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.

Low-value home-based nursing care: A national survey study.

AIMS: To explore potential areas of low-value home-based nursing care practices, their prevalence and related influencing factors of nurses and nursing assistants working in home-based nursing care. DESIGN: A quantitative, cross-sectional design. METHODS: An online survey with questions containing scaled frequencies on five-point Likert scales and open questions on possible related influencing factors of low-value nursing care. The data collection took place from February to April 2022. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to summarize and analyse the results. RESULTS: A nationwide sample of 776 certified nursing assistants, registered nurses and nurse practitioners responded to the survey. The top five most delivered low-value care practices reported were: (1) 'washing the client with water and soap by default', (2) 'application of zinc cream, powders or pastes when treating intertrigo', (3) 'washing the client from head to toe daily', (4) 're-use of a urinary catheter bag after removal/disconnection' and (5) 'bladder irrigation to prevent clogging of urinary tract catheter'. The top five related influencing factors reported were: (1) 'a (general) practitioner advices/prescribes it', (2) 'written in the client's care plan', (3) 'client asks for it', (4) 'wanting to offer the client something' and (5) 'it is always done like this in the team'. Higher educational levels and an age above 40 years were associated with a lower provision of low-value care. CONCLUSION: According to registered nurses and certified nursing assistants, a number of low-value nursing practices occurred frequently in home-based nursing care and they experienced multiple factors that influence the provision of low-value care such as (lack of) clinical autonomy and handling clients' requests, preferences and demands. The results can be used to serve as a starting point for a multifaceted de-implementation strategy. REPORTING METHOD: STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nursing care is increasingly shifting towards the home environment. Not all nursing care that is provided is effective or efficient and this type of care can therefore be considered of low-value. Reducing low-value care and increasing appropriate care will free up time, improve quality of care, work satisfaction, patient safety and contribute to a more sustainable healthcare system.

What are Effective Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Care? An Analysis of 121 Randomized Deimplementation Studies.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care is healthcare leading to no or little clinical benefit for the patient. The best (combinations of) interventions to reduce low-value care are unclear. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating deimplementation strategies, to quantify the effectiveness and describe different combinations of strategies. METHODS: Analysis of 121 RCTs (1990-2019) evaluating a strategy to reduce low-value care, identified by a systematic review. Deimplementation strategies were described and associations between strategy characteristics and effectiveness explored. RESULTS: Of 109 trials comparing deimplementation to usual care, 75 (69%) reported a significant reduction of low-value healthcare practices. Seventy-three trials included in a quantitative analysis showed a median relative reduction of 17% (IQR 7%-42%). The effectiveness of deimplementation strategies was not associated with the number and types of interventions applied. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most deimplementation strategies achieved a considerable reduction of low-value care. We found no signs that a particular type or number of interventions works best for deimplementation. Future deimplementation studies should map relevant contextual factors, such as the workplace culture or economic factors. Interventions should be tailored to these factors and provide details regarding sustainability of the effect.

Association between acute care collaborations and health care utilization as compared to stand-alone facilities in the Netherlands: a quasi-experimental study.

Health systems invest in coordination and collaboration between emergency departments (ED) and after-hours primary care providers (AHPCs) to alleviate pressure on the acute care chain. There are substantial gaps in the existing evidence, limited in sample size, follow-up care, and costs. We assess whether acute care collaborations (ACCs) are associated with decreased ED utilization, hospital admission rates, and lower costs per patient journey, compared with stand-alone facilities. The design is a quasi-experimental study using claims data. The study included 610 845 patients in the Netherlands (2017). Patient visits in ACCs were compared to stand-alone EDs and AHPCs. The number of comorbidities was similar in both groups. Multiple logistic and gamma regressions were used to determine whether patient visits to ACCs were negatively associated with ED utilization, hospital admission rates, and costs. Logistic regression analysis did not find an association between patients visiting ACCs and ED utilization compared to patients visiting stand-alone facilities [odds ratio (OR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.03]. However, patients in ACCs were associated with an increase in hospital admissions (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09). ACCs were associated with higher total costs incurred during the patient journey (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03). Collaboration between EDs and AHPCs was not associated with ED utilization, but was associated with increased hospital admission rates, and higher costs. These collaborations do not seem to improve health systems' financial sustainability.

