Search

Abstract Background Reducing low-value care (LVC) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care while increasing the efficient use of scarce healthcare resources. Recently, strategies to de-implement LVC have been mapped against the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies. However, such strategies’ effectiveness across different healthcare practices has not been addressed. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to investigate the effectiveness of de-implementation initiatives and specific ERIC strategy clusters. Methods We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) from 1 January 2010 to 17 April 2023 and used additional search strategies to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori–defined criteria, assessed the SR quality and extracted pre-specified data. We created harvest plots to display the results. Results Of 46 included SRs, 27 focused on drug treatments, such as antibiotics or opioids, twelve on laboratory tests or diagnostic imaging and seven on other healthcare practices. In categorising de-implementation strategies, SR authors applied different techniques: creating self-developed strategies (n = 12), focussing on specific de-implementation strategies (n = 14) and using published taxonomies (n = 12). Overall, 15 SRs provided evidence for the effectiveness of de-implementation interventions to reduce antibiotic and opioid utilisation. Reduced utilisation, albeit inconsistently significant, was documented in the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, as well as in laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging. Strategies within the adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, and change infrastructure and workflow ERIC clusters led to a consistent reduction in LVC practices. Conclusion De-implementation initiatives were effective in reducing medication usage, and inconsistent significant reductions were observed for LVC laboratory tests and imaging. Notably, de-implementation clusters such as change infrastructure and workflow and develop stakeholder interrelationships emerged as the most encouraging avenues. Additionally, we provided suggestions to enhance SR quality, emphasising adherence to guidelines for synthesising complex interventions, prioritising appropriateness of care outcomes, documenting the development process of de-implementation initiatives and ensuring consistent reporting of applied de-implementation strategies. Registration OSF Open Science Framework 5ruzw.

Background: Reducing low-value care (LVC) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care while increasing the efficient use of scarce healthcare resources. Recently, strategies to de-implement LVC have been mapped against the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies. However, such strategies' effectiveness across different healthcare practices has not been addressed. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to investigate the effectiveness of de-implementation initiatives and specific ERIC strategy clusters. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) from 1 January 2010 to 17 April 2023 and used additional search strategies to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori–defined criteria, assessed the SR quality and extracted pre-specified data. We created harvest plots to display the results. Results: Of 46 included SRs, 27 focused on drug treatments, such as antibiotics or opioids, twelve on laboratory tests or diagnostic imaging and seven on other healthcare practices. In categorising de-implementation strategies, SR authors applied different techniques: creating self-developed strategies (n = 12), focussing on specific de-implementation strategies (n = 14) and using published taxonomies (n = 12). Overall, 15 SRs provided evidence for the effectiveness of de-implementation interventions to reduce antibiotic and opioid utilisation. Reduced utilisation, albeit inconsistently significant, was documented in the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, as well as in laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging. Strategies within the adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, and change infrastructure and workflow ERIC clusters led to a consistent reduction in LVC practices. Conclusion: De-implementation initiatives were effective in reducing medication usage, and inconsistent significant reductions were observed for LVC laboratory tests and imaging. Notably, de-implementation clusters such as change infrastructure and workflow and develop stakeholder interrelationships emerged as the most encouraging avenues. Additionally, we provided suggestions to enhance SR quality, emphasising adherence to guidelines for synthesising complex interventions, prioritising appropriateness of care outcomes, documenting the development process of de-implementation initiatives and ensuring consistent reporting of applied de-implementation strategies. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework 5ruzw. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Unwarranted clinical variation in hospital care includes the underuse, overuse, or misuse of services. Audit and feedback is a common strategy to reduce unwarranted variation, but its effectiveness varies widely across contexts. We aimed to identify implementation strategies, mechanisms, and contextual circumstances contributing to the impact of audit and feedback on unwarranted clinical variation. Methods Realist study examining a state-wide value-based healthcare program implemented between 2017 and 2021 in New South Wales, Australia. Three initiatives within the program included audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted variation in inpatient care for different conditions. Multiple data sources were used to formulate the initial audit and feedback program theory: a systematic review, realist review, program document review, and informal discussions with key program stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 56 participants to refute, refine, or confirm the initial program theories. Data were analysed retroductively using a context-mechanism-outcome framework for 11 transcripts which were coded into the audit and feedback program theory. The program theory was validated with three expert panels: senior health leaders (n = 19), Agency for Clinical Innovation (n = 11), and Ministry of Health (n = 21) staff. Results The program’s audit and feedback implementation strategy operated through eight mechanistic processes. The strategy worked well when clinicians (1) felt ownership and buy-in, (2) could make sense of the information provided, (3) were motivated by social influence, and (4) accepted responsibility and accountability for proposed changes. The success of the strategy was constrained when the audit process led to (5) rationalising current practice instead of creating a learning opportunity, (6) perceptions of unfairness and concerns about data integrity, 7) development of improvement plans that were not followed, and (8) perceived intrusions on professional autonomy. Conclusions Audit and feedback strategies may help reduce unwarranted clinical variation in care where there is engagement between auditors and local clinicians, meaningful audit indicators, clear improvement plans, and respect for clinical expertise. We contribute theoretical development for audit and feedback by proposing a Model for Audit and Feedback Implementation at Scale. Recommendations include limiting the number of audit indicators, involving clinical staff and local leaders in feedback, and providing opportunities for reflection.

Abstract Background Fall prevention alarms are commonly used among US hospitals as a fall prevention strategy despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Further, fall prevention alarms are harmful to healthcare staff (e.g., alarm fatigue) and patients (e.g., sleep disturbance, mobility restriction). There is a need for research to develop and test strategies for reducing use of fall prevention alarms in US hospitals. Methods To address this gap, we propose testing the effectiveness and implementation of Alarm with Care, a de-implementation strategy to reduce fall prevention alarm use using a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial among 30 adult medical or medical surgical units from nonfederal US acute care hospitals. Guided by the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework, we will (1) identify barriers to fall prevention alarm de-implementation and develop tailored de-implementation strategies for each unit and (2) compare the implementation and effectiveness of high- versus low-intensity coaching to support site-specific de-implementation of fall prevention alarms. We will evaluate effectiveness and implementation outcomes and examine the effect of multi-level (e.g., hospital, unit, and patient) factors on effectiveness and implementation. Rate of fall prevention alarm use is the primary outcome. Balancing measures will include fall rates and fall-related injuries. Implementation outcomes will include feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and fidelity. Discussion Findings from this line of research could be used to support scale-up of fall prevention alarm de-implementation in other healthcare settings. Further, research generated from this proposal will advance the field of de-implementation science by determining the extent to which low-intensity coaching is an effective and feasible de-implementation strategy. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06089239 . Date of registration: October 17, 2023.

