Search

Background: Overuse of diagnostic testing substantially contributes to healthcare expenses and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary harm. Our objective was to systematically identify and examine studies that assessed the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse across healthcare settings to estimate the overall prevalence of low-value diagnostic overtesting., Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception until 18 February 2020 to identify articles published in the English language that examined the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse using database data. Each of the assessments was categorised as using a patient-indication lens, a patient-population lens or a service lens., Results: 118 assessments of diagnostic testing overuse, extracted from 35 studies, were included in this study. Most included assessments used a patient-indication lens (n=67, 57%), followed by the service lens (n=27, 23%) and patient-population lens (n=24, 20%). Prevalence estimates of diagnostic testing overuse ranged from 0.09% to 97.5% (median prevalence of assessments using a patient-indication lens: 11.0%, patient-population lens: 2.0% and service lens: 30.7%). The majority of assessments (n=85) reported overuse of diagnostic testing to be below 25%. Overuse of diagnostic imaging tests was most often assessed (n=96). Among the 33 assessments reporting high levels of overuse (≥25%), preoperative testing (n=7) and imaging for uncomplicated low back pain (n=6) were most frequently examined. For assessments of similar diagnostic tests, major variation in the prevalence of overuse was observed. Differences in the definitions of low-value tests used, their operationalisation and assessment methods likely contributed to this observed variation., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that substantial overuse of diagnostic testing is present with wide variation in overuse. Preoperative testing and imaging for non-specific low back pain are the most frequently identified low-value diagnostic tests. Uniform definitions and assessments are required in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of diagnostic testing overuse., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To provide an overview of the evidence regarding outcomes of remediation and rehabilitation programmes for healthcare professionals with performance concerns, and to explore if outcomes differ for specific concerns and professions., Methods: A search in four databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) was conducted from 1 January 1990 to 7 May 2017. Studies reporting on outcomes of nationwide and state-wide programmes aimed at remediation and rehabilitating healthcare professionals with performance concerns (ie, dentists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, physiotherapists, psychologists and psychotherapists) were included., Results: We included a total of 38 studies. More than half of the studies included programmes in the USA (57.9%), and a majority of studies focused on outcomes for physicians (78.9%) and on outcomes for substance use disorders (SUDs, 63.2%). Programme completion rates for SUDs were positive and approximately 80%-90% of participants were employed after treatment. Studies that reported on remediation outcomes for dyscompetence, almost all from Canada (7/8), showed varying results. One study compared outcomes for performance concerns in the same programme (ie, SUD and other mental and behavioural problems) and showed comparably successful results. No study specifically compared outcomes between professions., Conclusion: The literature is dominated by outcomes for physicians in North American programmes, with positive outcomes for SUD and varying outcomes for dyscompetence. Based on our findings we cannot make valid comparisons in outcomes between professions and specific performance concerns, and we call for other programmes to report on outcomes for different professions and concerns. Because of the positive outcomes of physician health programmes, other countries should consider introducing similar programmes to support healthcare professionals getting back on track., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Dealing with poor individual performance of healthcare professionals is essential in patient safety management. The objective of the current study was to explore potential differences regarding experiences with impaired and incompetent colleagues between a broad range of healthcare professions., Methods: A survey of 10 legally regulated professions in the Netherlands on knowledge on dealing with impaired/incompetent colleagues, experiences with such colleagues, action taken upon an impaired and incompetent colleague and reasons for not taking action., Results: We approached 4348 professionals, of whom 1238 responded (28.5%). One-third of the respondents (31.3%) had an experience with an impaired or incompetent colleague in the preceding 12 months, and 84% of these reported cases concerned incompetence. Even under the extreme assumption that all non-respondents had no such experiences, our results indicate that at least 9% of the total sample had dealt with an impaired or incompetent colleague in the previous 12 months. Two-thirds of the professionals (68.6%) who had an experience reported having acted upon it. Respondents significantly less often reported to have acted (49.6% vs 79.1%, p=0.000) when the colleague was working at a different organisation. The primary reason for not taking action was that impairment/incompetence could not be proven., Conclusions: Even using an extreme correction for our low response rate, at least 9% of healthcare professionals reported dealing with impaired or incompetent colleagues in the past year. Creating and clarifying reporting opportunities when confronted with an incompetent or impaired colleague should be a priority for professional organisations, policymakers and regulatory bodies., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: In multisite trials evaluating a complex quality improvement (QI) strategy the 'same' intervention may be implemented and adopted in different ways. Therefore, in this study we investigated the exposure to and experiences with a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving the quality of intensive care, and explore potential explanations for why the intervention was effective or not., Methods: We conducted a process evaluation investigating the effect of a multifaceted improvement intervention including establishment of a local multidisciplinary QI team, educational outreach visits and periodical indicator feedback on performance measures such as intensive care unit length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration and glucose regulation. Data were collected among participants receiving the intervention. We used standardised forms to record time investment and a questionnaire and focus group to collect data on perceived barriers and satisfaction., Results: The monthly time invested per QI team member ranged from 0.6 to 8.1 h. Persistent problems were: not sharing feedback with other staff; lack of normative standards and benchmarks; inadequate case-mix adjustment; lack of knowledge on how to apply the intervention for QI; and insufficient allocated time and staff. The intervention effectively targeted the lack of trust in data quality, and was reported to motivate participants to use indicators for QI activities., Conclusions: Time and resource constraints, difficulties to translate feedback into effective actions and insufficient involvement of other staff members hampered the impact of the intervention. However, our study suggests that a multifaceted feedback program stimulates clinicians to use indicators as input for QI, and is a promising first step to integrating systematic QI in daily care.