Effects of DementiaNet's Community Care Network Approach on Admission Rates and Healthcare Costs: A Longitudinal Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia are increasingly living at home, relying on primary care providers for most healthcare needs. Suboptimal collaboration and communication between providers could cause inefficiencies and worse patient outcomes. Innovative strategies are needed to address this growing disease burden and rising healthcare costs. The DementiaNet programme, a community care network approach targeted at patients with dementia in the Netherlands, has been shown to improve patient's quality of care. However, very little is known about the impact of DementiaNet on admission risks and healthcare costs. This study addresses this knowledge gap. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort analysis was performed, using medical and long-term care claims data from 38 525 patients between 2015-2019. The primary outcomes were risk of hospital admission and annual total healthcare costs. Mixed-model regression analyses were used to identify changes in outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who received care from a DementiaNet community care network showed a general trend in lower risk of admission for all types of admissions studied (ie, hospital, emergency ward, intensive care, crisis, and nursing home). Also, the intervention group showed a significant reduction of 12% in nursing days (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77- 0.96). No significant differences were found for total healthcare costs. However, we found effects in two sub-elements of total healthcare costs, being a decrease of 19.7% (95% CI: 7.7%-30.2%) in annual hospital costs and an increase of 10.2% (95% CI: 2.3%-18.6%) in annual primary care costs. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that DementiaNet's community care network approach may reduce admission risks for patients with dementia over a long-term period of five years. This is accompanied by a decrease in nursing days and savings in hospital care that exceed increased primary care costs. This improvement in integrated dementia care supports wider scale implementation and evaluation of these networks.

Towards population-based payment models in a multiple-payer system: the case of the Netherlands.

The Dutch private multi-payer system is characterised by a catalogue that is dominated by fee-for-service based payments. Up to now, alternative payment models have not taken flight. Recent small-scale experiments show substantial potential benefits of population-based payment models. Drawing on international literature and two expert focus groups, we analyse how population-based payments may be taken up more fiercely in a system run on the principles of managed competition. The decentralised nature of the Dutch system naturally aligns with a bottom-up implementation approach. Payers and providers can initiate population-based payment systems to fit local needs, but should determine clear preconditions that focus on quality of care. Quality indicators tied to financial incentives, such as shared savings, might minimise risks of undertreatment. Deliberative processes between payer and providers may determine adequate indicators. Upfront investments are needed to facilitate necessary data infrastructure. Furthermore, alternative payment systems might be encouraged through nationally set default options towards integrated payment systems, potentially reducing administrative burdens. Strong leadership, trust, and mutual understanding are paramount to overcome silos to integrate services across providers. Policymakers in other multi-payer managed competition systems may benefit from these insights.

Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries. METHODS: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a 'more is better' culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy. CONCLUSION: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care.

Low-value care in nursing: A systematic assessment of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care provides little or no benefit to the patient, causes harm and wastes limited resources. Reducing it is therefore important for safer and more sustainable care. OBJECTIVES: We systematically assessed nursing low-value care practices in Dutch clinical practice guidelines with the aim to facilitate and stimulate nurses to reduce this low-value care. METHODS: We screened Dutch clinical practice guidelines for do-not-do recommendations stating that specific nursing care should be avoided. We combined similar recommendations and categorized them by specialism-related groups of nurses, the settings where care took place, and the kind of care according to the Fundamentals of Care framework. RESULTS: We found 66 nursing do-not-do recommendations in 125 clinical practice guidelines, for example, 'Do not use physical restraints in case of a delirium'. Most recommendations were relevant for intensive care nurses (n = 23) and the hospital care setting (n = 49). The majority of recommendations concerned the element safety, prevention and medication of the Fundamentals of Care framework (n = 38). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic assessment of low-value nursing care in clinical practice guidelines. The majority of the 66 low-value care practices are not mentioned in other low-value care lists and are therefore new targets for de-implementation. The next step to reducing low-value care should be to create awareness amongst nurses, stimulate the dialogue on de-implementation in practice and facilitate quality improvement projects to quantify and reduce nursing low-value care.

