FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2027156960> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2027156960 endingPage "1144" @default.
• W2027156960 startingPage "1142" @default.
• W2027156960 abstract "Overuse of medical tests and treatments wastes health-care resources and leads to unnecessary complications, while underuse results in delayed or missed diagnoses and treatment opportunities.1.Miyakis S Karamanof G Liontos M Mountokalakis TD Factors contributing to inappropriate ordering of tests in an academic medical department and the effect of an educational feedback strategy.Postgrad Med J. 2006; 82: 823-829Crossref PubMed Scopus (192) Google Scholar Such problems are well recognized, and there have been multiple attempts to correct inappropriate diagnostic testing and treatment over the past several decades.2.Dixon RH Laszlo J Ultilization of clinical chemistry services by medical house staff. An analysis.Arch Intern Med. 1974; 134: 1064-1067Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar However, sustainable solutions have proven to be elusive.3.Catrou PG Is that lab necessary?.Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126: 335-336Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Several years ago, medical ethicist Howard Brody, MD, PhD, suggested that physicians take leadership in declaring what tests and interventions should be used less commonly. He recommended that professional societies develop a specialty's top five list of “diagnostic tests or treatments that are very commonly ordered, that are among the most expensive services provided, and that have been shown by the currently available evidence not to provide any meaningful benefit to at least some major categories of patients.”4.Brody H Medicine's ethical responsibility for health care reform—the Top Five list.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 283-285Crossref PubMed Scopus (248) Google Scholar Dr Brody's vision gave rise to the Choosing Wisely Campaign, an effort designed to empower providers and patients by charging professional societies to develop lists of five common medical services “that patients and physicians should question.”5.Cassel CK Guest JA Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care.JAMA. 2012; 307: 1801-1802Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar The top five list for critical care medicine was developed by the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), a consortium representing the four professional societies most involved with providing care to critically ill patients—the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American Thoracic Society, and Society of Critical Care Medicine. The critical care list is the only Choosing Wisely list developed in partnership with a nursing professional society, which is important and noteworthy because it reflects the multiprofessional nature of critical care. The CCSC represents 150,000 members; therefore, a list developed by the CCSC reflects the thinking of a wide range of stakeholders. It is hoped that such broad input will improve both the value and the acceptance of the list. The Choosing Wisely list of the top five critical care services that patients and providers should question are: (1) ordering diagnostic tests at regular intervals (such as every day) rather than to answer to specific clinical questions; (2) transfusing RBCs in hemodynamically stable, nonbleeding patients in the ICU with a hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 7 g/dL; (3) using parenteral nutrition in adequately nourished critically ill patients within the first 7 days of an ICU stay; (4) deeply sedating patients who are mechanically ventilated without a specific indication and without daily attempts to lighten sedation; and (5) continuing life support for patients at high risk for death or severely impaired functional recovery without offering patients and their families the alternative of care focused entirely on comfort.6.American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Critical Care Societies Collaborative - critical care: five things physicians and patients should question. Choosing Wisely websitehttp://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/critical-care-societies-collaborative-critical-care/Date: 2013Google Scholar The process and rationale for selecting each item on the critical care list are described in detail in an official statement from the CCSC.7.Halpern SD, Becker D, Curtis JR, et al. An offi cial American Th oracic Society/American Association of Critical Care Nurses/American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Policy statement: the Choosing Wisely top 5 list in critical care medicine. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. In press.Google Scholar Briefly, the CCSC formed a Task Force composed of representatives of each organization; the composition of the group provided input from multiprofessional perspectives. This group reviewed the literature, identified 56 candidate items and, using the Delphi methodology to reach consensus, chose the five they believed to be most appropriate. Although use of an iterative consensus strategy rather than the rigorous systematic approach that is now expected of clinical practice guidelines increases the likelihood that related evidence may have been missed,8.Eden J Levit L Berg A Morton S Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; National Research Council.Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011; (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)Google Scholar, 9.Graham R Mancher M Wolman DM Greenfield S Steinberg E Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; National Research Council.Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. 2011; (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)Google Scholarwe expect the Choosing Wisely Campaign's critical care list to be beneficial because the items chosen for the critical care list appear robust and it seems unlikely that identifying additional evidence would change the estimated value of the selected tests and treatments. To maximize the benefits of the critical care list, efforts need to be deployed to encourage compliance. This includes education and, possibly, linkage to performance measurement and reimbursement. The critical care community must also guard against unintended consequences. Perhaps the biggest concern is the possibility that the items in the list may evolve from “choice” to “dictum,” from “suggestion” to “requirement.” The Choosing Wisely Campaign charged the individual Task Forces to create a list of services that patients and providers “should question,” not to create a list of services that providers should not provide and that patients should refuse. Any strategy to increase compliance with the Choosing Wisely recommendations should not remove choice by penalizing the provider for tailoring management to the individual and the circumstance. Another concern is the possibility that the effort to curb overutilization of tests and treatments could inadvertently promote underutilization. Clearly, tests like chest radiographs and treatments like blood transfusions and sedation have an important role in critical care and underutilization could be problematic as well. It is imperative that the Choosing Wisely Campaign performs periodic self-evaluations to determine whether its aims of curbing health-care costs and improving patient care by reducing unnecessary testing and treatment are being achieved. Early detection of poor outcomes may prompt adjustments that turn failure into success. The importance of reevaluation is supported by the history of prior unsuccessful efforts to improve appropriate utilization of tests and treatments.2.Dixon RH Laszlo J Ultilization of clinical chemistry services by medical house staff. An analysis.Arch Intern Med. 1974; 134: 1064-1067Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar, 3.Catrou PG Is that lab necessary?.Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126: 335-336Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Organized medicine as a whole may want to ask themselves, “Why is the Choosing Wisely Campaign necessary?” It is tempting to blame overuse of diagnostic testing and treatments on the pressure to “be complete” and to avoid the potentially dire legal consequences of “missing something.” It is similarly tempting to blame underuse on administrative pressures to minimize interventions and to limit costs. However, these notions are not supported by evidence.4.Brody H Medicine's ethical responsibility for health care reform—the Top Five list.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 283-285Crossref PubMed Scopus (248) Google Scholar, 10.Sirovich B Gallagher PM Wennberg DE Fisher ES Discretionary decision making by primary care physicians and the cost of US health care.Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 813-823Crossref PubMed Scopus (209) Google ScholarThe underlying causes of inappropriate testing and treatment remain uncertain, but are complex, likely multifactorial, and merit ongoing investigation. Physicians may also want to ask whether the Choosing Wisely lists for their specialty should be broadened to address tests and treatments important in multiprofessional care. Broader inclusion of nurses and other providers strengthened the development of the critical care list and may similarly strengthen the lists of other specialties. The success of the Choosing Wisely Campaign is the responsibility of those of us who provide care; we cannot leave it to others to determine how we practice. The items on the Choosing Wisely lists are intended to prompt discussion and shared decision-making between the patient and the provider to determine the optimal approach for each unique individual and specific set of circumstances. Avoiding unintended consequences and assuring continual reexamination of value requires a concerted effort to assure that the recommendations are implemented by choice and are applied wisely." @default.
• W2027156960 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5001670387 @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5037290099 @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5046688173 @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5067984012 @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5091517222 @default.
• W2027156960 creator A5091774540 @default.
• W2027156960 date "2014-11-01" @default.
• W2027156960 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2027156960 title "Choosing Wisely in Critical Care" @default.
• W2027156960 cites W114929610 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W1970716113 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W1985818000 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W2043128333 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W2073762434 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W2085042508 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W4238117743 @default.
• W2027156960 cites W4328001476 @default.
• W2027156960 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-0912" @default.
• W2027156960 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25317583" @default.
• W2027156960 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2027156960 type Work @default.
• W2027156960 sameAs 2027156960 @default.
• W2027156960 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602015 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602016 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602017 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602018 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602019 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602021 @default.
• W2027156960 countsByYear W20271569602023 @default.
• W2027156960 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5001670387 @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5037290099 @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5046688173 @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5067984012 @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5091517222 @default.
• W2027156960 hasAuthorship W2027156960A5091774540 @default.
• W2027156960 hasBestOaLocation W20271569601 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConcept C2991859549 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConcept C2993568657 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConceptScore W2027156960C177713679 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConceptScore W2027156960C2991859549 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConceptScore W2027156960C2993568657 @default.
• W2027156960 hasConceptScore W2027156960C71924100 @default.
• W2027156960 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2027156960 hasLocation W20271569601 @default.
• W2027156960 hasLocation W20271569602 @default.
• W2027156960 hasOpenAccess W2027156960 @default.
• W2027156960 hasPrimaryLocation W20271569601 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2031741753 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2074721239 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2104320572 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2186704356 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2360870570 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2466917409 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W2967692580 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W3030684373 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W3032402421 @default.
• W2027156960 hasRelatedWork W4230305280 @default.
• W2027156960 hasVolume "146" @default.
• W2027156960 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2027156960 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2027156960 magId "2027156960" @default.
• W2027156960 workType "article" @default.