What strategies are used by clinician champions to reduce low-value care?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Clinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting.Methods
Qualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clinician champions were used to identify strategies, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of strategies. Clinician champions were asked to rank the importance of these activities and indicate which one of the six most important activities they would be willing to discuss in an interview. A 30-min semi-structured interview was conducted with each clinician about the activity they selected and thematically analyzed.Results
Twelve Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified. The top six strategies discussed during interviews were: build a coalition, conduct a local needs assessment, develop a formal implementation blueprint, conduct educational meetings, use facilitation, and develop clinical reminders. Common themes that emerged across all interviews were the use of data to engage clinicians in conversations, including the patient's perspective in designing the interventions, and investing the time upfront to plan and launch the initiative because of the inherent challenges of relinquishing a service.Conclusions
Clinician champions identified multiple strategies as important when de-implementing a low-value service. Many were used to engage in conversations with stakeholders, including leadership, providers, and patients, to increase buy-in and support, challenge beliefs, promote behavior change, and gather insights about next steps in their effort. Future work is needed to better understand how prepare clinicians for this role and to understand the mechanisms through which these strategies might be effective.
SUBMITTER: Parchman ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9133862 | biostudies-literature | 2022
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
What strategies are used by clinician champions to reduce low-value care?
Parchman Michael L ML Palazzo Lorella G LG Mogk Jessica M JM Webbon Janna C JC Demosthenes Lauren L Vossenkemper Elizabeth E Hoke George G Moskovitz Joshua J Dunlap Leslie L Diaz Del Carpio Roberto R
SAGE open medicine 20220121
<h4>Background</h4>Clinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clini ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceStudies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured.ObjectiveTo characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care.Evidence reviewWe searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences.FindingsA total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies.Conclusions and relevanceMost published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.
| S-EPMC6712188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImplementation science has traditionally focused on the implementation of evidence-based practices, but the field has increasingly recognized the importance of addressing de-implementation (i.e., the process of reducing low-value care). Most studies on de-implementation strategies have used a combination of strategies without addressing factors that sustain the use of LVC and there is a lack of information about which strategies are most effective and what mechanisms of change might underlie these strategies. Applied behavior analysis is an approach that could be a potential method to gain insights into the mechanisms of de-implementation strategies to reduce LVC. Three research questions are addressed in this study: What contingencies (three-term contingencies or rule-governing behavior) related to the use of LVC can be found in a local context and what strategies can be developed based on an analysis of these contingencies?; Do these strategies change targeted behaviors?; How do the participants describe the strategies' contingencies and the feasibility of the applied behavior analysis approach?Materials and methodsIn this study, we used applied behavior analysis to analyze contingencies that maintain behaviors related to a chosen LVC, the unnecessary use of x-rays for knee arthrosis within a primary care center. Based on this analysis, strategies were developed and evaluated using a single-case design and a qualitative analysis of interview data.ResultsTwo strategies were developed: a lecture and feedback meetings. The results from the single-case data were inconclusive but some of the findings may indicate a behavior change in the expected direction. Such a conclusion is supported by interview data showing that participants perceived an effect in response to both strategies.ConclusionThe findings illustrate how applied behavior analysis can be used to analyze contingencies related to the use of LVC and to design strategies for de-implementation. It also shows an effect of the targeted behaviors even though the quantitative results are inconclusive. The strategies used in this study could be further improved to target the contingencies better by structuring the feedback meetings better and including more precise feedback.
| S-EPMC10012739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow-value care is healthcare leading to no or little clinical benefit for the patient. The best (combinations of) interventions to reduce low-value care are unclear.PurposeTo provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating deimplementation strategies, to quantify the effectiveness and describe different combinations of strategies.MethodsAnalysis of 121 RCTs (1990-2019) evaluating a strategy to reduce low-value care, identified by a systematic review. Deimplementation strategies were described and associations between strategy characteristics and effectiveness explored.ResultsOf 109 trials comparing deimplementation to usual care, 75 (69%) reported a significant reduction of low-value healthcare practices. Seventy-three trials included in a quantitative analysis showed a median relative reduction of 17% (IQR 7%-42%). The effectiveness of deimplementation strategies was not associated with the number and types of interventions applied.Conclusions and implicationsMost deimplementation strategies achieved a considerable reduction of low-value care. We found no signs that a particular type or number of interventions works best for deimplementation. Future deimplementation studies should map relevant contextual factors, such as the workplace culture or economic factors. Interventions should be tailored to these factors and provide details regarding sustainability of the effect.
