Dataset Information

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada.

Methods

We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level.

Results

We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%-56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%-66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%-30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%-85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%-35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%-71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%-97.3%, n = 9).

Interpretation

We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

SUBMITTER: Squires JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9053971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate medication use (IMU) by elderly people is a public health problem associated with adverse effects on health. There are a number of methods for identifying IMU, some involving clinical judgment and others, consensually generated lists of drugs to be avoided. This review aims to describe studies that used information from insurance company and social security administrative databases to assess IMU among community-dwelling elderly and to present the risk factors most often associated with IMU.MethodsThe paper search was conducted in Medline and Embase, using descriptors combined with free terms in the title or abstract. The limits applied were: publication date from January 1990 to June 2010, species (human) and publication type (excluding editorials, letters and reviews). Excluded were: case studies; studies in hospitals, nursing homes, or hospital emergency departments; studies of specific drugs or groups of drugs; studies exclusively of subgroups of ill, frail elderly or rural populations. Additional studies were identified from reference lists. Data were selected and extracted after independent reading by two of the authors, with disagreements resolved by a third author. The primary outcome assessed was prevalence of IMU, defined as the proportion of elderly who received at least one inappropriate medication.ResultsOf the 628 studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria, 78.9% of them conducted in the USA. All papers included used explicit criteria of inappropriateness, most commonly Beers criteria (73.7%) in their three versions (1991, 1997 and 2002). Other methods used included Zhan, which is derived from on Beers criteria and was applied in 21% of the papers selected. The study found that prevalence of IMU ranged from 11.5% to 62.5%. Only 68.4% of the studies included examined inappropriate use-related factors, the most important being female sex, advanced age and larger number of drugs.ConclusionsThe results show that the prevalence of IMU among community-dwelling elderly is high and depends partly on the method used to evaluate improper use. Besides the diversity of methods, other factors, such as patient sex, age and number of drugs used concurrently, appear to have influenced the estimates of IMU.

Project description:BackgroundAn epidemic of health disorders can be triggered by a collective manifestation of inappropriate behaviors, usually systematically fueled by non-medical factors at the individual and/or societal levels. This study aimed to (1) landscape and assess the evidence on interventions that reduce inappropriate demand of medical resources (medicines or procedures) by triggering behavioral change among healthcare consumers, (2) map out intervention components that have been tried and tested, and (3) identify the "active ingredients" of behavior change interventions that were proven to be effective in containing epidemics of inappropriate use of medical resources.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO from the databases' inceptions to May 2019, without language restrictions, for behavioral intervention studies. Interventions had to be empirically evaluated with a control group that demonstrated whether the effects of the campaign extended beyond trends occurring in the absence of the intervention. Outcomes of interest were reductions in inappropriate or non-essential use of medicines and/or medical procedures for clinical conditions that do not require them. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion and extracted data on study characteristics (e.g., study design), intervention development, implementation strategies, and effect size. Data extraction sheets were based on the checklist from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.ResultsForty-three studies were included. The behavior change technique taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1), which contains 93 behavioral change techniques (BCTs), was used to characterize components of the interventions reported in the included studies. Of the 93 BCTs, 15 (16%) were identified within the descriptions of the selected studies targeting healthcare consumers. Interventions consisting of education messages, recommended behavior alternatives, and a supporting environment that incentivizes or encourages the adoption of a new behavior were more likely to be successful.ConclusionsThere is a continued tendency in research reporting that mainly stresses the effectiveness of interventions rather than the process of identifying and developing key components and the parameters within which they operate. Reporting "negative results" is likely as critical as reporting "active ingredients" and positive findings for implementation science. This review calls for a standardized approach to report intervention studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019139537.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the 'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial.MethodsWe used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis.ResultsIn quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations.ConclusionsQualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs' overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports).Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.