Building A Better Health Care System Post-Covid-19: Steps for Reducing Low-Value and Wasteful Care
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sorenson C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7442284 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLow-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care.MethodsEvidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public's perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making).ResultsThe 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making.ConclusionsEfforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).
| S-EPMC7137456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreprocedural cardiac evaluation is a common reason for outpatient cardiology visits. Many patients who are referred to cardiology clinics for preprocedural evaluation are at low risk of perioperative events and do not require any further management. Our facility treats patients over a large geographic area; avoiding low-value consultations reduces time and travel burdens for patients.ObjectiveOur study objective was to assess the impact of a novel algorithm in the electronic order entry system aimed to guide clinicians toward patients who may benefit from cardiovascular referral.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed in-person consultations and electronic consultations (e-consults) to our cardiology service before and after implementation of the novel algorithm to assess changes in patterns of care. Data were stored in a custom electronic database on internal servers.ResultsWe reviewed 603 consultations to our cardiology clinic and found that 89 (14.7%) were sent for preprocedural evaluation. Of these, 39 (43.8% of preprocedural consultations) were e-consults. After implementation, we reviewed 360 consultations. The proportion of consultations for preprocedural evaluation did not decrease (n=47, 13.0%; P=.39). We observed an absolute increase of 13.6% in the proportion of consultations ordered as e-consults (27/47, 57.4%). During the postintervention period, we received no remarks, concerns, or criticisms from ordering clinicians about the process change and no reports of adverse events.ConclusionsImplementation of an ordering algorithm to reduce low-value preprocedural cardiology evaluations did not lead to a reduction in the number of overall preprocedural cardiology consultations. The number of patients seen electronically increased, potentially improving clinic access and reducing travel burden for patients.
| S-EPMC7709841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder with a wide range of etiologies, ranging from self-limiting conditions to life-threatening diseases. Various modalities are available for the diagnosis and management of patients with LBP. However, many of these health services, known as low-value care (LVC), are unnecessary and impose undue financial costs on patients and health systems. The present study aimed to explore the perceptions of service providers regarding the facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC in the management of LBP in Iran.MethodsThis qualitative descriptive study interviewed a total of 20 participants, including neurosurgeons, physiatrists, orthopedists, and physiotherapists, who were selected through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The collected data were analyzed using the thematic content analysis approach.ResultsThirty-nine sub-themes, with 183 citations, were identified as barriers, and 31 sub-themes, with 120 citations, were defined as facilitators. Facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC for LBP, according to the interviewees, were categorized into five themes, including: (1) individual provider characteristics; (2) individual patient characteristics; (3) social context; (4) organizational context; and (5) economic and political context. The ten most commonly cited barriers included unrealistic tariffs, provider-induced demand, patient distrust, insufficient time allocation, a lack of insurance coverage, a lack of a comprehensive referral system, a lack of teamwork, cultural challenges, a lack of awareness, and defensive medicine. Barriers such as adherence to clinical guidelines, improving the referral system, improving the cultural status of patients, and facilitators such as strengthening teamwork, developing an appropriate provider-patient relationship, improving the cultural status of the public, motivating the patients, considering an individualized approach, establishing a desirable payment mechanism, and raising the medical tariffs were most repeatedly stated by participants.ConclusionThis study has pointed out a great number of barriers and facilitators that shape the provision of LVC in the management of LBP in Iran. Therefore, it is essential for relevant stakeholders to consider these findings in order to de-implement LVC interventions in the process of LBP management.
| S-EPMC10792884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the importance of identifying and reducing wasteful health care use, few direct measures of overuse have been developed. Direct measures are appealing because they identify specific services to limit and can characterize low-value care even among the most efficient providers.To develop claims-based measures of low-value services, examine service use (and associated spending) detected by these measures in Medicare, and determine whether patterns of use are related across different types of low-value services.Drawing from evidence-based lists of services that provide minimal clinical benefit, we developed 26 claims-based measures of low-value services. Using 2009 claims for 1,360,908 Medicare beneficiaries, we assessed the proportion of beneficiaries receiving these services, mean per-beneficiary service use, and the proportion of total spending devoted to these services. We compared the amount of use and spending detected by versions of these measures with different sensitivity and specificity. We also estimated correlations between use of different services within geographic areas, adjusting for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Use and spending detected by 26 measures of low-value services in 6 categories: low-value cancer screening, low-value diagnostic and preventive testing, low-value preoperative testing, low-value imaging, low-value cardiovascular testing and procedures, and other low-value surgical procedures.Services detected by more sensitive versions of measures affected 42% of beneficiaries and constituted 2.7% of overall annual spending. Services detected by more specific versions of measures affected 25% of beneficiaries and constituted 0.6% of overall spending. In adjusted analyses, low-value spending detected in geographic regions at the 5th percentile of the regional distribution of low-value spending ($227 per beneficiary) exceeded the difference in detected low-value spending between regions at the 5th and 95th percentiles ($189 per beneficiary). Adjusted regional use was positively correlated among 5 of 6 categories of low-value services (mean r for pairwise, between-category correlations, 0.33; range, 0.14-0.54; P???.01).Services detected by a limited number of measures of low-value care constituted modest proportions of overall spending but affected substantial proportions of beneficiaries and may be reflective of overuse more broadly. Performance of claims-based measures in supporting targeted payment or coverage policies to reduce overuse may depend heavily on how the measures are defined.
| S-EPMC4241845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Science has striven to do better since its inception and has given us good philosophies, methodologies and statistical tools that, in their own way, do reasonably well for purpose. Unfortunately, progress has also been marred by historical clashes among perspectives, typically between frequentists and Bayesians, leading to troubles such as the current reproducibility crises. Here I wish to propose that science could do better with more resilient structures, more useful methodological tutorials, and clearer signaling regarding how much we can trust what it produces.
| S-EPMC6468710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies showed that during the pandemic patients have refrained from visiting their general practitioner (GP). This resulted in medical care being delayed, postponed or completely forgone. The provision of low-value care, i.e. care which offers no net benefit for the patient, also could have been affected. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on three types of low-value GP care: 1) imaging for back or knee problems, 2) antibiotics for otitis media acuta (OMA), and 3) repeated opioid prescriptions, without a prior GP visit.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using registration data from GPs part of an academic GP network over the period 2017-2022. The COVID-19 period was defined as the period between April 2020 to December 2021. The periods before (January 2017 to April 2020) and after the COVID-19 period (January 2022 to December 2022) are the pre- and post-restrictions periods. The three clinical practices examined were selected by two practicing GPs from a top 30 of recommendations originating from the Dutch GP guidelines, based on their perceived prevalence and relevance in practice (van Dulmen et al., BMC Primary Care 23:141, 2022). Multilevel Poisson regression models were built to examine changes in the incidence rates (IR) of both registered episodes and episodes receiving low-value treatment.ResultsDuring the COVID-19 restrictions period, the IRs of episodes of all three types of GP care decreased significantly. The IR of episodes of back or knee pain decreased by 12%, OMA episodes by 54% and opioid prescription rate by 13%. Only the IR of OMA episodes remained significantly lower (22%) during the post-restrictions period. The provision of low-value care also changed. The IR of imaging for back or knee pain and low-value prescription of antibiotics for OMA both decreased significantly during the COVID-restrictions period (by 21% and 78%), but only the low-value prescription rate of antibiotics for OMA remained significantly lower (by 63%) during the post-restrictions period. The IR of inappropriately repeated opioid prescriptions remained unchanged over all three periods.ConclusionsThis study shows that both the rate of episodes as well as the rate at which low-value care was provided have generally been affected by the COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, it shows that the magnitude of the impact of the restrictions varies depending on the type of low-value care. This indicates that deimplementation of low-value care requires tailored (multiple) interventions and may not be achieved through a single disruption or intervention alone.