Background: Unwarranted clinical variation in hospital care includes the underuse, overuse, or misuse of services. Audit and feedback is a common strategy to reduce unwarranted variation, but its effectiveness varies widely across contexts. We aimed to identify implementation strategies, mechanisms, and contextual circumstances contributing to the impact of audit and feedback on unwarranted clinical variation. Methods: Realist study examining a state-wide value-based healthcare program implemented between 2017 and 2021 in New South Wales, Australia. Three initiatives within the program included audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted variation in inpatient care for different conditions. Multiple data sources were used to formulate the initial audit and feedback program theory: a systematic review, realist review, program document review, and informal discussions with key program stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 56 participants to refute, refine, or confirm the initial program theories. Data were analysed retroductively using a context-mechanism-outcome framework for 11 transcripts which were coded into the audit and feedback program theory. The program theory was validated with three expert panels: senior health leaders (n = 19), Agency for Clinical Innovation (n = 11), and Ministry of Health (n = 21) staff. Results: The program's audit and feedback implementation strategy operated through eight mechanistic processes. The strategy worked well when clinicians (1) felt ownership and buy-in, (2) could make sense of the information provided, (3) were motivated by social influence, and (4) accepted responsibility and accountability for proposed changes. The success of the strategy was constrained when the audit process led to (5) rationalising current practice instead of creating a learning opportunity, (6) perceptions of unfairness and concerns about data integrity, 7) development of improvement plans that were not followed, and (8) perceived intrusions on professional autonomy. Conclusions: Audit and feedback strategies may help reduce unwarranted clinical variation in care where there is engagement between auditors and local clinicians, meaningful audit indicators, clear improvement plans, and respect for clinical expertise. We contribute theoretical development for audit and feedback by proposing a Model for Audit and Feedback Implementation at Scale. Recommendations include limiting the number of audit indicators, involving clinical staff and local leaders in feedback, and providing opportunities for reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fall prevention alarms are commonly used among US hospitals as a fall prevention strategy despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Further, fall prevention alarms are harmful to healthcare staff (e.g., alarm fatigue) and patients (e.g., sleep disturbance, mobility restriction). There is a need for research to develop and test strategies for reducing use of fall prevention alarms in US hospitals. Methods: To address this gap, we propose testing the effectiveness and implementation of Alarm with Care, a de-implementation strategy to reduce fall prevention alarm use using a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial among 30 adult medical or medical surgical units from nonfederal US acute care hospitals. Guided by the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework, we will (1) identify barriers to fall prevention alarm de-implementation and develop tailored de-implementation strategies for each unit and (2) compare the implementation and effectiveness of high- versus low-intensity coaching to support site-specific de-implementation of fall prevention alarms. We will evaluate effectiveness and implementation outcomes and examine the effect of multi-level (e.g., hospital, unit, and patient) factors on effectiveness and implementation. Rate of fall prevention alarm use is the primary outcome. Balancing measures will include fall rates and fall-related injuries. Implementation outcomes will include feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and fidelity. Discussion: Findings from this line of research could be used to support scale-up of fall prevention alarm de-implementation in other healthcare settings. Further, research generated from this proposal will advance the field of de-implementation science by determining the extent to which low-intensity coaching is an effective and feasible de-implementation strategy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06089239. Date of registration: October 17, 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The 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. Results The 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. Conclusions Similar 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.

Abstract Background Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. Methods We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies’ key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. Results Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers’ behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients’ behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. Conclusions This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Abstract Background There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care. Methods We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review. Results Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently. Conclusions This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care.

Background: The 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.Results: The 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.Conclusions: Similar 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research.Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias.Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%).Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design.Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.Methods: We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.Results: Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.Conclusions: This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care.Methods: We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review.Results: Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently.Conclusions: This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC. Methods Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach. Results Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients. Conclusions Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.

Abstract Background In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures. Methods PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the ‘Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care’ (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel–Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Results Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20). Conclusions The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used. Trial registration The review is registered in Prospero ( CRD42018105100 ).

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 )

Abstract Background De-implementation or abandonment of ineffective or low-value healthcare is becoming a priority research field globally due to the growing empirical evidence of the high prevalence of such care and its impact in terms of patient safety and social inefficiency. Little is known, however, about the factors, barriers, and facilitators involved or about interventions that are effective in promoting and accelerating the de-implementation of low-value healthcare. The De-imFAR study seeks to carry out a structured, evidence-based, and theory-informed process involving the main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) for the design, deployment, and assessment of de-implementation strategies for reducing low-value pharmacological prescribing. Methods A phase I formative study using a systematic and comprehensive framework based on theory and evidence for the design of implementation strategies—specifically, the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW)—will be conducted to design and model de-implementation strategies to favor reductions in low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) in a collegiate way. Subsequently, a phase II comparative hybrid trial will be conducted to assess the feasibility and potential effectiveness of at least one active de-implementation strategy to reduce low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of CVD compared to the usual procedures for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines (“what-not-to-do” recommendations). A mixed-methods evaluation will be used: quantitative for the results of the implementation at the professional level (e.g., adoption, reach and implementation or execution of the recommended clinical practice); and qualitative to determine the feasibility and perceived impact of the de-implementation strategies from the clinicians’ perspective, and patients’ experiences related to the clinical care received. Discussion The DE-imFAR study aims to generate valid scientific knowledge about the design and development of de-implementation strategies using theory- and evidence-based methodologies suggested by implementation science. It will explore the effectiveness of these strategies and their acceptability among clinicians, policymakers, and patients. Its ultimate goal is to maximize the quality and efficiency of our health system by abandoning low-value pharmacological prescribing. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04022850. Registered 17 July 2019

