A qualitative interview study of Australian physicians on defensive practice and low value care: "it's easier to talk about our fear of lawyers than to talk about our fear of looking bad in front of each other".

Defensive practice Low value care Medical professionals Qualitative study Theoretical domains framework

Journal

BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 03 2022
Historique:
received: 03 08 2021
accepted: 18 02 2022
entrez: 5 3 2022
pubmed: 6 3 2022
medline: 29 4 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians' ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour. A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in 'Choosing Wisely' initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change. All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians' perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians' desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences. The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians' understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians' ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour.
METHODS
A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in 'Choosing Wisely' initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change.
RESULTS
All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians' perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians' desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians' understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35246129
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00755-2
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00755-2
pmc: PMC8895622
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

16

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Fam Med. 2011 May;43(5):338-43
pubmed: 21557104
JAMA. 2015 Dec 8;314(22):2384-400
pubmed: 26647260
CJC Open. 2020 Dec 01;3(4):434-441
pubmed: 34027346
N Z Med J. 2006 Oct 27;119(1244):U2283
pubmed: 17072358
Br J Health Psychol. 2020 Sep;25(3):677-694
pubmed: 32558289
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):973-983
pubmed: 32511668
Aust J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan-Feb;48(1-2):9-12
pubmed: 31256451
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Apr 26;:
pubmed: 33904030
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1;179(4):499-505
pubmed: 30801628
Health Expect. 2022 Feb;25(1):374-383
pubmed: 34859547
Health Serv Res. 2019 Aug;54(4):851-859
pubmed: 30993688
JAMA. 2019 Jul 2;322(1):25-26
pubmed: 31002337
Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Dec;8(6):360-364
pubmed: 31758490
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):984-985
pubmed: 32511685
BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 21;7(12):e019851
pubmed: 29273671
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 30;10(10):e040025
pubmed: 33127636
Midwifery. 2000 Mar;16(1):15-21
pubmed: 11139857
Eur J Intern Med. 2019 Aug;66:92-98
pubmed: 31230851
Implement Sci. 2018 May 15;13(1):67
pubmed: 29764462
J Healthc Qual Res. 2019 Mar - Apr;34(2):97-108
pubmed: 30928325
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Aug;23(8):678-89
pubmed: 24876289
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 28;10(2):e034300
pubmed: 32114473
Med Health Care Philos. 2020 Sep;23(3):413-420
pubmed: 32303983
Palliat Med. 2016 Feb;30(2):171-9
pubmed: 26001394
Med J Aust. 2017 May 15;206(9):407-411
pubmed: 28490292
Fam Pract. 2020 Mar 25;37(2):276-282
pubmed: 31690948
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 04;6(7):e011711
pubmed: 27377638
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017 Nov 24;4:2333393617742282
pubmed: 29204457
BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 15;5(1):e006687
pubmed: 25592686
Health Policy. 2021 May;125(5):634-642
pubmed: 33676778
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Apr;1(1):18-9
pubmed: 26182298
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Nurs Outlook. 2005 May-Jun;53(3):127-33
pubmed: 15988449
J Hosp Med. 2017 May;12(5):346-351
pubmed: 28459906
Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Nov 1;30(9):736-739
pubmed: 29741672
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Acad Med. 1998 Apr;73(4):403-7
pubmed: 9580717
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Aug 1;30(4):777-779
pubmed: 31365062
N Z Med J. 2000 Nov 10;113(1121):464-7
pubmed: 11194753
J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2018 Feb 06;8(1):23-25
pubmed: 29441162
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921750
pubmed: 32083694
Scand J Public Health. 1999 Mar;27(1):18-21
pubmed: 10847666
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
BMJ. 2002 Jan 5;324(7328):39-41
pubmed: 11777808
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Mar;45(2):173-177
pubmed: 33250069
Perspect Med Educ. 2020 Jun;9(3):173-180
pubmed: 32323113
JAMA. 2020 Jan 7;323(1):70-81
pubmed: 31910284

Auteurs

Nola M Ries (NM)

Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. Nola.Ries@uts.edu.au.

Briony Johnston (B)

Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.

Jesse Jansen (J)

School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH