Dataset Information

Assessing volume and variation of low-value care practices in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There have been contributions to quantify the volume of low-value care practices in the USA, Canada and Australia but we have no knowledge about the volume in Europe. The purpose of this study was to assess the volume and variation of Dutch low-value care practices. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study with data of a Dutch healthcare insurance company from general practioners (GP's) and hospitals in the Netherlands from 2016. We used all billing claims made by healthcare providers of 3.5 million Dutch inhabitants. We studied Choosing Wisely recommendations in order to select low-value care practices. We used the percentage low-value care practices per hospital and number of low-value care practices per GP as outcomes. RESULTS:We assessed the volume of low-back imaging by GPs, screening of patients over 75 years for colorectal cancer and diagnosing varices with Doppler or Plethysmography. We found that 0.4% (range 0-7%) of the eligible patients received low-value screening for colorectal cancer and 8.0% (range 0-88%) of eligible patients received low-value diagnosing of varices. About 52.4% of the GPs ordered X-rays and 11.2% ordered magnetic resonance imagings of the lumbosacral spine. Most healthcare providers did not provide the measured low-value care practices. However, 1 in 12 GPs ordered at least one low-back X-ray a week. CONCLUSIONS:The three Choosing Wisely recommendations showed a lot of practice variation; many healthcare providers did not order these low-value diagnostic tests; a minor part did order a substantial amount, low-back spine radiology in particular. These healthcare providers should start reducing these activities.

SUBMITTER: Kool RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7183367 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing volume and variation of low-value care practices in the Netherlands.

Kool Rudolf Bertijn RB Verkerk Eva Wilhelmina EW Meijs Jill J van Gorp Niels N Maessen Martijn M Westert Gert G Peul Wilco W van Dulmen Simone S

European journal of public health 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>There have been contributions to quantify the volume of low-value care practices in the USA, Canada and Australia but we have no knowledge about the volume in Europe. The purpose of this study was to assess the volume and variation of Dutch low-value care practices.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional study with data of a Dutch healthcare insurance company from general practioners (GP's) and hospitals in the Netherlands from 2016. We used all billing claims made by h ...[more]

PMID: 31950995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically and rigorously examined the quality of care provided in educational practice sites. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the patient population cared for by trainees in internal medicine residency clinics; (2) assess the quality of preventive cardiology care provided to these patients; (3) characterize the practice-based systems that currently exist in internal medicine residency clinics; and (4) examine the relationships between quality, practice-based systems, and features of the program: size, type of program, and presence of an electronic medical record. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 15 Internal Medicine residency programs (23 sites) throughout the USA. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included site champions at residency programs and 709 residents. MEASUREMENTS: Abstracted charts provided data about patient demographics, coronary heart disease risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes. Patients completed surveys regarding satisfaction. Site teams completed a practice systems survey. RESULTS: Chart abstraction of 4,783 patients showed substantial variability across sites. On average, patients had between 3 and 4 of the 9 potential risk factors for coronary heart disease, and approximately 21% had at least 1 important barrier of care. Patients received an average of 57% (range, 30-77%) of the appropriate interventions. Reported satisfaction with care was high. Sites with an electronic medical record showed better overall information management (81% vs 27%) and better modes of communication (79% vs 43%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insight into the current state of practice in residency sites including aspects of the practice environment and quality of preventive cardiology care delivered. Substantial heterogeneity among the training sites exists. Continuous measurement of the quality of care provided and a better understanding of the training environment in which this care is delivered are important goals for delivering high quality patient care.

Project description:BackgroundWhether patients receive low-value hospital care (care that is not expected to provide a net benefit) may be influenced by unmeasured factors at the hospital they attend or the hospital's Local Health District (LHD), or the patients' areas of residence. Multilevel modelling presents a method to examine the effects of these different levels simultaneously and assess their relative importance to the outcome. Knowing which of these levels has the greatest contextual effects can help target further investigation or initiatives to reduce low-value care.MethodsWe conducted multilevel logistic regression modelling for nine low-value hospital procedures. We fit a series of six models for each procedure. The baseline model included only episode-level variables with no multilevel structure. We then added each level (hospital, LHD, Statistical Local Area [SLA] of residence) separately and used the change in the c statistic from the baseline model as a measure of the contribution of the level to the outcome. We then examined the variance partition coefficients (VPCs) and median odds ratios for a model including all three levels. Finally, we added level-specific covariates to examine if they were associated with the outcome.ResultsAnalysis of the c statistics showed that hospital was more important than LHD or SLA in explaining whether patients receive low-value care. The greatest increases were 0.16 for endoscopy for dyspepsia, 0.13 for colonoscopy for constipation, and 0.14 for sentinel lymph node biopsy for early melanoma. SLA gave a small increase in c compared with the baseline model, but no increase over the model with hospital. The VPCs indicated that hospital accounted for most of the variation not explained by the episode-level variables, reaching 36.8% (95% CI, 31.9-39.0) for knee arthroscopy. ERCP (8.5%; 95% CI, 3.9-14.7) and EVAR (7.8%; 95% CI, 2.9-15.8) had the lowest residual variation at the hospital level. The variables at the hospital, LHD and SLA levels that were available for this study generally showed no significant effect.ConclusionsInvestigations into the causes of low-value care and initiatives to reduce low-value care might best be targeted at the hospital level, as the high variation at this level suggests the greatest potential to reduce low-value care.

Project description:Background/Aims De-implementation, including the removal or reduction of unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing, is crucial to ensure patients receive appropriate evidence-based health care. The utilization of de-implementation efforts is contingent on the quality of strategy reporting. To further understand effective ways to de-implement medical practices, specification of behavioural targets and components of de-implementation strategies are required. This paper aims to critically analyse how well the behavioural targets and strategy components, in studies that focused on de-implementing unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare settings, were reported.MethodsA supplementary analysis of studies included in a recently published review of de-implementation studies was conducted. Article text was coded verbatim to two established specification frameworks. Behavioural components were coded deductively to the five elements of the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework. Strategy components were mapped to the nine elements of the Proctor's 'measuring implementation strategies' framework.ResultsThe behavioural components of low-value prescribing, as coded to the AACTT framework, were generally specified well. However, the Actor and Time components were often vague or not well reported. Specification of strategy components, as coded to the Proctor framework, were less well reported. Proctor's Actor, Action target: specifying targets, Dose and Justification elements were not well reported or varied in the amount of detail offered. We also offer suggestions of additional specifications to make, such as the 'interactions' participants have with a strategy.ConclusionSpecification of behavioural targets and components of de-implementation strategies for prescribing practices can be accommodated by the AACTT and Proctor frameworks when used in conjunction. These essential details are required to understand, replicate and successfully de-implement unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing. In general, standardisation in the reporting quality of these components is required to replicate any de-implementation efforts.Trial registrationNot registered.

Dataset Information

Assessing volume and variation of low-value care practices in the Netherlands.

Publications

Assessing volume and variation of low-value care practices in the Netherlands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets