Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Low-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. METHODS:Evidence 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). RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Efforts 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 REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Many decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care. RESULTS:From 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n?=?13, 59%), targeted treatments (n?=?17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n?=?10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n?=?18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n?=?5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy. CONCLUSIONS:De-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care. REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).
Project description:Importance:Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. Objective:To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants:This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019. Interventions:Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter. Main Outcomes and Measures:Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process. Results:The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71  years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32  minutes in the intervention arm vs 31  minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes). Conclusion and Relevance:The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.
Project description:PURPOSE:Electronic consultation (eConsult), involving asynchronous primary care clinician-to-specialist consultation, is being adopted at a growing number of health systems. Most evaluations of eConsult programs have assessed clinical and financial impacts and clinician acceptability. Less attention has been focused on patients' opinions. We set out to understand patient perspectives and preferences for hypothetical eConsult use at 5 US academic medical centers in the process of adopting an eConsult model. METHODS:We invited adult primary care patients to participate in focus groups. Participants were introduced to the eConsult model, considered its potential benefits and drawbacks, judged the acceptability of a hypothetical copay, and expressed their preferences for future involvement in eConsult decision making and communication. Thematic analysis was used for data interpretation. RESULTS:One focus group was conducted at each of the 5 sites with a total of 52 participants. Focus groups responded positively to the idea of eConsult, with quicker access to specialty care and convenience identified as key benefits. Approval was particularly high among those with a trusted primary care clinician. Preference for involvement in eConsult decision making and communication varied and enthusiasm about eConsult waned when a hypothetical copay was introduced. Concerns included potential misuse of eConsult and exclusion of the patient's illness narrative in the eConsult exchange. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care patients expressed strong support for eConsult, particularly when used by a trusted primary care clinician, in addition to voicing several concerns. Patient involvement in eConsult outreach and education efforts could help to enhance the model's effectiveness and acceptability.
Project description:Clinicians 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.To characterize clinician predictors of low-value imaging for acute uncomplicated back pain and headache, including clinicians who saw both conditions.Multivariate 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).Imaging 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.Clinicians 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.Clinician 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.
Project description:Importance:Few randomized clinical trials have been conducted with ethnic/racial minorities to improve shared decision making (SDM) and quality of care. Objective:To test the effectiveness of patient and clinician interventions to improve SDM and quality of care among an ethnically/racially diverse sample. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-level 2?×?2 randomized clinical trial included clinicians at level 2 and patients (nested within clinicians) at level 1 from 13 Massachusetts behavioral health clinics. Clinicians and patients were randomly selected at each site in a 1:1 ratio for each 2-person block. Clinicians were recruited starting September 1, 2013; patients, starting November 3, 2013. Final data were collected on September 30, 2016. Data were analyzed based on intention to treat. Interventions:The clinician intervention consisted of a workshop and as many as 6 coaching telephone calls to promote communication and therapeutic alliance to improve SDM. The 3-session patient intervention sought to improve SDM and quality of care. Main Outcomes and Measures:The SDM was assessed by a blinded coder based on clinical recordings, patient perception of SDM and quality of care, and clinician perception of SDM. Results:Of 312 randomized patients, 212 (67.9%) were female and 100 (32.1%) were male; mean (SD) age was 44.0 (15.0) years. Of 74 randomized clinicians, 56 (75.7%) were female and 18 (4.3%) were male; mean (SD) age was 39.8 (12.5) years. Patient-clinician pairs were assigned to 1 of the following 4 design arms: patient and clinician in the control condition (n?=?72), patient in intervention and clinician in the control condition (n?=?68), patient in the control condition and clinician in intervention (n?=?83), or patient and clinician in intervention (n?=?89). All pairs underwent analysis. The clinician intervention significantly increased SDM as rated by blinded coders using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement in Shared Decision Making instrument (b?=?4.52; SE?=?2.17; P?=?.04; Cohen d?=?0.29) but not as assessed by clinician or patient. More clinician coaching sessions (dosage) were significantly associated with increased SDM as rated by blinded coders (b?=?12.01; SE?=?3.72; P?=?.001; Cohen d?=?0.78). The patient intervention significantly increased patient-perceived quality of care (b?=?2.27; SE?=?1.16; P?=?.05; Cohen d?=?0.19). There was a significant interaction between patient and clinician dosage (b?=?7.40; SE?=?3.56; P?=?.04; Cohen d?=?0.62), with the greatest benefit when both obtained the recommended dosage. Conclusions and Relevance:The clinician intervention could improve SDM with minority populations, and the patient intervention could augment patient-reported quality of care. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01947283.
