Provider anticipation and experience of patient reaction when deprescribing guideline discordant inhaled corticosteroids.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence of possible patient harm and substantial costs, medication overuse is persistent. Patient reaction is one potential barrier to deprescribing, but little research has assessed this in specific instances of medication discontinuation. We sought to understand Veteran and provider experience when de-implementing guideline-discordant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in those with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis in a provider-randomized quality improvement project testing a proactive electronic-consultation from pulmonologists recommending ICS discontinuation when appropriate. PCPs at two Veterans Health Administration healthcare systems were included. We completed interviews with 16 unexposed providers and 6 intervention-exposed providers. We interviewed 9 patients within 3 months after their PCP proposed ICS discontinuation. We conducted inductive and deductive content analysis of qualitative data to explore an emergent theme of patient reaction. Forty-eight PCPs returned surveys (24 exposed and 24 unexposed, response rate: 35%). RESULTS: The unexposed providers anticipated their patients might resist ICS discontinuation because it seems counterintuitive to stop something that is working, patient's fear of worsening symptoms, or if the prescription was initiated by another provider. Intervention-exposed providers reported similar experiences in post-intervention interviews. Unexposed providers anticipated that patients may accept ICS discontinuation, citing tactical use of patient-centered care strategies. This was echoed by intervention-exposed providers who had successfully discontinued an ICS. Veterans reported acceding to their providers out of trust or deference to their advanced training, even after describing an ICS as a 'security blanket'. Our survey findings supported the subthemes from our interviews. Among providers who proposed discontinuation of an ICS, 76% reported that they were able to discontinue it or switch to another more appropriate medication. CONCLUSIONS: While PCPs anticipated that patients would resist discontinuing an ICS, interviews with patient and intervention-exposed PCPs along with surveys suggest that patients were receptive to this change.

How the dual process model of human cognition can inform efforts to de-implement ineffective and harmful clinical practices: A preliminary model of unlearning and substitution.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: One way to understand medical overuse at the clinician level is in terms of clinical decision-making processes that are normally adaptive but become maladaptive. In psychology, dual process models of cognition propose 2 decision-making processes. Reflective cognition is a conscious process of evaluating options based on some combination of utility, risk, capabilities, and/or social influences. Automatic cognition is a largely unconscious process occurring in response to environmental or emotive cues based on previously learned, ingrained heuristics. De-implementation strategies directed at clinicians may be conceptualized as corresponding to cognition: (1) a process of unlearning based on reflective cognition and (2) a process of substitution based on automatic cognition. RESULTS: We define unlearning as a process in which clinicians consciously change their knowledge, beliefs, and intentions about an ineffective practice and alter their behaviour accordingly. Unlearning has been described as "the questioning of established knowledge, habits, beliefs and assumptions as a prerequisite to identifying inappropriate or obsolete knowledge underpinning and/or embedded in existing practices and routines." We hypothesize that as an unintended consequence of unlearning strategies clinicians may experience "reactance," ie, feel their professional prerogative is being violated and, consequently, increase their commitment to the ineffective practice. We define substitution as replacing the ineffective practice with one or more alternatives. A substitute is a specific alternative action or decision that either precludes the ineffective practice or makes it less likely to occur. Both approaches may work independently, eg, a substitute could displace an ineffective practice without changing clinicians' knowledge, and unlearning could occur even if no alternative exists. For some clinical practice, unlearning and substitution strategies may be most effectively used together. CONCLUSIONS: By taking into account the dual process model of cognition, we may be able to design de-implementation strategies matched to clinicians' decision-making processes and avoid unintended consequence.