Background: In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care' (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model.Results: Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20).Conclusions: The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used.Trial Registration: The review is registered in Prospero (CRD42018105100). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: De-implementation or abandonment of ineffective or low-value healthcare is becoming a priority research field globally due to the growing empirical evidence of the high prevalence of such care and its impact in terms of patient safety and social inefficiency. Little is known, however, about the factors, barriers, and facilitators involved or about interventions that are effective in promoting and accelerating the de-implementation of low-value healthcare. The De-imFAR study seeks to carry out a structured, evidence-based, and theory-informed process involving the main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) for the design, deployment, and assessment of de-implementation strategies for reducing low-value pharmacological prescribing.Methods: A phase I formative study using a systematic and comprehensive framework based on theory and evidence for the design of implementation strategies-specifically, the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW)-will be conducted to design and model de-implementation strategies to favor reductions in low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) in a collegiate way. Subsequently, a phase II comparative hybrid trial will be conducted to assess the feasibility and potential effectiveness of at least one active de-implementation strategy to reduce low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of CVD compared to the usual procedures for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines ("what-not-to-do" recommendations). A mixed-methods evaluation will be used: quantitative for the results of the implementation at the professional level (e.g., adoption, reach and implementation or execution of the recommended clinical practice); and qualitative to determine the feasibility and perceived impact of the de-implementation strategies from the clinicians' perspective, and patients' experiences related to the clinical care received.Discussion: The DE-imFAR study aims to generate valid scientific knowledge about the design and development of de-implementation strategies using theory- and evidence-based methodologies suggested by implementation science. It will explore the effectiveness of these strategies and their acceptability among clinicians, policymakers, and patients. Its ultimate goal is to maximize the quality and efficiency of our health system by abandoning low-value pharmacological prescribing.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04022850. Registered 17 July 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Growing imperatives for safety, quality and responsible resource allocation have prompted renewed efforts to identify and quantify harmful or wasteful (low-value) medical practices such as test ordering, procedures and prescribing. Quantifying these practices at a population level using routinely collected health data allows us to understand the scale of low-value medical practices, measure practice change following specific interventions and prioritise policy decisions. To date, almost all research examining health care through the low-value lens has focused on medical services (tests and procedures) rather than on prescribing. The protocol described herein outlines a program of research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council to select and quantify low-value prescribing practices within Australian routinely collected health data. Methods We start by describing our process for identifying and cataloguing international low-value prescribing practices. We then outline our approach to translate these prescribing practices into indicators that can be applied to Australian routinely collected health data. Next, we detail methods of using Australian health data to quantify these prescribing practices (e.g. prevalence of low-value prescribing and related costs) and their downstream health consequences. We have approval from the necessary Australian state and commonwealth human research ethics and data access committees to undertake this work. Discussion The lack of systematic and transparent approaches to quantification of low-value practices in routinely collected data has been noted in recent reviews. Here, we present a methodology applied in the Australian context with the aim of demonstrating principles that can be applied across jurisdictions in order to harmonise international efforts to measure low-value prescribing. The outcomes of this research will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be presented at national and international pharmacoepidemiology and health policy forums such that other jurisdictions have guidance to adapt this methodology.

Abstract Background Perioperative autologous blood salvage and preoperative erythropoietin are not (cost) effective to reduce allogeneic transfusion in primary hip and knee arthroplasty, but are still used. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a theoretically informed multifaceted strategy to de-implement these low-value blood management techniques. Methods Twenty-one Dutch hospitals participated in this pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. At baseline, data were gathered for 924 patients from 10 intervention and 1040 patients from 11 control hospitals undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. The intervention included a multifaceted de-implementation strategy which consisted of interactive education, feedback on blood management performance, and a comparison with benchmark hospitals, aimed at orthopedic surgeons and anesthesiologists. After the intervention, data were gathered for 997 patients from the intervention and 1096 patients from the control hospitals. The randomization outcome was revealed after the baseline measurement. Primary outcomes were use of blood salvage and erythropoietin. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hemoglobin, length of stay, allogeneic transfusions, and use of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) and tranexamic acid (TXA). Results The use of blood salvage (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30) and erythropoietin (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) reduced significantly over time, but did not differ between intervention and control hospitals (blood salvage OR 1.74 95% CI 0.27 to 11.39, erythropoietin OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.84). Postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher (β 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.34) and length of stay shorter (β −0.36, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.09) in hospitals receiving the multifaceted strategy, compared with control hospitals and after adjustment for baseline. Transfusions did not differ between the intervention and control hospitals (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.78). Both LIA (OR 0.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.0) and TXA (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5) were significantly associated with the reduction in blood salvage over time. Conclusions Blood salvage and erythropoietin use reduced over time, but not differently between intervention and control hospitals. The reduction in blood salvage was associated with increased use of local infiltration analgesia and tranexamic acid, suggesting that de-implementation is assisted by the substitution of techniques. The reduction in blood salvage and erythropoietin did not lead to a deterioration in patient-related secondary outcomes. Trial registration www.trialregister.nl, NTR4044

