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.

Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%). CONCLUSION: De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32 .

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. METHODS: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). CONCLUSIONS: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. REGISTRATION: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.

Development and application of implementation tools for rehabilitation guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a project to develop guideline implementation tools (GItools) for rehabilitation guidelines, and a collaboration between a guideline producer and a healthcare organization to implement guidelines into care pathways. DESIGN: Descriptive case study. METHODS: A national guideline organization in Finland launched a 3-year project in 2015 to implement rehabilitation recommendations. Usability of the GItools was evaluated and improved, based on literature, workshops and surveys. An implementation plan guided the production of the GItools. An implementation plan was developed to integrate the shoulder disorders guideline into a care pathway at Päijät-Häme district rehabilitation unit. The implementation plan was produced in 3 facilitated workshops, which included brainstorming, snowballing, prioritizing and short lectures. RESULTS: Twenty implementation plans and 119 different GItools for 22 guidelines were developed. The GItools, in particular patient material, were perceived as useful for the facilitation of guideline implementation. Four seminars and 14 sessions of continuous medical education were arranged. A plan was developed and executed for the implementation of the shoulder disorders guideline. CONCLUSION: It is feasible for a guideline producer to systematically include GItools into rehabilitation guidelines. This implementation project was an example of a successful collaboration between a guideline producer and a healthcare organization.

Incorporating evidence-based rehabilitation into clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Rehabilitation is often neglected in clinical practice guidelines, even when there is evidence for its effectiveness. The Current Rehabilitation development project, documented in this article, aimed to develop processes and structures to incorporate evidence and good practice on rehabilitation and functional capacity into the Finnish national Current Care Guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive assessment. METHODS: The 3-year Current Rehabilitation development project was launched in 2012. It began with an assessment of existing rehabilitation evidence on the Current Care Guideline database and a query to Finnish rehabilitation experts. The project group developed and compiled tools for Current Care editors and guideline panels. The editorial team continued to monitor changes in rehabilitation evidence in the guidelines. RESULTS: During the years 2012-2014, a total of 54 guidelines were published, and rehabilitation was incorporated into 31 of them. The number of rehabilitation-related evidence summaries increased from 49 to 164. During the next 3 years an additional 41 guidelines were published. Rehabilitation was incorporated to 24 of them, and the number of rehabilitation-related evidence summaries increased from 78 to 136. CONCLUSION: The level of evidence criteria used for rehabilitative interventions were the same as for symptomatic or curative interventions. Evidence showing the effectiveness of rehabilitation increased substantially during the project.

Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project. METHODS: Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were relevance, feasibility, evidence-based and strength. These were discussed in editors' meetings and subsequently revised. Two different processes for developing recommendations within national clinical practice guidelines were designed and piloted (processes A and B). Process A was based on a published guideline. The recommendations are drafted by an editor and revised and approved by the guideline development group. In process B the development of the recommendations is integrated with guideline production or update. Choosing Wisely recommendations were then drafted for half of the published CC Guidelines. An additional process (process C) was designed for producing independent recommendations outside a guideline. RESULTS: At least one Choosing Wisely recommendation could be identified from 39 out of 52 reviewed guidelines. Of the 106 recommendations drafted, 62 (58%) were accepted for publication. The main reasons for rejection were inability to give a strong recommendation (n = 18, 41%) and insufficient relevance (n = 14, 32%). Two thirds (n = 41, 66%) of the published recommendations were based on high to moderate level of evidence, and 18% (n = 11) on low or very low level of evidence, whereas for the rest, the quality of evidence was not critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing Wisely recommendations can be produced systematically from existing clinical practice guidelines. The rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine ensure high-quality recommendations. We welcome the use of our processes and methods describes in this article by other guideline-producing organizations.

Type 2 diabetes and treatment intensification in primary care in Finland.

AIM: To identify how the electronic health record (EHR) systems and national registers can be used for research purposes. We focused on how the primary care physicians adhere to clinical guidelines. METHODS: Study population included incident type 2 diabetes patients from four selected regions. Data were collected in two phases. At the first phase study cohort was identified using the prescription registers of the Social Insurance Institution (SII) and EHR systems used within the study regions. At second phase, data were collected from SII's registers, local EHR systems, the hospital discharge and the primary care registers of National Institute for Health and Welfare. RESULTS: Metformin was the most common choice as first drug. Among all study patients, 8375 (76.0%) started metformin monotherapy or combinations. The treatment was intensified at variable levels of HbA1c depending on the area. DPP4-inhibitors were by far the most common agent for treatment intensification. Sulphonylureas were used less often than basal insulin as the second-line agent. The use of DPP4-inhibitors increased between years 2009-2010, when first DPP4-inhibitor received reimbursement and this class became dominant drug for treatment intensification increasingly thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: The EHR systems and national registers can be used for research purposes in Finland. The realization of diabetes treatment national guidelines are followed in primary care to a large extent. However, the subsequent intensification of therapy was delayed and occurred at elevated Hba1c levels.

The Finnish national guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with wet age-related macular degeneration.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the main cause of visual impairment in developed countries. Several improvements in the visualization of posterior segment of the eye together with the introduction of intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment have revolutionized the prognosis of the wet form of AMD (wAMD). Increasing incidence of wAMD together with the limited resources of society and of the healthcare system poses challenges for the provision and development of care. In context of these current aspects, we aimed to set evidence-based medical guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with wAMD.