Project description:Decision aids can increase patient involvement in decision-making about health care. The study goal was to develop and test a decision aid for use by clinicians in discussion options for changing smoking behavior before and after elective surgery.In formative work, a decision aid was designed to facilitate patient-clinician discussion regarding three options: continue smoking, attempt a period of temporary abstinence, and attempt to quit smoking for good. A randomized, two-group pilot study was then conducted in smokers evaluated in preparation for elective surgery in a preoperative clinic to test the hypothesis that the decision aid would improve measures of decisional quality compared with usual care.The final decision aid consisted of three laminated cards. The front of each card included a colorful graphic describing each choice; the reverse including two to three pros and cons for each decision, a simple graphic illustrating the effects of smoking on the body, and a motivational phrase. In the randomized trial of 130 patients, the decision aid significantly (P < 0.05) improved measures of decisional quality and patient involvement in decision making (Cohen's d effect sizes of 0.76 and 1.20 for the Decisional Conflict Scale and Observing PatienT involvement In decisiON-making scale, respectively). However, the decision aid did not affect any aspect of perioperative smoking behavior, including the distribution of or adherence to choices.Although the use of a decision aid to facilitate clinician-patient discussions regarding tobacco use around the time of surgery substantially improved measures of decisional quality, it alone did not change perioperative tobacco use behavior.
Project description:INTRODUCTION: The discharge of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is a common transition of care that is associated with error and adverse events. Risk stratification tools may help identify high-risk patients for targeted interventions, but it is unclear if proper tools have been developed. METHODS: We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through March 2013, plus reference lists and citations of all studies included in the systematic review. Cohort studies were selected that described the derivation, validation or clinical impact of tools for predicting medical emergency team activation, ICU readmission or mortality following patient discharge from the ICU. Data were extracted on the study design, setting, population, sample size, tool (components, measurement properties) and outcomes. RESULTS: The literature search identified 9,926 citations, of which eight studies describing eight tools met the inclusion criteria. Reported outcomes included ICU readmission (n=4 studies), hospital mortality (n=3 studies) and both ICU readmission and hospital mortality (n=1 studies). Seven of the tools were comprised of distinct measurable component variables, while one tool used subjective scoring of patient risk by intensive care physicians. The areas under receiver operator curves were reported for all studies and ranged from 0.66 to 0.92. A single study provided a direct comparative analysis between two tools. We did not find any studies evaluating the impact of risk prediction on processes and outcomes of care. CONCLUSIONS: Eight risk stratification tools for predicting severe adverse events following patient discharge from ICU have been developed, but have undergone limited comparative evaluation. Although risk stratification tools may help clinician decision-making, further evaluation of the existing tools' effects on care is required prior to clinical implementation.
Project description:Governments use a variety of processes to incorporate public perspectives into policymaking, but few studies have evaluated these processes from participants' point of view.The objective of this study was twofold: to understand the perspectives of selected stakeholders with regard to involvement processes used by Australian Advisory Committees to engage the public and patients; and to identify barriers and facilitators to participation.Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in health technology funding decisions in Australia. Data were collected and analysed using a theoretical framework created by Rowe and Frewer, but adapted to more fully acknowledge issues of power and influence.Stakeholder groups disagreed as to what constitutes effective and inclusive patient involvement. Barriers reported by interviewees included poor communication, a lack of transparency, unworkable deadlines, and inadequate representativeness. Also described were problems associated with defining the task for patients and their advocates and with the timing of patient input in the decision-making process. Interviewees suggested that patient participation could be improved by increasing the number of patient organizations engaged in processes and including those organizations at different stages of decision making, especially earlier.The different evaluations made by stakeholder groups appear to be underpinned by contrasting conceptions of public involvement and its value, in line with Graham Martin's work which distinguishes between 'technocratic' and 'democratic' public involvement. Understanding stakeholders' perspectives and the contrasting conceptions of public involvement could foster future agreement on which processes should be used to involve the public in decision making.
Project description:Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II-IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included 'patient-centred care', 'quality of life' and 'shared decision making'. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the telehealth tipping point in the practice of family medicine and primary care in the United States, making telehealth not just a novel approach to care but also a necessary one for public health safety. Social distancing requirements and stay-at-home orders have shifted patient care from face-to-face consultations in primary care offices to virtual care from clinicians' homes or offices, moving to a new frontline, which we call the "frontweb." Our telehealth workgroup employed the Clinical Transformation in Technology implementation framework to accelerate telehealth expansion and to develop a consensus document for clinician recommendations in providing remote virtual care during the pandemic. In a few weeks, telehealth went from under 5% of patient visits to almost 93%, while maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction. In this paper, we share clinician recommendations and guidance gleaned from this transition to the frontweb and offer a systematic approach for ensuring "webside" success.