Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems.

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

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 .

Differences in use of high- and low-value health care between immigrant and US-born adults.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the use of high- and low-value health care between immigrant and US-born adults. DATA SOURCE: The 2007-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We split the sample into younger (ages 18-64 years) and older adults (ages 65 years and over). Our outcome measures included the use of high-value care (eight services) and low-value care (seven services). Our key independent variable was immigration status. For each outcome, we ran regressions with and without individual-level characteristics. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: N/A. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Before accounting for individual-level characteristics, the use of high- and low-value care was lower among immigrant adults than US-born adults. After accounting for individual-level characteristics, this difference decreased in both groups of younger and older adults. For high-value care, significant differences were observed in five services and the direction of the differences was mixed. The use of breast cancer screening was lower among immigrant than US-born younger and older adults (-5.7 [95% CI: -7.4 to -3.9] and -2.9 percentage points [95% CI: -5.6 to -0.2]) while the use of colorectal cancer screening was higher among immigrant than US-born younger and older adults (2.6 [95% CI: 0.5 to 4.8] and 3.6 [95% CI: 0.2 to 7.0] percentage points). For low-value care, we did not identify significant differences except for antibiotics for acute upper respiratory infection among younger adults and opioids for back pain among older adults (-3.5 [95% CI: -5.5 to -1.5] and -3.8[95% CI: -7.3 to -0.2] percentage points). Particularly, differences in socioeconomic status, health insurance, and care access between immigrant and US-born adults played a key role in accounting for differences in the use of high- and low-value health care. The use of high-value care among immigrant and US-born adults increased over time, but the use of low-value care did not decrease. CONCLUSION: Differential use of high- and low-value care between immigrant and US-born adults may be partly attributable to differences in individual-level characteristics, especially socioeconomic status, health insurance, and access to care.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).

Avoiding Low-Value Care and Patient Financial Harm in Cervical Cancer Screening.

The provision of low-value care remains a significant concern in healthcare. The negative impacts resulting from low-value cervical cancer screenings are extensive at the population level and can lead to harms and substantial out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Inattention to the financial implications of screening poses a serious threat to low-income populations that depend on affordable screening services, and it may exacerbate existing healthcare disparities and inequities. Identifying and implementing strategies that promote high-value care and reduce patient out-of-pocket expenses are important to ensure that all people, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have access to effective and affordable preventive care. See related article by Rockwell et al., p. 385.

Optimizing Respiratory Therapy Resources by De-Implementing Low-Value Care.

BACKGROUND: Our institution was experiencing a respiratory therapy staffing crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic, in part due to excessive workload. We identified an opportunity to reduce burden by limiting use of 3% hypertonic saline and/or N-acetylcysteine nebulizer therapies (3%HTS/NAC). METHODS: Leveraging the science of de-implementation, we established a policy empowering respiratory therapists to discontinue 3%HTS/NAC not meeting the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) Clinical Practice Guideline: Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Airway Clearance Therapies in Hospitalized Patients. After a 3-month period of educating physicians and advanced practice practitioners the policy went to into effect. Outcomes measured included monthly number of treatments, orders, and full-time employees associated with administering nebulized 3%HTS/NAC. RESULTS: Post policy activation, the monthly mean 3%HTS/NAC treatments were significantly reduced to 547.5 ± 284.3 from 3,565.2 ± 596.4 (P < .001) as were the associated monthly mean of full-time employees, 0.8 ± 0.41 from 5.1 ± 0.86 (P < .001). The monthly mean 3%HTS/NAC orders also fell to 93.8 ± 31.5 from 370.0 ± 46.9 (P < .001). Monthly mean non-3%HTS/NAC treatments remained stable; post policy was 3,089.4 ± 611.4 and baseline 3,279.6 ± 695.0 (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a policy that empowers respiratory therapists to promote adherence to AARC Clinical Guidelines reduced low-value therapies, costs, and staffing needs.

