was achieved by only 11.9% of respondents. However, the vast majority of 95.2% of respondents was classified to deliver exercise therapy partly appropriate. Long work experience seemed to negatively affect appropriate exercise delivery. Positive influences were attributed to scientific literacy, the average clinical assessment time per patient as well as the perceived treatment competence in NSCLBP management. REGISTRATION: Open science framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S76MF .

Care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening in dually enrolled Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare commonly experience downstream services as part of a care cascade after an initial low-value service. Our objective was to characterize the frequency and cost of low-value cervical cancer screening and subsequent care cascades among Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used VA and Medicare administrative data from fiscal years 2015 to 2019. The study cohort was comprised of female Veterans aged >65 years and at low risk of cervical cancer who were dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. Within this cohort, we compared differences in the rates and costs of cascade services related to low-value cervical cancer screening for Veterans who received and did not receive screening in FY2018, adjusting for baseline patient- and facility-level covariates using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among 20,972 cohort-eligible Veterans, 494 (2.4%) underwent low-value cervical cancer screening with 301 (60.9%) initial screens occurring in VA and 193 (39%) occurring in Medicare. Veterans who were screened experienced an additional 26.7 (95% CI, 16.4-37.0) cascade services per 100 Veterans compared to those who were not screened, contributing to $2919.4 (95% CI, -265 to 6104.7) per 100 Veterans in excess costs. Care cascades consisted predominantly of subsequent cervical cancer screening procedures and related outpatient visits with low rates of invasive procedures and occurred in both VA and Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare commonly receive related downstream tests and visits as part of care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening. Our findings demonstrate that to fully capture the extent to which individuals are subject to low-value care, it is important to examine downstream care stemming from initial low-value services across all systems from which individuals receive care.

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.

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.

Discrepancies Among Hospitals and Regions in the Provision of Low-Value Care.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care (LVC) is a critical issue in terms of patient safety and fiscal policy; however, little has been known in Asia. For the purpose of better understanding the extent of LVC on a national level, the utilization, costs, and associated characteristics of selected international recommendations were assessed in this study. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data during 2013-2017 to evaluate the LVC utilization. Adult beneficiaries who enrolled in the NHI program and received at least one of the low-value services in hospitals were included. We measured seven procedures derived from the international recommendations at the hospital level, and a composite measure was created by summing the total utilization of selected services to determine the overall prevalence and corresponding cost. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was adopted to estimate the association. RESULTS: A total of 1 970 496 episodes of LVC was identified among 1 218 146 beneficiary-year observations and 2054 hospital-year observations. Overall, the utilization rate of the composite measure increased from 150.70 to 186.23 episodes per 10 000 beneficiaries with the growth in cost from US$ 5.40 to US$ 6.90 million. LVC utilization was proportional to the volume of outpatient visits and length of stay. Also, hospitals with a large volume of outpatient visits (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 95% CI, 2.10: 1.26 to 3.49 for Q2-Q3, 2.88: 1.45 to 5.75 for ≥Q3) and a higher proportion of older patients (aOR: 95% CI, 1.06: 1.02 to 1.11) were more likely to have high costs. CONCLUSION: The utilization and corresponding cost of LVC appeared to increase annually despite the relatively lower prevalence compared to other countries. Multicomponent interventions such as recommendations, de-implementation policies and payment reforms are considered effective ways to reduce LVC. Repeated measurements would be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.