Background: Perioperative autologous blood salvage and preoperative erythropoietin are not (cost) effective to reduce allogeneic transfusion in primary hip and knee arthroplasty, but are still used. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a theoretically informed multifaceted strategy to de-implement these low-value blood management techniques.Methods: Twenty-one Dutch hospitals participated in this pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. At baseline, data were gathered for 924 patients from 10 intervention and 1040 patients from 11 control hospitals undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. The intervention included a multifaceted de-implementation strategy which consisted of interactive education, feedback on blood management performance, and a comparison with benchmark hospitals, aimed at orthopedic surgeons and anesthesiologists. After the intervention, data were gathered for 997 patients from the intervention and 1096 patients from the control hospitals. The randomization outcome was revealed after the baseline measurement. Primary outcomes were use of blood salvage and erythropoietin. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hemoglobin, length of stay, allogeneic transfusions, and use of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) and tranexamic acid (TXA).Results: The use of blood salvage (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30) and erythropoietin (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) reduced significantly over time, but did not differ between intervention and control hospitals (blood salvage OR 1.74 95% CI 0.27 to 11.39, erythropoietin OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.84). Postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher (β 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.34) and length of stay shorter (β -0.36, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.09) in hospitals receiving the multifaceted strategy, compared with control hospitals and after adjustment for baseline. Transfusions did not differ between the intervention and control hospitals (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.78). Both LIA (OR 0.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.0) and TXA (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5) were significantly associated with the reduction in blood salvage over time.Conclusions: Blood salvage and erythropoietin use reduced over time, but not differently between intervention and control hospitals. The reduction in blood salvage was associated with increased use of local infiltration analgesia and tranexamic acid, suggesting that de-implementation is assisted by the substitution of techniques. The reduction in blood salvage and erythropoietin did not lead to a deterioration in patient-related secondary outcomes.Trial Registration: www.trialregister.nl, NTR4044. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Growing imperatives for safety, quality and responsible resource allocation have prompted renewed efforts to identify and quantify harmful or wasteful (low-value) medical practices such as test ordering, procedures and prescribing. Quantifying these practices at a population level using routinely collected health data allows us to understand the scale of low-value medical practices, measure practice change following specific interventions and prioritise policy decisions. To date, almost all research examining health care through the low-value lens has focused on medical services (tests and procedures) rather than on prescribing. The protocol described herein outlines a program of research funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council to select and quantify low-value prescribing practices within Australian routinely collected health data.Methods: We start by describing our process for identifying and cataloguing international low-value prescribing practices. We then outline our approach to translate these prescribing practices into indicators that can be applied to Australian routinely collected health data. Next, we detail methods of using Australian health data to quantify these prescribing practices (e.g. prevalence of low-value prescribing and related costs) and their downstream health consequences. We have approval from the necessary Australian state and commonwealth human research ethics and data access committees to undertake this work.Discussion: The lack of systematic and transparent approaches to quantification of low-value practices in routinely collected data has been noted in recent reviews. Here, we present a methodology applied in the Australian context with the aim of demonstrating principles that can be applied across jurisdictions in order to harmonise international efforts to measure low-value prescribing. The outcomes of this research will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be presented at national and international pharmacoepidemiology and health policy forums such that other jurisdictions have guidance to adapt this methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]