Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey

Health Care Provider Stigma Toward Patients With Substance Use Disorders: Protocol for a Nationally Representative Survey

BACKGROUND

The US overdose epidemic is an escalating public health emergency, accounting for over 100,000 deaths annually. Despite the availability of medications for opioid use disorders, provider-level barriers, such as negative attitudes, exacerbate the treatment gap in clinical care settings. Assessing the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma, defined as the negative perceptions and behaviors that providers embody and enact toward patients with substance use disorders, across providers with different specialties, is critical to expanding the delivery of substance use treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To thoroughly understand provider stigma toward patients with substance use disorders, we conducted a nationwide survey of emergency medicine and primary care physicians and dentists using a questionnaire designed to reveal how widely and intensely provider attitudes and stigma can impact these providers' clinical practices in caring for their patients. The survey also queried providers' stigma and clinical practices toward other chronic conditions, which can then be compared with their stigma and practices related to substance use disorders.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional survey was mailed to a nationally representative sample of primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and dentists (N=3011), obtained by American Medical Association and American Dental Association licensees based on specified selection criteria. We oversampled nonmetropolitan practice areas, given the potential differences in provider stigma and available resources in these regions compared with metropolitan areas. Data collection followed a recommended series of contacts with participants per the Dillman Total Design Method, with mixed-modality options offered (email, mail, fax, and phone). A gradually increasing compensation scale (maximum US$250) was implemented to recruit chronic nonresponders and assess the association between requiring higher incentives to participate and providers stigma. The primary outcome, provider stigma, was measured using the Medical Condition Regard Scale, which inquired about participants' views on substance use and other chronic conditions. Additional survey measures included familiarity and social engagement with people with substance use disorders; clinical practices (screening, treating, and referring for a range of chronic conditions); subjective norms and social desirability; knowledge and prior education; and descriptions of their patient populations.

RESULTS

Data collection was facilitated through collaboration with the National Opinion Research Center between October 2020 and October 2022. The overall Council of American Survey Research Organizations completion rate was 53.62% (1240/2312.7; physicians overall: 855/1681.9, 50.83% [primary care physicians: 506/1081.3, 46.79%; emergency medicine physicians: 349/599.8, 58.2%]; dentists: 385/627.1, 61.4%). The ineligibility rate among those screened is applied to those not screened, causing denominators to include fractional numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Using systematically quantified data on the prevalence and intensity of provider stigma toward substance use disorders in health care, we can provide evidence-based improvement strategies and policies to inform the development and implementation of stigma-reduction interventions for providers to address their perceptions and treatment of substance use.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/47548.

Reducing Operating Room Cost: Comparing Attending and Surgical Trainee Perceptions About the Implementation of Supply Receipts

BACKGROUND

As operating room (OR) expenditures increase, faculty and surgical trainees will play a key role in curbing future costs. However, supply cost utilization varies widely among providers and, despite requirements for cost education during surgical training, little is known about trainees' comfort discussing these topics. To improve OR cost transparency, our institution began delivering real-time supply "receipts" to faculty and trainees after each surgical case. This study compares faculty and surgical trainees' perceptions about supply receipts and their effect on individual practice and cultural change.

STUDY DESIGN

Faculty and surgical trainees (residents and fellows) from all adult surgical specialties at a large academic center were emailed separate surveys.

RESULTS

A total of 120 faculty (30.0% response rate) and 119 trainees (35.7% response rate) completed the survey. Compared with trainees, faculty are more confident discussing OR costs (p < 0.001). Two-thirds of trainees report discussing OR costs with faculty as opposed to 77.0% of faculty who acknowledge having these conversations (p = 0.08). Both groups showed a strong commitment to reduce OR expenditures, with 87.3% of faculty and 90.0% of trainees expressing a responsibility to curb OR costs (p = 0.84). After 1 year of implementation, faculty continue to have high interest levels in supply receipts (82.4%) and many surgeons review them after each case (67.7%). In addition, 74.3% of faculty are now aware of how to lower OR costs and 52.5% have changed the OR supplies they use. Trainees, in particular, desire additional cost-reducing efforts at our institution (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Supply receipts have been well received and have led to meaningful cultural changes. However, trainees are less confident discussing these issues and desire a greater emphasis on OR cost in their curriculum.

Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine

Background

Healthcare rationing can be defined as withholding beneficial care for cost reasons. One form in particular, hidden bedside rationing, is problematic because it may result in conflicting loyalties for physicians, unfair inequality among patients and illegitimate distribution of resources. Our aim is to establish whether bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands, whether it qualifies as hidden and what physician characteristics are associated with its practice.

Methods

Cross-sectional online questionnaire on knowledge of -, experience with -, and opinion on rationing among physicians in internal medicine within the Dutch healthcare system. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to explore relations between hidden bedside rationing and physician characteristics.

Results

The survey was distributed among 1139 physicians across 11 hospitals with a response rate of 18% (n = 203). Most participants (n = 129; 64%) had experience prescribing a cheaper course of treatment while a more effective but more expensive alternative was available, suggesting bedside rationing. Subsequently, 32 (24%) participants never disclosed this decision to their patient, qualifying it as hidden. The majority of participants (n = 153; 75%) rarely discussed treatment cost. Employment at an academic hospital was independently associated with more bedside rationing (OR = 17 95%CI 6.1–48). Furthermore, residents were more likely to disclose rationing to their patients than internists (OR = 3.2, 95%CI 2.1–4.7), while salaried physicians were less likely to do so than physicians in private practice (OR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.8).

Conclusion

Hidden bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands: patient choice is on occasion limited with costs as rationale and this is not always disclosed. To what extent distribution of healthcare should include bedside rationing in the Netherlands, or any other country, remains up for debate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06229-2.

Impact of Clinical Specialty on Attitudes Regarding Overuse of Inpatient Laboratory Testing

Routine laboratory testing is common among hospitalized patients, with associated harm. Attitudes toward testing and drivers across clinical specialties have not been described. We performed a cross-sectional study and anonymously surveyed inpatient clinicians (nurses, advanced practice providers, and physicians) at a tertiary cancer center regarding attitudes toward unnecessary laboratory testing and its drivers across clinical specialties. A total of 837 providers completed surveys (response rate 53%). Most respondents agreed with daily testing of hospitalized patients and that daily labs generally enhance safety, and those from pediatric and surgical specialties generally valued testing less than others. Participants most commonly indentified habit and institutional culture as important drivers of unnecessary testing. There were differences in other drivers across specialties, with pediatric clinicians identifying family pressure more commonly and fear of litigation less commonly compared to others. Future interventions to reduce unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing should acknowledge different attitudes based on specialty and tailor interventions accordingly.