[Implementation in Finnish]. / Implementointia suomeksi.

Implementation research examines and promotes the uptake of research findings in various operational environments. The concepts of implementation research in Finnish are not yet established. In support of the research field we describe the Finnish equivalents of the central terms related to knowledge translation in healthcare and the frame of reference of Implementation research, with the national Current Care Guidelines as the starting point. The frame of reference is based on literature, experiences of the authors, iterative modification of the frame of reference on the basis of discussions, and results of expert inquiry. The frame of reference describes seven objects of evaluation, examples of research set-ups and methods as well as tools.

Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures.

BACKGROUND: The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. METHODS: Methodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly. RESULTS: Twenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel. CONCLUSIONS: These proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.

[Update on Current Care Guideline: Food allergy (children)]. / Ruoka-allergia (lapset).

This guideline, targeted to healthcare workers dealing with food-allergic children, provides a review on the clinical aspects of pediatric food allergy. The main updates include: elimination diets are not recommended for breast-feeding mothers; probiotics are not recommended for allergy prevention or treatment; food challenges are the basis of the diagnosis, but it can be improved by IgE component diagnostics. The treatment for severe symptoms is specific food avoidance, mildly symptomatic children should continue with versatile diet. Specific oral tolerance induction is a safe and effective treatment in most of the pediatric patients.

[Treatment recommendations do not automatically translate into treatment practices]. / Hoitosuositukset eivät muutu hoitokäytännöiksi itsestään.

Treatment recommendations provide clinicians with evaluated and compiled information about effective treatment practices. The recommendations do not, however, automatically translate into treatment practices. Individual methods of application of treatment recommendations have at the most a moderate effect on the methods of operation of professionals. The effect may be stronger, if the obstacles to the realization of a treatment recommendation are recognized and the methods selected accordingly, observing the local conditions. The application of treatment recommendations should be bundled with the long-term development of the organization, whereby structures supporting the development work are formed within the organization.

[Update on current care guidelines: benign prostatic hyperplasia]. / Eturauhasen hyvänlaatuinen liikakasvu.

Most benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients can be diagnosed and treated in primary care. Evaluation requires a medical history and a symptom score (DAN-PSS or IPSS) and a careful physical examination including a digital rectal examination. Careful follow-up and medical therapy are the usual first-line management options in uncomplicated BPH. Combination therapy with both alpha-blocker and 5alpha-reductase inhibitor is the most effective medical treatment modality. Transurethral resection (TURP) is a safe and effective way of treating BPH. The green laser is the most promising new endoscopic treatment modality.

Change in antihypertensive drug prescribing after guideline implementation: a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drug choices and treatment levels are not in accordance with the existing guidelines. We aimed to assess the impact of a guideline implementation intervention on antihypertensive drug prescribing. METHODS: In this controlled before and after study, the effects of a multifaceted (education, audit and feedback, local care pathway) quality programme was evaluated. The intervention was carried out in a health centre between 2002 and 2003. From each health care unit (n = 31), a doctor-nurse pair was trained to act as peer facilitators in the intervention.All antihypertensive drugs prescribed by 25 facilitator general practitioners (intervention GPs) and 53 control GPs were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register for three-month periods in 2001 and 2003. The proportions of patients receiving specific antihypertensive drugs and multiple antihypertensive drugs were measured before and after the intervention for three subgroups of hypertension patients: hypertension only, with coronary heart disease, and with diabetes. RESULTS: In all subgroups, the use of multiple concurrent medications increased. For intervention patients with hypertension only, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.99, 1.25; p = 0.06) and for controls 1.13 (1.05, 1.21; p = 0.002). We observed no statistically significant differences in the change in the prescribing of specific antihypertensive agents between the intervention and control groups. The use of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increased in all subgroups (hypertension only intervention patients OR 1.19 (1.06, 1.34; p = 0.004) and controls OR 1.24 (1.15, 1.34; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted guideline implementation intervention does not necessarily lead to significant changes in prescribing performance. Rigorous planning of the interventions and quality projects and their evaluation are essential.

Facilitating as a guidelines implementation tool to target resources for high risk patients - the Helsinki Prevention Programme (HPP).

Interprofessional care may provide some answers to the challenge of scarce healthcare resources, through the utilization of the expertise of various professionals to improve evidence-based care. This was a two-year programme in primary care, where doctor and nurse pairs acted as intrinsic facilitators creating and implementing local guidelines and encouraging multiprofessional teamwork. The effect of implementation was studied by auditing professional opinion change, blood pressure, serum lipid and HbA1C levels. After one year, 20 health stations reported improvement in treatment practices of hypertension and the division of tasks across team members, and seven and eight health stations reported improvement in treatment of diabetes and dyslipidemia. After two years, the corresponding figures were 29, 25 and 22, respectively. Active guidance to home measurements increased from 90% to 100% and every health station identified a dedicated area for patient self-measurement. At baseline, in poor control were 17% of blood pressure measurements, and 31% of diabetic and 71% of dyslipidemic patients. At follow-up, the corresponding figures were 22%, 34% and 64%, respectively. Multiprofessional facilitation and learning proved to be effective in implementing guidelines, improving multiprofessional collaboration and sharing duties and responsibilities, as well as targeting preventative activities and resources adequately.