Temporal and geographical variations in diagnostic imaging in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Unwarranted temporal and geographical variations are acknowledged as a profound problem for equal access and justice in the provision of health services. Even more, they challenge the quality, safety, and efficiency of such services. This is highly relevant for imaging services. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the temporal and geographical variation in the number of diagnostic images in Norway from 2013 to 2021. METHODS: Data on outpatient imaging provided by the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) and inpatient data afforded by fourteen hospital trusts and hospitals in Norway. Data include the total number of imaging examinations according to the Norwegian Classification of Radiological Procedures (NCRP). Analyses were performed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: More than 37 million examinations were performed in Norway during 2013-2021 giving an average of 4.2 million examinations per year. In 2021 there was performed and average of 0.8 examinations per person and 2.2 examinations per person for the age group > 80. There was a 9% increase in the total number of examinations from 2013 to 2015 and a small and stable decrease of 0.5% per year from 2015 to 2021 (with the exception of 2020 due to the pandemic). On average 71% of all examinations were outpatient examinations and 32% were conducted at private imaging centres. There were substantial variations between the health regions, with Region South-East having 53.1% more examinations per inhabitant than Region West. The geographical variation was even more outspoken when comparing catchment areas, where Oslo University Hospital Trust had twice as many examinations per inhabitant than Finnmark Hospital Trust. CONCLUSION: As the population in Norway is homogeneous it is difficult to attribute the variations to socio-economic or demographic factors. Unwarranted and supply-sensitive variations are challenging for healthcare systems where equal access and justice traditionally are core values.

Cost of Low-Value Imaging Worldwide: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Imaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20-50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide. METHODS: This systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: Of 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA (n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting (n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common (n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care.

Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

OBJECTIVES: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry-based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. METHODS: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi-randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short- and long-term trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

Drivers for low-value imaging: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives in Norway.

BACKGROUND: One kind of overutilization of diagnostic imaging is low-value imaging, i.e., imaging that does not lead to altered clinical pathways or improved health outcomes. Despite having well-documented extension and consequences, low-value imaging is still widespread. The objective of this study was to identify the drivers for the use of low-value imaging in the Norwegian healthcare services. METHODS: We conducted individual, semi-structured interviews among representatives from the health authorities, general practitioners, specialists working in hospitals, radiologists, radiographers, and managers of imaging departments. Data analysis was carried out in line with framework analysis consisting of five steps: Familiarization, indexing, charting, mapping, and interpretation. RESULTS: The analysis included 27 participants and resulted in two themes. The stakeholders identified drivers in the healthcare system and in the interaction between radiologists, referrers, and patients. The identified drivers were categorized in sub-themes, such as organization, communication, competence, expectations, defensive medicine, roles and responsibilities, and referral quality and time constraints. The drivers interact with each other and may strengthen the effect of other drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Several drivers for low-value imaging in Norway were identified at all levels of the healthcare system. The drivers work simultaneously and synergistically. To free resources for high-value imaging, drivers should be targeted by appropriate measures at several levels to reduce low-value imaging.

The use of low-value imaging: the role of referral practice and access to imaging services in a representative area of Norway.

BACKGROUND: Even though imaging is essential to modern medicine, some examinations are of low value as they do not lead to any change in the management of the patient. The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign aims to reduce the use of such services. In the Norwegian version of CW, specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head, lower back, and knee are amongst others identified as potential low-value examinations. However, referral practice and access to imaging may drive low-value utilisation. By using registry data from 2019 and descriptive analysis, this study aimed to examine the role of referral practice and access to imaging on the use of specific CW-examinations in one representative area in Norway. RESULTS: A total of 237,554 examinations were performed by four public and two private imaging facilities located within the area. Forty-two percent (19,210/45,289) of all MRI examinations were related to CW. Private imaging centres performed most of the CW-imaging. A total of 3700 referrers were identified, and 2.3% were identified as "high-referrers," accounting for 33% of all CW-examinations. Referrers' experience did not influence imaging utilisation. A subset of referrers ("super-referrers," 0.5%) accounted for 10% of CW-examinations. Distance to service had no impact on the use of CW-examinations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insight into the use of imaging and referral practice in one representative area in Norway. A great variation in referral practice was observed. Therefore, targeting referrers with high referral rates may be a promising strategy for reducing the use of low-value imaging.

