Successful implementation of a guideline by peer comparisons, education, and positive physician feedback

Effectiveness of implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Strategies to enhance clinicians' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules.

CONCLUSION

Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts

OBJECTIVE

Nudges are interventions that alter the way options are presented, enabling individuals to more easily select the best option. Health systems and researchers have tested nudges to shape clinician decision-making with the aim of improving healthcare service delivery. We aimed to systematically study the use and effectiveness of nudges designed to improve clinicians' decisions in healthcare settings.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted to collect and consolidate results from studies testing nudges and to determine whether nudges directed at improving clinical decisions in healthcare settings across clinician types were effective. We systematically searched seven databases (EBSCO MegaFILE, EconLit, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and used a snowball sampling technique to identify peer-reviewed published studies available between 1 January 1984 and 22 April 2020. Eligible studies were critically appraised and narratively synthesised. We categorised nudges according to a taxonomy derived from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

We screened 3608 studies and 39 studies met our criteria. The majority of the studies (90%) were conducted in the USA and 36% were randomised controlled trials. The most commonly studied nudge intervention (46%) framed information for clinicians, often through peer comparison feedback. Nudges that guided clinical decisions through default options or by enabling choice were also frequently studied (31%). Information framing, default and enabling choice nudges showed promise, whereas the effectiveness of other nudge types was mixed. Given the inclusion of non-experimental designs, only a small portion of studies were at minimal risk of bias (33%) across all Cochrane criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Nudges that frame information, change default options or enable choice are frequently studied and show promise in improving clinical decision-making. Future work should examine how nudges compare to non-nudge interventions (eg, policy interventions) in improving healthcare.

Guideline, education, and peer comparison to reduce prescriptions of benzodiazepines and low-dose quetiapine in prison

Benzodiazepines (antianxiety medications) and quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) are subject to abuse in prison. Quetiapine is also expensive and has serious side effects. The prescription of these medications in prison for anxiety and insomnia is not the preferred choice. In order to reduce these prescriptions, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-University Correctional HealthCare (UCHC), working within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, provided its psychiatrists with a guideline to the treatment of insomnia in prison. The guideline discouraged pharmacological treatment of insomnia. UCHC then anonymously compared the prescribing practices of its psychiatrists to each other, and educated the psychiatrists about the disadvantages of benzodiazepines and low-dose quetiapine in prison. These techniques reduced the numbers of inmates prescribed benzodiazepines by 38% after 20 months and reduced the numbers of inmates prescribed low-dose quetiapine by 59% after 22 months.

The impact of residents, interns, and attendings on inpatient laboratory ordering patterns: a report from one university's hospitalist service

PURPOSE

To examine the laboratory test ordering patterns of interns to determine the effects of more senior residents' and attendings' supervision on trainees' patterns and residents' perceptions of control in test ordering.

METHOD

In a 2007 cohort study of 2,066 patients cared for by 85 interns, 56 residents, and 27 attendings on the University of Pennsylvania general medical hospitalist service, the authors studied variation in laboratory test utilization and costs in 10,908 patient-days. Ordinary least squares regression was used to partition variance among supervised and supervising physicians. Interns and residents were surveyed about their perceived control over lab test ordering.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39-53) of the variation in laboratory test utilization was attributable to interns' ordering, 26% (95% CI: 21-34) to residents, and 9% (95% CI: 7-16) to attendings; 20% (95% CI: 6-25) could not be uniquely attributed to a particular level of the care team. Similar results were obtained for variation in laboratory costs. Interns underestimated their control over laboratory test utilization, residents overestimated their control, and both groups had inaccurate assessments of their utilization relative to peers.

CONCLUSIONS

Attending faculty had relatively little impact on laboratory ordering patterns. This may reflect a consistent baseline impact of attending physicians on laboratory use, but it may also represent a missed opportunity to reduce practice variation and improve patient care. Observing variation in trainee practice patterns in the face of different supervisors represents a new approach to measuring the supervision in clinical settings.

Validation of the Ottawa Knee Rules

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We sought to validate the Ottawa Knee Rules for determining the need for radiography in patients with acute knee injury.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed in emergency departments of 11 hospitals of the Osakidetza-Basque Country Health Service. The patient population was composed of a convenience sample of 1,522 eligible adults of 2,315 patients with acute knee injuries. The attending emergency physicians assessed each patient for standardized clinical variables and determined the need for radiography according to the decision rule. Radiography was performed in each patient, irrespective of the determination of the rule, after clinical evaluation findings were recorded. The rule was assessed for the ability to correctly identify fracture of the knee.

RESULTS

The decision rule had a sensitivity of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.0), identifying 89 patients with clinically important fractures. The potential reduction in use of radiography was estimated to be 49%. The probability of fracture, if the decision rules were negative, is estimated to be 0% (95% CI 0% to 0.5%).

CONCLUSION

Prospective validation has shown the Ottawa Knee Rules to be 100% sensitive for identifying fractures of the knee and to have the potential to allow physicians to reduce the use of radiography in patients with acute knee injuries.