High and low value care recommended and undertaken prior to knee or hip arthroplasty: a survey study.

INTRODUCTION: National and international clinical practice guidelines have stratified the value of osteoarthritis (OA) interventions. Interventions with strong evidence supporting effectiveness and benefit are 'high value care'. Appointment attendance, audits and practitioner surveys are widely used to determine frequency of recommendations and adherence to high value care. Greater patient reported data is needed in this evidence base. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of high and low value care being recommended and undertaken by individuals awaiting OA-related lower limb arthroplasty. To examine sociodemographic or disease-related variables associated with being recommended different levels of care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 339 individuals was conducted in metropolitan and regional hospitals and surgeon consultation rooms across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Individuals attending pre-arthroplasty clinics/appointments for primary arthroplasty of the hip and/or knee were invited to participate. Respondents were asked what intervention(s) they were recommended by healthcare practitioners, or other sources of information, and what they had undertaken within two years prior to hip or knee arthroplasty. Interventions were classified as core, recommended, and low value care aligned with the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines. We considered core and recommended interventions high value. The proportion of recommended and undertaken interventions were calculated. We used backwards stepwise multivariate multinomial regression to address aim three. RESULTS: Simple analgesics were most frequently recommended (68% [95% CI 62.9 to 73.1]). 24.8% [20.2 to 29.7] of respondents were recommended high value care only. 75.2% [70.2 to 79.7] of respondents were recommended at least one low value intervention. More than 75% of recommended interventions were undertaken. Respondents awaiting hip arthroplasty, living outside a major city and without private health insurance had greater odds of recommended rather than core interventions being advised. CONCLUSION: While high value interventions are being recommended to individuals living with OA, in most cases they are combined with recommendations for low value care. This is concerning given the high rates of uptake for recommended interventions. Based on patient reported data, disease-related and sociodemographic variables influence the level of care recommended.

Low-Value Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Older Males.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines advise against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in males older than 69 years due to the risk of false-positive results and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. However, this low-value PSA screening in males aged 70 years or older remains common. Objective: To characterize the factors associated with low-value PSA screening in males 70 years or older. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a nationwide annual survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that collects information via telephone from more than 400 000 US adults on behavioral risk factors, chronic illnesses, and use of preventive services. The final cohort comprised male respondents to the 2020 BRFSS survey who were categorized into the following age groups: 70 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, or 80 years or older. Males with a former or current prostate cancer diagnosis were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes were recent PSA screening rates and factors associated with low-value PSA screening. Recent screening was defined as PSA testing within the past 2 years. Weighted multivariable logistic regressions and 2-sided significance tests were used to characterize factors associated with recent screening. Results: The cohort included 32 306 males. Most of these males (87.6%) were White individuals, whereas 1.1% were American Indian, 1.2% were Asian, 4.3% were Black, and 3.4% were Hispanic individuals. Within this cohort, 42.8% of respondents were aged 70 to 74 years, 28.4% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 28.9% were 80 years or older. The recent PSA screening rates were 55.3% for males in the 70-to-74-year age group, 52.1% in the 75-to-79-year age group, and 39.4% in the 80-year-or-older group. Among all racial groups, non-Hispanic White males had the highest screening rate (50.7%), and non-Hispanic American Indian males had the lowest screening rate (32.0%). Screening increased with higher educational level and annual income. Married respondents were screened more than unmarried males. In a multivariable regression model, discussing PSA testing advantages with a clinician (odds ratio [OR], 9.09; 95% CI, 7.60-11.40; P < .001) was associated with increased recent screening, whereas discussing PSA testing disadvantages had no association with screening (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .60). Other factors associated with a higher screening rate included having a primary care physician, a post-high school educational level, and income of more than $25 000 per year. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this survey study suggest that older male respondents to the 2020 BRFSS survey were overscreened for prostate cancer despite the age cutoff for PSA screening recommended in national guidelines. Discussing the benefits of PSA testing with a clinician was associated with increased screening, underscoring the potential of clinician-level interventions to reduce overscreening in older males.