On the Ethics of Withholding and Withdrawing Unwarranted Diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses and the number of persons having diagnoses have increased substantially, and studies indicate that diagnoses are given or upheld even if they are unwarranted, that is, that they do not satisfy professionally accepted diagnostic criteria. In this article, the authors investigate the ethics of withholding and withdrawing unwarranted diagnoses. First, they investigate ethical aspects that make it difficult to withhold and to withdraw such diagnoses. Second, they scrutinize whether there are psychological factors, both in persons/patients and healthcare professionals, making it difficult to withdraw and withhold unwarranted diagnoses. Lastly, they use recent elements of the withholding-versus-withdrawing treatment debate in medical ethics to investigate whether there are any differences between withholding and withdrawing treatment and withdrawing and withholding unwarranted diagnoses. The authors conclude that it is crucial to acknowledge and address all these issues to reduce and avoid unwarranted diagnoses.

Geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation - ethical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care restricts patients' liberty and is experienced as harmful by many. Such hospitalisations continue to be used due to their assumed benefit, despite limited scientific evidence. Observed geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation raises concern that rates are higher and lower than necessary in some areas. METHODS/DISCUSSION: We present a specific normative ethical analysis of how geographical variation in compulsory hospitalisation challenges four core principles of health care ethics. We then consider the theoretical possibility of a "right", or appropriate, level of compulsory hospitalisation, as a general norm for assessing the moral divergence, i.e., too little, or too much. Finally, we discuss implications of our analysis and how they can inform the future direction of mental health services.

The concept of disease in the Norwegian National Insurance Court.

AIMS: The National Insurance Act administrates an important part of the welfare system in Norway by entitlements to benefits. Disease is an absolute requirement for many benefits, but the Act does not provide any definition of disease. The National Insurance Court is the normative body in management of the Act. In 1994, a consensus report was written on the concept of disease on behalf of the National Insurance Court, which subsequently became a guideline in the management of decisions. This study examined how the concept of disease has been interpretated in recent decisions in the National Insurance Court compared to the interpretation in the consensus report. METHODS: The material consisted of anonymous decisions from the National Insurance Court in the period from September 2018 to August 2019. It was analysed by systematic text condensation and compared to the consensus report by a theory-driven content analysis. RESULTS: The consensus report described disease as a value-laden condition with personal resources and external environment as decisive context, while the decisions express disease as a process with causal relationship to personal resources and external environment. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of recent decisions showed that the interpretation of the concept of disease has moved in a value-neutral direction compared to the consensus report.

Reducing low-value radiological services in Norway -a qualitative multi-professional study on measures and facilitators for change.

BACKGROUND: Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities' representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into various stakeholders' perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work.

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10-34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging-in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit-is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children. METHODS: A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included. RESULTS: A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Dediagnosing - a novel framework for making people less ill.

Diagnosing constitutes a substantial part of healthcare work and triggers a wide range of actions including the prescription of medicines. Dediagnosing is proposed as a novel framework for removing diagnoses that do not contribute to the reduction of persons' suffering and should be introduced to make people less ill. Dediagnosing comes together with other efforts to reduce overuse, such as deimplementation, deprescribing, decommissioning, and disinvestment. Because diagnoses may influence identity construction and social rights, dediagnosing must be conducted in close collaboration with the patient.

Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 20-50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging. METHODS: An electronic database search was completed in Medline - Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed. RESULTS: The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

Health care personnel's perception of guideline implementation for musculoskeletal imaging: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The increasing complexity and variability in radiology have significantly fueled the need for guidelines. There are many methods for disseminating and implementing guidelines however; and obtaining lasting changes has been difficult. Implementation outcome is usually measured in a decrease in unwarranted examinations, and qualitative data are rarely used. This study's aim was to evaluate a guideline implementation process and identify factors influencing implementation outcome using qualitative data. METHODS: Seven general practitioners and five radiological personnel from a Norwegian county participated in four focus group interviews in 2019. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, where some categories were predetermined, while most were drawn from the data. RESULTS: Four main categories were developed from the data material. 1) Successful/unsuccessful parts of the implementation, 2) perceived changes/lack of changes after the implementation, 3) environment-related factors that affected guideline use, and 4) User related factors that affect guideline use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that clinical guideline implementation is difficult, despite the implementation strategy being tailored to the target groups. Several environment- and user-related factors contributed to the lack of changes experienced in practice for both general practitioners and radiological personnel.