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.

Critical features of peer assessment of clinical performance to enhance adherence to a low back pain guideline for physical therapists: a mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are intended to improve the process and outcomes of patient care. However, their implementation remains a challenge. We designed an implementation strategy, based on peer assessment (PA) focusing on barriers to change in physical therapy care. A previously published randomized controlled trial showed that PA was more effective than the usual strategy "case discussion" in improving adherence to a low back pain guideline. Peer assessment aims to enhance knowledge, communication, and hands-on clinical skills consistent with guideline recommendations. Participants observed and evaluated clinical performance on the spot in a role-play simulating clinical practice. Participants performed three roles: physical therapist, assessor, and patient. This study explored the critical features of the PA program that contributed to improved guideline adherence in the perception of participants. METHODS: Dutch physical therapists working in primary care (n = 49) organized in communities of practice (n = 6) participated in the PA program. By unpacking the program we identified three main tasks and eleven subtasks. After the program was finished, a questionnaire was administered in which participants were asked to rank the program tasks from high to low learning value and to describe their impact on performance improvement. Overall ranking results were calculated. Additional semi-structured interviews were conducted to elaborate on the questionnaires results and were transcribed verbatim. Questionnaires comments and interview transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Program tasks related to performance in the therapist role were perceived to have the highest impact on learning, although task perceptions varied from challenging to threatening. Perceptions were affected by the role-play format and the time schedule. Learning outcomes were awareness of performance, improved attitudes towards the guideline, and increased self-efficacy beliefs in managing patients with low back pain. Learning was facilitated by psychological safety and the quality of feedback. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of PA can be attributed to the structured and performance-based design of the program. Participants showed a strong cognitive and emotional commitment to performing the physical therapist role. That might have contributed to an increased awareness of strength and weakness in clinical performance and a motivation to change routine practice.

Effectiveness of peer assessment for implementing a Dutch physical therapy low back pain guideline: cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are considered important instruments to improve quality of care. However, success is dependent on adherence, which may be improved using peer assessment, a strategy in which professionals assess performance of their peers in a simulated setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether peer assessment is more effective than case-based discussions to improve knowledge and guideline-consistent clinical reasoning in the Dutch physical therapy guideline for low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten communities of practice (CoPs) of physical therapists were cluster randomized (N=90): 6 CoPs in the peer-assessment group (n=49) and 4 CoPs in the case-based discussion group (control group) (n=41). INTERVENTION: Both groups participated in 4 educational sessions and used clinical patient cases. The peer-assessment group reflected on performed LBP management in different roles. The control group used structured discussions. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 6 months. The primary outcome measure was knowledge and guideline-consistent reasoning, measured with 12 performance indicators using 4 vignettes with specific guideline-related patient profiles. For each participant, the total score was calculated by adding up the percentage scores (0-100) per vignette, divided by 4. The secondary outcome measure was reflective practice, as measured by the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (20-100). RESULTS: Vignettes were completed by 78 participants (87%). Multilevel analysis showed an increase in guideline-consistent clinical reasoning of 8.4% in the peer-assessment group, whereas the control group showed a decline of 0.1% (estimated group difference=8.7%, 95% confidence interval=3.9 to 13.4). No group differences were found on self-reflection. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size, a short-term follow-up, and the use of vignettes as a proxy for behavior were limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Peer assessment leads to an increase in knowledge and guideline-consistent clinical reasoning.