| S-EPMC10461725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor people living with dementia (PLWD) the overuse of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains a persistent problem. De-prescribing trials in the elderly have mixed results. Clinician champions may be uniquely suited to lead efforts to address this challenge. Here we describe the study protocol for a 24-month embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial within two accountable care organizations (ACOs) of such a clinician champion intervention. The specific aims are to (1) assess the effectiveness of a clinician champion on de-implementing PIMs in PLWD, (2) determine if the intervention is associated with a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations attributed to a fall, and (3) examine five implementation outcomes: appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity.Methods/designTwo ACOs agreed to participate: United States Medical Management (USMM) and Oschner Health System. The unit of randomization will be the primary care clinic. A clinician champion will be recruited from each of the intervention clinics to participate in a 6-month training program and then work with clinicians and staff in their clinic for 12 months to reduce the use of PIMs in their PLWD population. For aims 1 and 2, Medicare claims data will be used to assess outcomes. The outcome for aim #1 will be medication possession rates per quarter, for the three therapeutic classes of PIMs among patients with dementia in intervention clinics versus control clinics. For aim #2, we will assess the incidence of falls using a previously validated algorithm. For both aims 1 and 2, we will construct hierarchical models with time period observations nested within patient using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. The key variable of interest will be the treatment indicator assigned based on practice. For aim #3, we will conduct qualitative thematic analysis of documentation by the clinician champions in their project workbooks to evaluate the five implementation outcomes.DiscussionThis embedded pragmatic trial will add to our existing knowledge regarding the effectiveness of a clinician champion strategy to de-prescribe potentially inappropriate medication among patients with dementia as well as its appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT05359679 , Registered May 4, 2022.
| S-EPMC9513870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClinicians who order unnecessary radiographic imaging may cause financial harm to patients who have increasing levels of cost sharing. Clinician predictors of low-value imaging are largely unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize clinician predictors of low-value imaging for acute uncomplicated back pain and headache, including clinicians who saw both conditions.Design, setting, and participantsMultivariate logistic regression modeling of imaging rates after acute uncomplicated back pain and headache visits as indicated by January 2010 to December 2014 commercial insurance claims and demographic data from a large US health insurer. Participants included 100 977 clinicians (primary care physicians, specialist physicians, and chiropractors).Main outcomes and measuresImaging after acute uncomplicated back pain and headache visits was recorded. We identified whether the clinician's prior patient received imaging, whether the clinician was an owner of imaging equipment, and the varying impact by clinician specialty. We then used high rates of low-value back imaging as a predictor for low-value headache imaging.ResultsClinicians conducted 1 007 392 visits for 878 720 adults ages 18 to 64 years with acute uncomplicated back pain; 52 876 primary care physicians conducted visits for 492 805 adults ages 18 to 64 years with acute uncomplicated headache; 34 190 primary care clinicians conducted 405 721 visits for 344 991 adults ages 18 to 64 years with headache and had also conducted at least 4 visits from patients with back pain. If a primary care physician's prior patient received low-value back imaging, the patient had 1.81 higher odds of low-value imaging (95% CI, 1.77-1.85). This practice effect was larger for chiropractors (odds ratio [OR], 2.80; 95% CI, 2.74-2.86) and specialists (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.88-3.07). For headache, a prior low-value head image predicted 2.00 higher odds of a subsequent head imaging order (95% CI, 1.95-2.06). Clinician ownership of imaging equipment was a consistent independent predictor of low-value imaging (OR, 1.65-7.76) across clinician type and imaging scenario. Primary care physicians with the highest rates of low-value back imaging also had 1.53 (95% CI, 1.45-1.61) higher odds of ordering low-value headache imaging.Conclusions and relevanceClinician characteristics such as ordering low-value imaging on a prior patient, high rates of low-value imaging in another clinical scenario, and ownership of imaging equipment are strong predictors of low-value back and headache imaging. Findings should inform policies that target potentially unnecessary and financially burdensome care.
| S-EPMC5820702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy.Data extraction and synthesisThe factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.ResultsWe identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%).ConclusionsThis study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.
| S-EPMC7604848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of low-value care (LVC) is a persistent problem that calls for knowledge about strategies for de-implementation. However, studies are dispersed across many clinical fields, and there is no overview of strategies that can be used to support the de-implementation of LVC. The extent to which strategies used for implementation are also used in de-implementing LVC is unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to (1) identify strategies for the de-implementation of LVC described in the scientific literature and (2) compare de-implementation strategies to implementation strategies as specified in the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) and strategies added by Perry et al. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted according to recommendations outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Four scientific databases were searched, relevant articles were snowball searched, and the journal Implementation Science was searched manually for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies of strategies designed to reduce the use of LVC. Two reviewers conducted all abstract and full-text reviews, and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data-charting form. The strategies were first coded inductively and then mapped onto the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies.ResultsThe scoping review identified a total of 71 unique de-implementation strategies described in the literature. Of these, 62 strategies could be mapped onto ERIC strategies, and four strategies onto one added category. Half (50%) of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies were used for de-implementation purposes. Five identified de-implementation strategies could not be mapped onto any of the existing strategies in ERIC.ConclusionsSimilar strategies are used for de-implementation and implementation. However, only a half of the implementation strategies included in the ERIC compilation were represented in the de-implementation studies, which may imply that some strategies are being underused or that they are not applicable for de-implementation purposes. The strategies assess and redesign workflow (a strategy previously suggested to be added to ERIC), accountability tool, and communication tool (unique new strategies for de-implementation) could complement the existing ERIC compilation when used for de-implementation purposes.
