FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4300690809> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4300690809 endingPage "81" @default.
• W4300690809 startingPage "78" @default.
• W4300690809 abstract "Low-value care threatened the sustainability of healthcare even before the COVID-19 pandemic with up to 30% of care estimated to be wasteful—meaning it does not add value and may even be harmful to patients.1 The direct costs of COVID-19, along with backlogs of delayed care, and staffing shortages, have only intensified fiscal constraints. Now more than ever, healthcare systems must find ways to better utilize finite healthcare resources if they are to be sustainable. It was one decade ago that Choosing Wisely® began in the United States to reduce the use of unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures (i.e., low-value care), and has since spread to over 30 countries. To date, it has been primarily a bottom-up campaign. The lists by professional societies were a starting point that emphasized many of the “easy wins” to reducing low-value care, but they are by no means the largest causes of waste in the healthcare system. Most unnecessary care is intertwined with appropriate care and is much more challenging to “de-implement.”2 But in some countries, like Canada, Choosing Wisely® has moved from an awareness campaign to focus on system re-design. Not surprisingly, the evidence shows that the campaign has had modest successes in reducing low-value care, typically at single sites and involving relatively easy-to-eliminate tests or treatments.3 Table 1 lists examples of strategies shown to reduce low-value care that can be implemented across the hierarchy of intervention effectiveness.4 This framework is a useful way to conceptualize quality improvement interventions where the lowest ranking is the most feasible but least effective as compared to the higher levels that are increasingly effective yet the hardest to implement. Education and training, which represents the majority of where Choosing Wisely® has focused to date, are at the bottom of the hierarchy because although necessary, these are rarely sufficient in order to change longstanding practice patterns, particularly because many drivers of overuse are unrelated to a gap in knowledge. Dedicated stewardship programs are a successful scalable example for reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use because they do not focus on education alone but additionally provide other interventions such as real-time feedback on prescribing practices.5, 6 This model can be applied to other targets (e.g., antithrombotic agents, psychoactive drugs in the elderly) but it is not feasible to dedicate personnel to oversee stewardship programs for every overuse problem. Similarly, we cannot burden clinicians with concurrent performance report cards for more than a handful of targets. Overuse is baked into many of our existing processes of care. Simple changes can be implemented at the level of organizational rules and policies, such as revising order sets and other process redesigns to reduce redundant or unnecessary laboratory and radiologic investigations.7 Yet, the underappreciated distinction between fixed and variable costs means these process changes, often initiated to save money, generate only the illusion of substantial savings.8 Double-checks and reminders such as preprocedural screening of patients for appropriateness, for example, prior to knee and hip surgery, are often effective but resource intensive.9 Addressing regional variations in practice and providing feedback to facilities or health regions may help to inform opportunities but making improvements at this broader system level is unlikely to occur without strong alignment with physician leadership. The results of bundled payment initiatives to promote standardization and simplification have been underwhelming, in part due to this inability to influence care provided across the spectrum of care.10 Although effective, automated interventions such as computerized decision support typically produce small gains—absolute improvements on the order of 5%, whether for increases in recommended care or reductions in low-value care.11 Unfortunately, we cannot implement more than a handful of such interventions at any given time due to the impact on clinicians. Excessive use of electronic reminders has resulted in clinicians overriding such alerts virtually all the time.12 Finally, defunding low-value services altogether is an example of a forcing function, which ranks at the top of the hierarchy of effectiveness, where the test or treatment is rendered unavailable due to insufficient appropriate indications. Making Vitamin D levels an uninsured test quickly resulted in an over 90% decrease in ordering.13 Unfortunately, too few tests and treatments have such infrequent legitimate indications that they can be successfully defunded. We believe that implementing more of the same kind of strategies is unlikely to produce significantly better value in our healthcare system. More substantive reductions in low-value care will depend on a new approach—one that tackles broader system-wide targets through an approach that combines grass root efforts with health policy changes to healthcare delivery. Such top-down approaches have been met with resistance in the past because they smacked of rationing—but a decade into the Choosing Wisely® era, there is wider recognition regarding the harms of unnecessary care. Creating more efficient care improves quality and safety and is essential to the sustainability of our health care system—a goal physicians and policymakers share. Too few resource stewardship initiatives have utilized higher levers to drive broader impact because physicians are not aligned with the policy makers or vice versa. Surely the COVID pandemic has taught us that such nimble coordination is possible when a burning platform exists. We offer one illustrative Canadian example applied to a resource stewardship target. A national program designed to reduce the use of red blood cell transfusion was launched by Choosing Wisely® Canada to address the nearly 30% of unnecessary transfusions that waste this precious resource and lead to preventable patient complications.14 “Using Blood Wisely” was developed based on recommendations by multiple national societies which led to the creation of evidence-based benchmarks for appropriate use of red blood cell transfusions that could be measured by hospitals.15 Accreditation Canada, which sets standards and accredits the majority of hospitals in the country, encouraged hospital leaders to participate and indicated that participating hospitals would receive credit in the required quality improvement component of accreditation. The program was launched during the early phase of the COVID pandemic when donations of blood were very low, and a shortage of blood was a major concern. To date over 220 hospitals accounting for 75% of red blood cell transfusions across Canada are currently participating through encouragement and recognition as a “Using Blood Wisely” hospital. Hospital engagement is high without using a “stick approach” of making participation mandatory. A key approach to reducing low-value care in the next decade will be to combine the strengths of bottom-up, physician-led initiatives, and top-down system levers to create change. Policymakers can influence funding, accreditation, or licensure/certification but lack the clinical expertise to judge the appropriateness and determine measures of low-value care. Furthermore, policymakers are seen as intruding on clinical decision-making if they set standards without physician leadership. On the other hand, physicians can judge the appropriateness and set benchmarks and facilitate communication with their peers about best practices but lack broader systems to influence change. A combination of approaches is required to increase the impact of the Choosing Wisely® campaign. What strategies can be used to integrate bottom-up and top-down to improve healthcare value? First, the target must be an area with broad support for de-implementation by clinicians. In the “Using Blood Wisely” example, seven national societies had previously listed recommendations regarding the need for judicious use of red blood cells. The same success would not have been achieved without strong consensus by physicians. Second, improvement efforts must focus on changes that support practice change. Choosing Wisely® Canada coached physician hospital leaders to implement changes in transfusion practices including adoption of standardized guidelines and real-time screening of orders by blood bank technologists.14 Intervention tools were available and group webinars provided support.15 Third, a health system partner(s) must be engaged that will support implementation. In this case, Canadian Blood Services could provide utilization data which they collected regularly. Through their network, leaders of blood services in each of the provinces were identified and participated in setting the national benchmarks, hence gaining their engagement in the process. Fourth, policymakers must be identified who can provide leverage for participation. In this example, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Accreditation Canada sent a joint letter with the Chair of Choosing Wisely® to the CEOs of Canadian hospitals. Although the high level of hospital engagement in “Using Blood Wisely” did not require it, a payer could tie benchmarks established by the physicians to funding. In 2012, Choosing Wisely® helped to initiate conversation between physicians and patients about unnecessary and often overused tests and treatment—a challenging and novel conversation at the time. A key lesson from the past decade is that this is not enough. Now we need physicians and policymakers to combine efforts to reduce overuse to improve care and make our health system sustainable. As we emerge from the COVID pandemic, we must transform care to deliver value and build a healthcare system that truly meets the needs of the public for the future. The authors appreciate Dr. Kaveh Shojania for his helpful reflections on drafts of the manuscript. Jerome Leis and Wendy Levinson receive support from Choosing Wisely® Canada." @default.
• W4300690809 created "2022-10-04" @default.
• W4300690809 creator A5042035828 @default.
• W4300690809 creator A5050924923 @default.
• W4300690809 date "2022-10-03" @default.
• W4300690809 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4300690809 title "Improving healthcare value: Lessons learned from the first decade of <i>Choosing Wisely</i>®" @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2086108960 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2086120588 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2105501846 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2579427792 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2883589697 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2943949783 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2979186816 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2996633759 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W2996637261 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W3004935867 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W3086655774 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W3119145546 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W3126229035 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W4223974114 @default.
• W4300690809 cites W4300690809 @default.
• W4300690809 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.12969" @default.
• W4300690809 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36190815" @default.
• W4300690809 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4300690809 type Work @default.
• W4300690809 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W4300690809 countsByYear W43006908092022 @default.
• W4300690809 countsByYear W43006908092023 @default.
• W4300690809 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4300690809 hasAuthorship W4300690809A5042035828 @default.
• W4300690809 hasAuthorship W4300690809A5050924923 @default.
• W4300690809 hasBestOaLocation W43006908091 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C2780358146 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C119857082 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C160735492 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C162324750 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C17744445 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C199539241 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C2776291640 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C2779473830 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C2780358146 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C41008148 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C50522688 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C509550671 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C512399662 @default.
• W4300690809 hasConceptScore W4300690809C71924100 @default.
• W4300690809 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4300690809 hasLocation W43006908091 @default.
• W4300690809 hasLocation W43006908092 @default.
• W4300690809 hasLocation W43006908093 @default.
• W4300690809 hasOpenAccess W4300690809 @default.
• W4300690809 hasPrimaryLocation W43006908091 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W2601643798 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W3042572556 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W3118446059 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4200392185 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4225080942 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4243752508 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4324353450 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4380149893 @default.
• W4300690809 hasRelatedWork W4386496735 @default.
• W4300690809 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W4300690809 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4300690809 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4300690809 workType "article" @default.