Consequences of early thyroid ultrasound on subsequent tests, morbidity and costs: an explorative analysis of routine health data from German ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate whether the use of thyroid ultrasound (US) early in the work-up of suspected thyroid disorders triggers cascade effects of medical procedures and to analyse effects on morbidity, healthcare usage and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of claims data from ambulatory care (2012-2017). SETTING: Primary care in Bavaria, Germany, 13 million inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS: Patients having received a thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) test were allocated to (1) observation group: TSH test followed by an early US within 28 days or (2) control group: TSH test, but no early US. Propensity score matching was used adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity and symptom diagnosis (N=41 065 per group after matching). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using cluster analysis, groups were identified regarding frequency of follow-up TSH tests and/or US and compared. RESULTS: Four subgroups were identified: cluster 1: 22.8% of patients, mean (M)=1.6 TSH tests; cluster 2: 16.6% of patients, M=4.7 TSH tests; cluster 3: 54.4% of patients, M=3.3 TSH tests, 1.8 US; cluster 4: 6.2% of patients, M=10.9 TSH tests, 3.9 US. Overall, reasons that explain the tests could rarely be found. An early US was mostly found in clusters 3 and 4 (83.2% and 76.1%, respectively, were part of the observation group). In cluster 4 there were more women, thyroid-specific morbidity and costs were higher and the early US was more likely to be performed by specialists in nuclear medicine or radiologists. CONCLUSION: Presumably unnecessary tests in the field of suspected thyroid diseases seem to be frequent, contributing to cascades effects. Neither German nor international guidelines provide clear recommendations for or against US screening. Therefore, guidelines on when to apply US and when not are urgently needed.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany.

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Drivers of poor medical care.

The global ubiquity of overuse and underuse of health-care resources and the gravity of resulting harms necessitate an investigation of drivers to inform potential solutions. We describe the network of influences that contribute to poor care and suggest that it is driven by factors that fall into three domains: money and finance; knowledge, bias, and uncertainty; and power and human relationships. In each domain the drivers operate at the global, national, regional, and individual level, and are modulated by the specific contexts within which they act. We discuss in detail drivers of poor care in each domain.