Exploring patients' perceptions of low-value care: An interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians consider patients' expectations and demands as a major driver of low-value care. However, little is known about the patients' perspective. We aimed to explore patients' perceptions of low-value care. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with 24 patients from the Netherlands and explored their ideas of and experiences with low-value care, and their perception of its consequences and solutions. The interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients considered several types of care to be of low value, such as duplicate care, care that does not fit their preferences, inefficient care, and care that could have been prevented. The main causes of low-value care according to patients are poor clinician-patient communication and adhering to protocols instead of tailoring care to the individual patient. Consequences of low-value care were a burden for the patient, higher healthcare costs, and less room for high-value care. CONCLUSION: Patients' view of low-value care extends beyond care that is medically ineffective. Their experiences could help to identify opportunities to reduce the (perceived) use of low-value care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future de-implementation studies could benefit from engaging patients. Dutch patients understand the importance of reducing low-value care and could be strong advocates for de-implementation programs.

Definition of low-value care in a low-risk preoperative population: A scoping review.

RATIONALE: Preoperative care is one of the main areas in which to address low-value care. A detailed definition of what low-value care is in this period of the surgical care journey paves the way for new scientific research, clinical improvements, and reduction of unnecessary costs in this field. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To identify how low-value care in low-risk preoperative population has been defined in the scientific literature and propose a low-value care framework with potential consequences in this setting. METHODS: Scoping review of theoretical studies and peer-reviewed papers, including reviews, commentaries, or expert opinions, were considered eligible for inclusion. The following databases were consulted: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and SCOPUS (from inception to July 24, 2021), using a structured search with the keywords "low value care", "clinical waste", "preoperative", and "elective procedures." Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The definition of low-value care in the preoperative period and their consequences were described after extracting previous low-value care concepts and summarising the contents. Also, a visual framework was built with this information. RESULTS: From 1519 publications identified in the initial searches, 22 underwent full-text assessment, and 11 conceptual studies were included in the review. A total of four studies (36%) presented a general low-value care definition, and all studies report some situations considered low-value care in the preoperative field of low-risk surgeries. The most common example of preoperative low-value care, listed in nine studies (81%), was having asymptomatic patients undergo screening tests before surgery. The main clinical and nonclinical consequences of low-value care in the preoperative phase included false-positive results from exams as well as psychological distress, increased costs, and delay in surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Revisiting and integrating previous definitions of low-value care in low-risk surgery into a scoping review is a starting point for de-implementing unnecessary care and promoting improvements in surgical pathways.

Research designs and instruments to detect physiotherapy overuse of low-value care services in low back pain management: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The provision of low-value physiotherapy services in low back pain management is a known but complex phenomenon. Thus, this scoping review aims to systematically map existing research designs and instruments of the field in order to discuss the current state of research methodologies and contextualize results to domains and perspectives of a referred low-value care typology. Ultimately, results will be illustrated and transferred to conditions of the German health care setting as care delivery conditions of physiotherapy in Germany face unique particularities. METHODS: The development of this review is guided by the analysis framework of Arksey and O'Malley. A two-stage, audited search strategy was performed in Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and google scholar. All types of observational studies were included. Identified articles needed to address a pre-determined population, concept, and context framework and had to be published in English or German language. The publication date of included articles was not subject to any limitation. The applied framework to assess the phenomenon of low-value physiotherapy services incorporated three domains (care effectiveness; care efficiency; patient alignment of care) and perspectives (provider; patient; society) of care. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-nine percent of articles focused on the appropriateness of physiotherapeutic treatments, followed by education and information (30%), the diagnostic process (15%), and goal-setting practice (12%). Study designs were predominantly cross-sectional (58%). Data sources were mainly survey instruments (67%) of which 50% were self-developed. Most studies addressed the effectiveness domain of care (73%) and the provider perspective (88%). The perspective of patient alignment was assessed by 6% of included articles. None of included articles assessed the society perspective. Four methodical approaches of included articles were rated to be transferrable to Germany. CONCLUSION: Identified research on low-value physiotherapy care in low back pain management was widely unidimensional. Most articles focused on the effectiveness domain of care and investigated the provider perspective. Most measures were indirectly and did not monitor low-value care trends over a set period of time. Research on low-value physiotherapy care in secondary care conditions, such as Germany, was scarce. REGISTRATION: This review has been registered on open science framework ( https://osf.io/vzq7k https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PMF2G ).

