A survey to assess awareness and opinion of initiatives and recommendations on low-value diagnostic practices.
Appropriateness
DianaHealth
Low-value care
Survey
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jun 2020
05 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
31
01
2019
accepted:
01
05
2020
entrez:
7
6
2020
pubmed:
7
6
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The need to reduce healthcare practices that provide no value has led to the development of initiatives that generate and publish recommendations to improve the appropriateness of clinical practice by identifying potentially inappropriate services, making recommendations, and proposing improvements. DianaHealth (www.dianahealth.com) identifies, classifies, and publishes recommendations from numerous scientific societies. The purpose of this study was to determine the awareness and perceived usefulness and applicability of published recommendations on low-value diagnostic measures, as judged by physicians who are recognised clinical leaders in their respective centres. We designed a questionnaire on the diagnostic recommendations considered relevant for each medical specialty and made it available, until September 2016, on DianaHealth. The survey was administered online to clinical leaders from 25 Spanish healthcare centres (hospitals and primary care centres). A total of 413 (40.0%) physicians from 34 different specialties participated. The participation rate varied between centres (range 21.1%-100.0%) and specialties (range 12.5%-78.9%). Do Not Do (57.1%) was the most widely-known initiative. Most participants (82.6%; IQR 77.9%-94.9%) stated that they knew at least one of the 12 initiatives that identify non-recommended practices, and on average they were aware of four initiatives (range 1-12). The initiatives were perceived useful by 82.4% (IQR 73.3%-90.4%), and perceived applicable by 75.6% (IQR 67.4%-86.8%). A total of 531 recommendations were assessed. Sixty-three percent (IQR 53.6%-77.5%) of participants reported they were aware of the recommendations for their corresponding specialty. A total of 84.5% (IQR 75.0%-90.0%) stated they agreed with the recommendations and 84.5% (IQR 75.0%-90.0%) considered them useful. Among those who agreed with their respective recommendations, a median of 51.5% (IQR 41.4%-60.9%) perceived the guidelines as being fully implemented, 40.1% (IQR 31.9%-46.8%) considered them partially implemented, and 7.1% (IQR 3.7%-12.9%), not implemented. Clinical leaders' awareness of initiatives that generate and publish recommendations to improve clinical appropriateness remains low, although they did consider them useful. In general, participants were familiar with their speciality-specific diagnostic recommendations, agreed with them, and perceived them as useful and implemented in their centres. More needs to be done to raise awareness among professionals who do not know of or apply these recommendations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The need to reduce healthcare practices that provide no value has led to the development of initiatives that generate and publish recommendations to improve the appropriateness of clinical practice by identifying potentially inappropriate services, making recommendations, and proposing improvements. DianaHealth (www.dianahealth.com) identifies, classifies, and publishes recommendations from numerous scientific societies. The purpose of this study was to determine the awareness and perceived usefulness and applicability of published recommendations on low-value diagnostic measures, as judged by physicians who are recognised clinical leaders in their respective centres.
METHODS
METHODS
We designed a questionnaire on the diagnostic recommendations considered relevant for each medical specialty and made it available, until September 2016, on DianaHealth. The survey was administered online to clinical leaders from 25 Spanish healthcare centres (hospitals and primary care centres).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 413 (40.0%) physicians from 34 different specialties participated. The participation rate varied between centres (range 21.1%-100.0%) and specialties (range 12.5%-78.9%). Do Not Do (57.1%) was the most widely-known initiative. Most participants (82.6%; IQR 77.9%-94.9%) stated that they knew at least one of the 12 initiatives that identify non-recommended practices, and on average they were aware of four initiatives (range 1-12). The initiatives were perceived useful by 82.4% (IQR 73.3%-90.4%), and perceived applicable by 75.6% (IQR 67.4%-86.8%). A total of 531 recommendations were assessed. Sixty-three percent (IQR 53.6%-77.5%) of participants reported they were aware of the recommendations for their corresponding specialty. A total of 84.5% (IQR 75.0%-90.0%) stated they agreed with the recommendations and 84.5% (IQR 75.0%-90.0%) considered them useful. Among those who agreed with their respective recommendations, a median of 51.5% (IQR 41.4%-60.9%) perceived the guidelines as being fully implemented, 40.1% (IQR 31.9%-46.8%) considered them partially implemented, and 7.1% (IQR 3.7%-12.9%), not implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical leaders' awareness of initiatives that generate and publish recommendations to improve clinical appropriateness remains low, although they did consider them useful. In general, participants were familiar with their speciality-specific diagnostic recommendations, agreed with them, and perceived them as useful and implemented in their centres. More needs to be done to raise awareness among professionals who do not know of or apply these recommendations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32503516
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05286-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05286-3
pmc: PMC7275495
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
505Investigateurs
Dimelza Osorio
(D)
Soledad Romea
(S)
Francisco Baigorri
(F)
Agustín Urrútia
(A)
Josep Lluis Vega
(JL)
Pedro Armario
(P)
Matteo Fabbi
(M)
Anna Carol Pérez Segarra
(AC)
Xavier Martret
(X)
Miquel Vila
(M)
Marta Banqué
(M)
Yolima Cossio
(Y)
Javier Zamora
(J)
Jesús López Alcalde
(J)
Alfonso Muriel
(A)
José Ignacio Emparanza
(JI)
Iratxe Urreta
(I)
José Ignacio Pijoan
(JI)
Amaia Martínez Galarza
(A)
Agustín Gómez de la Cámara
(A)
Ana Royuela
(A)
Blanca Lumbreras
(B)
Pere Plaja
(P)
Antoni Peris
(A)
Carlos Brotons
(C)
Montserrat Ureña
(M)
Joan Fernández Náger
(J)
Xavier Bonfill
(X)
Karla Salas-Gama
(K)
Carolina Requeijo
(C)
Angela Merchán-Galvis
(A)
Antonio Sánchez
(A)
Elena Medarde
(E)
M Jesús Quintana
(MJ)
Références
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):178-190
pubmed: 28077235
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Aug;88(8):790-8
pubmed: 23871230
Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 19;197(10):556-60
pubmed: 23163685
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Dec 12;19(1):238
pubmed: 31830906
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):169-177
pubmed: 28077232
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 03;11(2):e0147943
pubmed: 26840451
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):156-168
pubmed: 28077234
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):191-202
pubmed: 28077228
Perm J. 2016 Winter;20(1):41-6
pubmed: 26562308
JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307(14):1513-6
pubmed: 22419800
Rev Calid Asist. 2015 May-Jun;30(3):117-28
pubmed: 25900851