Targets for De-implementation of Unnecessary Testing Before Low-Risk Surgery: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite multispecialty recommendations to avoid routine preoperative testing before low-risk surgery, the practice remains common and de-implementation has proven difficult. The goal of this study as to elicit determinants of unnecessary testing before low-risk surgery to inform de-implementation efforts. METHODS: We conducted focused ethnography at a large academic institution, including semi-structured interviews and direct observations at two preoperative evaluation clinics and one outpatient surgery center. Themes were identified through narrative thematic analysis and mapped to a comprehensive and integrated checklist of determinants of practice, the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework (TICD). RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated (surgeons, anesthesiologists, primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and medical assistants). Three themes were identified: (1) Shared Values (TICD Social, Political, and Legal Factors), (2) Gaps in Knowledge (TICD Individual Health Professional Factors, Guideline Factors), and (3) Communication Breakdown (TICD Professional Interactions, Incentives and Resources, Capacity for Organizational Change). Shared Values describe core tenets expressed by all groups of clinicians, namely prioritizing patient safety and utilizing evidence-based medicine. Clinicians had Gaps in Knowledge related to existing data and preoperative testing recommendations. Communication Breakdowns within interdisciplinary teams resulted in unnecessary testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have knowledge gaps related to preoperative testing recommendations and may be amenable to de-implementation efforts and educational interventions. Consensus guidelines may streamline interdisciplinary communication by clarifying interdisciplinary needs and reducing testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other clinicians.

Using Machine Learning to Predict Suitability for Surgery at an Ambulatory Surgical Center.

This Surgical Innovation describes the use of a site optimization model that uses machine learning to stratify patients according to whether they can have surgery at an ambulatory surgical center vs a hospital-based outpatient department.

Comprehensive History and Physicals are Common Before Low-Risk Surgery and Associated With Preoperative Test Overuse.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently eliminated the requirement for preoperative history and physicals (H&Ps) prior to ambulatory surgery. We sought to assess variations in separately billed preoperative H&P utilization prior to low-risk ambulatory surgery, describe any relationship with preoperative testing, and identify independent predictors of these consultations prior to this policy change to help characterize the potential unnecessary utilization of these consultations and potential unnecessary preoperative testing prior to low-risk surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using claims data from a hospital value collaborative in Michigan from January 2015 to June 2019 and included patients undergoing one of three ambulatory procedures: breast lumpectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Rates of preoperative H&P visits within 30 d of surgical procedure were determined. H&P and preoperative testing associations were explored, and patient-level, practice-level, and hospital-level determinants of utilization were assessed with regression models. Risk and reliability-adjusted caterpillar plots were generated to demonstrate hospital-level variations in utilization. RESULTS: 50,775 patients were included with 50.5% having a preoperative H&P visit, with these visits being more common for patients with increased comorbidities (1.9 ± 2.2 vs 1.4 ± 1.9; P < 0.0001). Preoperative testing was associated with H&P visits (57.2% vs 41.4%; P < 0.0001). After adjusting for patient case-mix and interhospital and intrahospital variations in H&P visits, utilization remained with significant associations in patients with increased comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative H&P visits were common before three low-risk ambulatory surgical procedures across Michigan and were associated with higher rates of low-value preoperative testing, suggesting that preoperative H&P visits may create clinical momentum leading to unnecessary testing. These findings will inform strategies to tailor preoperative care before low-risk surgical procedures and may lead to reduced utilization of low-value preoperative testing.

Perceived Barriers to the De-implementation of Routine Preoperative History & Physicals Preceding Low-Risk Ambulatory Procedures: A Qualitative Study of Surgeon Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing surgery at an Ambulatory Surgical Center, recent changes to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy allow for the omission of a 30-day preoperative History and Physical (H&P). Preoperative H&Ps for low-risk surgery may contribute to health care waste and lead to unnecessary preoperative testing and treatment cascades. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with surgeons who frequently perform low-risk surgeries. We aimed to evaluate surgeon perspectives on the continued use of the 30-day preoperative H&P and specifically the potential risks and benefits associated with the elimination of a preoperative H&P requirement from institutional practice. We used an interpretive description approach to generate a thematic description. RESULTS: Most participants felt that the 30-day preoperative H&P was low value and frequently described it as "unnecessary," "redundant," or "just checking a box." Many viewed the 30-day requirement as arbitrary and felt that new H&P findings were rare and unlikely to influence surgical care. The participants who favored the preoperative H&P felt it was a safeguard to ensure "nothing was missed" and were less likely to be burdened by the requirement than participants who felt it was low value. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons performing low-risk procedures question the utility and value of conducting a preoperative H&P within 30 days of surgery. De-implementation of the 30-day preoperative H&P for low-risk patients may increase convenience for patients and providers. Furthermore, it may improve value in surgery by increasing access to services for patients with greater need for preoperative assessment.

Feasibility of a Risk-Based Approach to Cataract Surgery Preoperative Medical Evaluation.

IMPORTANCE: In 2019, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the Patients Over Paperwork initiative, allowing hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers to establish their own policies on preoperative history and physical requirements. A risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluation may allow surgeons to provide high-value patient care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a risk-based approach to cataract surgery preoperative medical evaluation through a lens of safety and throughput. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate the implementation of a risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluation for cataract surgery using a virtual medical history questionnaire. The intervention group, seen from June to September 2020, received the risk assessment and those who were low risk proceeded to surgery without further preoperative evaluation prior to the day of surgery. The preintervention control group included patients who received standard care from January to December 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes included rates of intraoperative complications, noneye-related emergency department visits within 7 days, inpatient admissions within 7 days of surgery, case delays, and rates of case cancellation. The secondary outcome included patient perception regarding preoperative care. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients undergoing cataract surgery were included in the intervention group (1813 [58.2%] female) and 3114 were in the control group (621/1095 [56.7%] female). The mean (SD) age was 68.6 (11.0) in the control group and 68.4 (10.5) in the intervention group. The intervention group included 126 low-risk individuals (11.5%) and 969 individuals who received standard care (88.5%). There were no differences between the control and intervention groups in terms of rates of intraoperative complications (control group vs intervention group: 21 [0.7%] vs 3 [0.3%]; difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.82 to 0.02]), 7-day noneye-related ED visits (5 [0.2%] vs 3 [0.3%]; difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -0.23 to 0.45]), 7-day inpatient admissions (6 [0.2%] vs 2 [0.2%]; difference, -0.01% [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.29]), or same-day cancellations (31 [0.8%] vs 10 [0.6%]; difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.34]). The control group had more case delays (59 [1.9%] vs 7 [0.6%]; difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -1.93 to -0.58]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that a virtual, risk-based approach to preoperative medical evaluations for cataract surgery is associated with safe and efficient outcomes. These findings may encourage health care systems and ambulatory surgery centers to tailor preoperative requirements for low-risk surgery patients.