Incidental Findings and Low-Value Care.

Incidental imaging findings are common and analogous to the results of screening tests when screening is performed of unselected, low-risk patients. Approximately 15-30% of all diagnostic imaging and 20-40% of CT examinations contain at least one incidental finding. Patients with incidental findings but low risk for disease are likely to experience length bias, lead-time bias, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment that create an illusion of benefit while conferring harm. This includes incidental detection of many types of cancers that, although malignant, would have been unlikely to affect a patient's health had the cancer not been detected. Detection of some incidental findings can improve health, but most do not. Greater patient- and disease-related risk increase the likelihood an incidental finding is important. Clinical guidelines for incidental findings should more deeply integrate patient risk factors and disease aggressiveness to inform management. Lack of outcome and cost-effectiveness data has led to reflexive management strategies for incidental findings that promote low-value and sometimes harmful care.

De-adopting low-value care: The missing step in evidence-based practice?

BACKGROUND: Low-value care provides little or no benefit to pediatric patients, has the potential to cause harm, waste healthcare resources, and increase healthcare costs. Nursing has a responsibility to identify and de-adopt low-value practices to help promote quality care. PURPOSE: 1) Describe the process of identifying and de-adopting low-value clinical practices guided by a conceptual model using a case study approach. 2) Identify facilitators and barriers to de-adoption practices, including levels of stakeholder engagement, organizational structures, and the quality of available scientific and non-scientific evidence. METHODOLOGY: An evidence-based practice (EBP) project investigating the efficacy of antihistamines in decreasing infusion reactions to infliximab identified a low-value practice within a pediatric infusion center. The Synthesis Model for the Process of De-adoption was then applied to guide the de-adoption of this low-value practice. Case study analysis highlighted facilitators and barriers to de-adoption efforts. CONCLUSIONS: The process for de-adopting care is an essential component of EBP and, as such, should be explicated through robust, standardized EBP processes and education. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Nurses are best positioned to identify, assess and prioritize low-value practices and facilitate the de-adoption of low-value practice that impact pediatric patients and families. Models to support de-adoption and a focus on site-specific practices including a prepared nursing workforce, continuous evaluation of care processes and the use of resources to assess for contextual determinants facilitates success and sustainability of this essential EBP approach.

Identifying and comparing low-value care recommendations for coronary heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the US and China.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care provides little or no benefit, causes harm and incurs unnecessary costs. Low-value care for coronary heart disease (CHD) is particularly prevalent in the US and China. Identifying low-value care services is the first step in reducing these services. There is currently limited data on identifying a comprehensive CHD low-value care list in the US and China. We aimed to identify and compare low-value care recommendations for CHD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the US and China. METHODS: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to CHD in the US and China were screened for do-not-do recommendations stating that specific services should be avoided. The similarities and discrepancies of low-value care recommendations for CHD between the two countries were then compared. RESULTS: We found a total of 38 low-value care recommendations in 6 Chinese CPGs and 98 recommendations in 11 US CPGs. In the US, the most common types of low-value care recommendations were therapeutic medications (44, 44.9%), followed by therapeutic procedures (27, 27.6%), diagnostic imaging (16, 16.3%), diagnostic testing (9, 9.2%) and primary prevention (2, 2.0%). In China, the most common types were therapeutic medications (18, 47.4%), followed by therapeutic procedures (13, 34.2%), diagnostic testing (4, 10.5%), and diagnostic imaging (3, 7.9%). CONCLUSION: In this study, a comprehensive list of low-value care for CHD in the US and China was established and potentially become the important targets for de-implementation for both countries. The findings may have important implications for other countries, especially low-and middle-income countries, to reduce low-value care for CHD.