Aim of the Study: To use the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR), as a tool for Dutch hospitals to analyse their death rates by comparing their risk-adjusted mortality with the national average., Method: The method uses routine administrative databases that are available nationally in The Netherlands--the National Medical Registration dataset for the years 2005-2007. Diagnostic groups that led to 80% of hospital deaths were included in the analysis. The method adjusts for a number of case-mix factors per diagnostic group determined through a logistic regression modelling process., Results: In The Netherlands, the case-mix factors are primary diagnosis, age, sex, urgency of admission, length of stay, comorbidity (Charlson Index), social deprivation, source of referral and month of admission. The Dutch HSMR model performs well at predicting a patient's risk of death as measured by a c statistic of the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91. The ratio of the HSMR of the Dutch hospital with the highest value in 2005-2007 is 2.3 times the HSMR of the hospital with the lowest value., Discussion: Overall hospital HSMRs and mortality at individual diagnostic group level can be monitored using statistical process control charts to give an early warning of possible problems with quality of care. The use of routine data in a standardised and robust model can be of value as a starting point for improvement of Dutch hospital outcomes. HSMRs have been calculated for several other countries.

Background: Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve the quality of care. In The Netherlands, considerable time and effort have been invested in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines since the 1990s. Thus far, no reviews are available on their effectiveness. The primary aim of this article was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines in improving the quality of care., Methods: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of Dutch evidence-based guidelines on both the process and structure of care and patient outcomes was conducted. The electronic databases Medline and Embase (1990-2007) and relevant scientific journals were searched. Studies were only selected if they included a controlled trial, an interrupted time series design or a before and after design., Results: A total of 20 studies were included. In 17 of 19 studies that measured the effects on the process or structure of care, significant improvements were reported. Thirteen of these studies reported improvement with respect to some of the recommendations studied. In addition, the size of the observed effects varied largely across the recommendations within guidelines. Six of nine studies that measured patient health outcomes showed significant but small improvements as a result of the use of clinical guidelines., Conclusions: This review demonstrates that Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines can be effective in improving the process and structure of care. The effects of guidelines on patient health outcomes were studied far less and data are less convincing. The high level of variation in effects across recommendations suggests that implementation strategies tailored to individual recommendations within the guideline are needed to establish relevant improvements in healthcare. Moreover, the results highlight the need for well-designed studies focusing on the level of the recommendations to determine which factors influence guideline utilisation and improved patient outcomes.