Development and conduction of an active re-implementation of the Norwegian musculoskeletal guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Significant geographical variations in the use of diagnostic imaging have been demonstrated in Norway and elsewhere. Non-traumatic musculoskeletal conditions is one area where this has been demonstrated. A national musculoskeletal guideline was implemented in response by online publishing and postal dissemination in Norway in 2014 by national policy makers. The objective of our study was to develop and conduct an intervention as an active re-implementation of this guideline in one Norwegian county to investigate and facilitate guideline adherence. The development and implementation process is reported here, to facilitate understanding of the future evaluation results of this study. RESULTS: The consolidated framework for implementation research guided the intervention development and implementation. The implementation development was also based on earlier reported success factors in combination with interviews with general practitioners and radiologists regarding facilitators and barriers to guideline adherence. A combined implementation strategy was developed, including educational meetings, shortening of the guideline and easier access. All the aspects of the implementation strategy were adapted towards general practitioners, radiological personnel and the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Sixteen educational meetings were held, and six educational videos were made for those unable to attend, or where meetings could not be held.

Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence in diagnostic imaging: an explorative study of GPs' and radiologists' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging has been a part of medicine for the last century. It has been difficult to implement guidelines in this field, and unwarranted imaging has been a frequent problem. Some work has been done to explain these phenomena separately. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of guideline use has been one strategy. The aim of this study is to offer a more comprehensive explanation of deviations from the guideline by studying the two phenomena together. METHODS: Eight general practitioners and 10 radiologists from two counties in Norway agreed to semi-structured interviews. Topics covered in the interviews were knowledge of the guideline, barriers to and facilitators of guideline use, implementation of guidelines and factors that influence unwarranted imaging. RESULTS: Several barriers to and facilitators of guideline use were identified. Among these are lack of time, pressure from patients, and guidelines being too long, rigid or unclear. Facilitators of guideline use were easy accessibility and having the guidelines adapted to the target group. Some of the factors that influence unwarranted imaging are lack of time, pressure from patients and availability of imaging services. CONCLUSION: There are similarities between the perceived barriers for guideline adherence and the perceived factors that influence unwarranted imaging. There may be a few reasons that explains the deviation from guidelines, and the amount of unwarranted imaging.

Radiologists' responses to inadequate referrals.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate radiologists' responses to inadequate imaging referrals. METHODS: A survey was mailed to Norwegian radiologists; 69% responded. They graded the frequencies of actions related to referrals with ambiguous indications or inappropriate examination choices and the contribution of factors preventing and not preventing an examination of doubtful usefulness from being performed as requested. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent (344/361) reported daily or weekly actions related to inadequate referrals. Actions differed among subspecialties. The most frequent were contacting the referrer to clarify the clinical problem and checking test results/information in the medical records. Both actions were more frequent among registrars than specialists and among hospital radiologists than institute radiologists. Institute radiologists were more likely to ask the patient for additional information and to examine the patient clinically. Factors rated as contributing most to prevent doubtful examinations were high risk of serious complications/side effects, high radiation dose and low patient age. Factors facilitating doubtful examinations included respect for the referrer's judgment, patient/next-of-kin wants the examination, patient has arrived, unreachable referrer, and time pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, radiologists facing inadequate referrals considered patient safety and sought more information. Vetting referrals on arrival, easier access to referring clinicians, and time for radiologists to handle inadequate referrals may contribute to improved use of imaging.

Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment.

From the heydays of HTA in the 1970s, it has been argued that ethics should be a part of HTA. Despite more than 30 years with repeated intentions, only few HTA reports include ethical analysis, and there is little agreement on methods for integrating ethics. This poses the question of why it is so important to integrate ethics in HTA? The article analyzes ten arguments for making ethics part of HTA. The validity of the arguments depend on what we mean by "integrating," "ethics," and "HTA." Some of the counterarguments explain why it has taken so long to integrate ethics in HTA and why there are so many ethical approaches. Nevertheless, some of the arguments for making ethics part of HTA appear to be compelling. Health care is a moral endeavor, and the vast potential of technology poses complex moral challenges. A thorough assessment of technology would include reflection on these moral aspects. Ethics provides such a moral reflection. Health technology is a way to improve the life of human individuals. This involves questions of what "the good life" is, and hence ethical issues. Trying to ignore such questions may inflict with the moral foundation of health care: to help people. Additionally, HTA is an evaluation, and as such also a reflection on values. Hence, there is a profound affinity between HTA and ethics. Accordingly, ethics cannot be "integrated" in HTA as ethics is already a constitutive part of HTA. However, ethics can be acknowledged and emphasized.