Comparative HPV genotype distribution among women with normal and abnormal cervical cytology in Yaoundé, Cameroon

Background: The epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the pattern of HPV genotype distribution are parameters needed to assess the risk of cervical cancer. Oncogenic HPV types are well-known pathogen for lower genital tract neoplasias, representing the primary cause of cancer death in Africa and the second in Cameroon. This study was conducted to identify the various genotypes particularly the high-risk HPV types in normal and abnormal cervical cytology from women in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Methodology: This was a hospital-based, analytical cross-sectional study carried out on 226 symptomatic women wherein cervico-vaginal samples were obtained during gynaecological examination for Pap smears, HPV-DNA and genotype detection with linear array HPV strip, conducted from November 2019 to January 2021. Results: From the 226 women whose cervical samples were collected for Pap smears, 71 (31.4%) had abnormal cytology results while 155 (68.6%) had normal results. The overall HPV prevalence in the study population was 34.1% (77/226). The HPV prevalence in women with abnormal Pap smears was 100% (71/71) and are distributed in following descending order; LSIL (21.1%, 15/71), HSIL (21.1%, 15/71), ASC-US (19.7%, 14/71), ICC (19.7%, 14/71) and others (18.4%, 13/71). HPV-DNA was positive in 6 (3.9%) of the 155 women with normal cytology results, 4 (2.6%) of whom were high-risk HPV. There is statistically significant difference in the HPV prevalence between women with abnormal and normal Pap smear results (OR=3289, 95% CI=182.62-59235, p<0.0001). The frequently identified oncogenic HPV types were type 16 (31.2%, 24/77), type 45 (14.3%, 11/77) and type 18 (10.4%, 8/77). Conclusion: It is evident from our study that symptomatic women with normal Pap smear can have HR-HPV infection and should therefore be screened for HPV and followed up with periodic Pap smears to detect any abnormal change in cervical cytology results, to prevent cervical cancer development. Women should be encouraged to take up cervical screening, through Pap smears, because it is a non-invasive and cost-effective method for early detection of preinvasive lesions

Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".

Interest has increased in the topic of de-implementation, ie, reducing so-called low-value care (LVC). The article "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands" by Verkerk and colleagues identifies national-level factors affecting LVC use in those three countries. This commentary raises three critical points regarding the study. First, the study does not clearly define the national level. Secondly, national-level factors might not be relevant for all types of LVCs and thirdly, the study's rather limited sample makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. We also include some critical comments related to some of the study's findings in relation to results of our recently published scoping review of the international literature on de-implementation and use of LVC and an interview study with primary care physicians on LVC use. Finally, we provide some suggestions for further research that we believe is needed to improve understanding of LVC use and facilitate its de-implementation.

Identification of barriers, enablers and interventions to inform deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice: A protocol for a mixed methods scoping review informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Low-value care can lead to patient harm, misdirected clinician time and wastage of finite healthcare resources. Despite worldwide endeavours, deimplementing low-value care has proved challenging. Multifaceted, context and barrier-specific interventions are essential for successful deimplementation. The aim of this literature review is to summarise the evidence about barriers to, enablers of and interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework will be conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature will be searched from inception. Primary studies will be included. Barriers, enablers and interventions will be mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Study selection, data collection and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. NVivo software will be used for qualitative data analysis. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework will be used to present results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. This review will generate an evidence summary regarding barriers to, enablers of and interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice. This review will facilitate discussions about deimplementation with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, consumers and managers. These discussions are expected to inform the design and conduct of planned future projects to identify context-specific barriers and enablers then codesign, implement and evaluate barrier-specific interventions.