| S-EPMC10900726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to the U.S. health-care system and sheds light on gaps in preparedness and response to biological threats. From limited personal protective equipment to staffing issues, hospitals are struggling to respond to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Unfortunately, hospital biopreparedness is a product of prioritization for hospital leadership and either exists or is neglected. Federal efforts to enhance health-care readiness have done little to drive true change across the U.S. health-care infrastructure. From optional efforts like the tiered hospital approach to special pathogens to the regulatory rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, federal efforts to build a resilient health-care infrastructure against biological threats are woefully inadequate and dependent upon hospital leadership priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a need to implement regulatory requirements on health-care facilities to invest in continued preparedness for biological events.
| S-EPMC7436424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Palliative care offers an approach to the care of people with serious illness that focuses on quality of life and aligning care with individual and family goals, and values in the context of what is medically achievable. OBJECTIVE:Measurement of the impact of palliative care is critical for determining what works for which patients in what settings, to learn, improve care, and ensure access to high value care for people with serious illness. METHODS:A learning health system that includes patients and families partnering with clinicians and care teams, is directly linked to a registry to support networks for improvement and research, and offers an ideal framework for measuring what matters to a range of stakeholders interested in improving care for this population. MEASUREMENTS:Measurement focuses on the individual patient and family experience as the fundamental outcome of interest around which all care delivery is organized. RESULTS:We describe an approach to codesigning and implementing a palliative care registry that functions as a learning health system, by combining patient and family inputs and clinical data to support person-centered care, quality improvement, accountability, transparency, and scientific research. DISCUSSION:The potential for a palliative care learning health system that, by design, brings together enriched information environments to support coproduction of healthcare and facilitated peer networks to support patients and families, collaborative clinician networks to support palliative care program improvement, and collaboratories to support research and the application of research to benefit individual patients is immense.
| S-EPMC5756463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the low stimulus environment project, we aimed to reduce the levels of intrusive background noise on an older adult mental health ward, combining a very straightforward measure on decibel levels with a downstream measure of reduced distress and agitation as expressed in incidents of violence. This project on reducing background noise levels on older adult wards stemmed from work the team had done on reducing levels of violence and aggression. We approached the problem using quality improvement methods. Reducing harm to patients and staff is a strategic aim of our Trust and in our efforts we were supported by the Trust's extensive programme of quality improvement, including training and support provided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the trust's own Quality Improvement team. Prior to the project we were running a weekly multi-disciplinary quality improvement group on the ward. We established from this a sub-group to address the specific problem of noise levels and invited carers of people with dementia on our ward to the group. The project was led by nursing staff. We used a noise meter app readily downloadable from the internet to monitor background noise levels on the ward and establish a baseline measure. As a group we used a driver diagram to identify an overall aim and a clear understanding of the major factors that would drive improvements. We also used a staff and carer survey to identify further areas to work on. Change ideas that came from staff and carers included the use of the noise meter to track and report back on noise levels, the use of posters to remind staff about noise levels, the introduction of a visual indication of current noise levels (the Yacker Tracker), the addition of relaxing background music, and adaptations to furniture and environment. We tested many of these over the course of nine months in 2015, using the iterative learning gained from multiple PDSA cycles. The specific aim was a decrease from above 60dB to below 50dB in background noise on the wards. Following our interventions, we have managed to decrease noise levels on the ward to 53dB on average. The success of this project to date has relied on the involvement of ward staff and carers - those most affected by the problem - in generating workable local solutions. As many of the change ideas amounted to harm free interventions it was easier for us to make a case to test them out in the real-life setting. Nevertheless we were surprised at how effective such seemingly simple ideas have been in improving the environment on the ward. We have incorporated the change ideas into routine practice and are advising other wards on similar projects.
| S-EPMC4752708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).ObjectivesOur team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.MethodsWe used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.ResultsOur final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.ConclusionThe COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.
| S-EPMC7997598 | biostudies-literature