| S-EPMC9615304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe importance of reducing low-value care (LVC) is increasingly recognized, but the impact of de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship is not well understood. This mixed-methods study explored the impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship.MethodsAdult primary care patients from a large Virginia health system volunteered to participate in a survey (n = 232) or interview (n = 24). Participants completed the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) after reading a vignette about a clinician declining to provide a low-value service: antibiotics for acute sinusitis (LVC-antibiotics); screening EKG (LVC-EKG); screening vitamin D test (LVC-vitamin D); or an alternate vignette about a high-value service, and imagining that their own primary care clinician had acted in the same manner. A different sample of participants was asked to imagine that their own primary care clinician did not order LVC-antibiotics or LVC-EKG and then respond to semi-structured interview questions. Outcomes data included participant demographics, PDRQ-9 scores (higher score = greater relationship integrity), and content analysis of transcribed interviews. Differences in PDRQ-9 scores were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Data were integrated for analysis and interpretation.ResultsAlthough participants generally agreed with the vignette narrative (not providing LVC), many demonstrated difficulty comprehending the broad concept of LVC and potential harms. The topic triggered memories of negative experiences with healthcare (typically poor-quality care, not necessarily LVC). The most common recommendation for reducing LVC was for patients to take greater responsibility for their own health. Most participants believed that their relationship with their clinician would not be negatively impacted by denial of LVC because they trusted their clinician's guidance. Participants emphasized that trusted clinicians are those who listen to them, spend time with them, and offer understandable advice. Some felt that not providing LVC would actually increase their trust in their clinician. Similar PDRQ-9 scores were observed for LVC-antibiotics (38.9), LVC-EKG (37.5), and the alternate vignette (36.4), but LVC-vitamin D was associated with a significantly lower score (31.2) (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn this vignette-based study, we observed minimal impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship, although service-specific differences surfaced. Further situation-based research is needed to confirm study findings.
| S-EPMC8733793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of knowledge about management strategies being used to de-implement low-value care (LVC). Furthermore, it is not clear from the current literature what mechanisms are involved in such strategies and how they can change physicians' behaviors. Understanding the mechanisms is important for determining a strategy's potential impact. Applied behavior analysis focuses on processes involved in increasing and decreasing behaviors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to understand what management strategies are being used to de-implement LVC and the possible mechanisms involved in those strategies, using concepts from applied behavior analysis.MethodWe applied a qualitative study design using an inductive approach to understand what management strategies are in use and then employed applied behavior analysis concepts to deductively analyze the mechanisms involved in them.ResultsWe identified eight different management strategies intended to influence LVC. Five of the strategies were developed at a regional level and had the potential to influence physicians' LVC-related behaviors either by functioning as rules on which LVC to de-implement or by initiating local strategies in each health care center that in turn could influence LVC practices. The local strategies had a stronger potential for influencing de-implementation.ConclusionBoth strategies at a systemic level (regional) and on a local level (health care centers) must be considered to influence LVC-related behaviors. Strategies at the center level have a specific opportunity to impact LVC-related behaviors because they can be tailored to specific circumstances, even though some of them probably were initiated as an effect of strategies on a regional level. Using applied behavior analysis to understand these circumstances can be helpful for tailoring strategies to reduce LVC use.
| S-EPMC9233807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA substantial proportion of individuals with low cardiovascular risk receive inappropriate statin prescription for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) instead of the evidence-based recommendations to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors. This study reports on the structured process performed to design targeted de-implementation strategies to reduce inappropriate prescription of statins and to increase healthy lifestyle promotion in low cardiovascular risk patients in Primary Care (PC).MethodsA formative study was conducted based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW). It comprised semi-structured interviews with PC professionals to define the problem in behavioral terms; focus groups with Family Physicians and patients to identify the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of inappropriate statin prescription and of healthy lifestyle promotion practice; mapping of behavioral change interventions operationalized as de-implementation strategies for addressing identified determinants; and consensus techniques for prioritization of strategies based on perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability.ResultsIdentified key determinants of statin prescription and healthy lifestyle promotion were: the lack of time and clinical inertia, external resources, patients' preferences and characteristics, limitation of available clinical tools and guidelines, social pressures, fears about negative consequences of not treating, and lack of skills and training of professionals. Fourteen potential de-implementation strategies were mapped to the identified determinants and the following were prioritized: 1) non-reflective decision assistance strategies based on reminders and decision support tools for helping clinical decision-making; 2) decision information strategies based on the principles of knowledge dissemination (e.g., corporative diffusion of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines and Pathways for CVD primary prevention); 3) reflective decision-making restructuring strategies (i.e., audit and feedback provided along with intention formation interventions).ConclusionsThis study supports the usefulness of the BCW to guide the design and development of de-implementation strategies targeting the determinants of clinicians' decision-making processes to favor the abandonment of low-value practices and the uptake of those recommended for CVD primary prevention in low-risk patients. Further research to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of selected strategies is warranted.Clinical trial registrationSanchez A. De-implementation of Low-value Pharmacological Prescriptions (De-imFAR). ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04022850. Registered July 17, 2019. In: ClinicalTrials.gov. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04022850.
| S-EPMC9606599 | biostudies-literature