Exploring unnecessary invasive procedures in the United States: a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of cases from 2008-2016

Presenting a Comprehensive Definition of Unnecessary Healthcare Services and Their Drivers: A Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis

Background

Providing unnecessary healthcare services is a major common problem in every health system. The scope and cause of healthcare services must be identified in order to be managed and controlled. Finding the most complete definition of the problem and its causes are the goals of this meta-synthesis.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy was performed using a wide range of keywords and databases. Based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles were selected for content analysis and meta-synthesis. The Graneheim and Lundman method was used for content analysis. The MAXQDA software Version 18.2.0 was used for the first round of content analysis. Content analysis and meta-synthesis were used to comprehensively define the term "unnecessary healthcare services" and find the etiologic factors driving healthcare providers to unnecessary healthcare services.

Results

The term "unnecessary healthcare services" is defined as "overproviding healthcare services that could be harmful, low-value, insufficient, and inappropriate." The etiologic pattern of unnecessary healthcare services shows intrinsic and extrinsic factors as a driving force for unnecessary healthcare services.

Conclusion

A multilayer strategy for efficient management and prevention of unnecessary healthcare services is appropriate due to the multifaceted character of these services. This approach consists of the modification of the intrinsic factors and extrinsic drivers.

Challenges in closing the gap between evidence and practice: International survey of institutional surgical stabilization of rib fractures guidelines

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has gained increasing interest over the past decade, yet few candidates who could benefit from SSRF undergo operative management. We conducted an international survey of institutional SSRF guidelines comparing congruence between practice and contemporary evidence. We hypothesized that few guidelines reflect comprehensive evidence to facilitate standardized patient selection, operation, and postoperative management.

METHODS

A request for institutional rib fracture guidelines was distributed from the Chest Wall Injury Society. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures-specific guideline contents were extracted using a priori-designed extraction sheets and compared against 28 SSRF evidence-based recommendations outlined by a panel of 14 international experts. Fisher's exact test compared the proportion of strong and weak evidence-based recommendations specified within a majority of institutional guidelines to evaluate whether strength of evidence is associated with implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 36 institutions from 3 countries submitted institutional rib fracture management guidelines, among which 30 had SSRF-specific guidance. Twenty-eight guidelines (93%) listed at least one injury pattern criteria as an indication for SSRF, while 22 (73%) listed pain and 21 (70%) listed impaired respiratory function as other indications. Quantitative pain and respiratory function impairment thresholds that warrant SSRF varied across institutions. Few guidelines specified nonacute indications for SSRF or perioperative considerations. Seven guidelines (23%) detailed postoperative management but recommended timing and interval for follow-up varied. Overall, only 3 of the 28 evidence-based SSRF recommendations were specified within a majority of institutional practice guidelines. There was no statistically significant association ( p = 0.99) between the strength of recommendation and implementation within institutional guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Institutional SSRF guidelines do not reflect the totality of evidence available in contemporary literature. Guidelines are especially important for emerging interventions to ensure standardized care delivery and minimize low-value care. Consensus effort is needed to facilitate adoption and dissemination of evidence-based SSRF practices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Preventing Egregious Ethical Violations in Medical Practice: Evidence-Informed Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Working Group

This article reports the consensus recommendations of a working group that was convened at the end of a 4-year research project funded by the National Institutes of Health that examined 280 cases of egregious ethical violations in medical practice. The group reviewed data from the parent project, as well as other research on sexual abuse of patients, criminal prescribing of controlled substances, and unnecessary invasive procedures that were prosecuted as fraud. The working group embraced the goals of making such violations significantly less frequent and, when they do occur, identifying them sooner and taking necessary steps to ensure they are not repeated. Following review of data and previously published recommendations, the working group developed 10 recommendations that provide a starting point to meet these goals. Recommendations address leadership, oversight, tracking, disciplinary actions, education of patients, partnerships with law enforcement, further research and related matters. The working group recognized the need for further refinement of the recommendations to ensure feasibility and appropriate balance between protection of patients and fairness to physicians. While full implementation of appropriate measures will require time and study, we believe it is urgent to take visible actions to acknowledge and address the problem at hand.

Serious Ethical Violations in Medicine: A Statistical and Ethical Analysis of 280 Cases in the United States From 2008-2016

Serious ethical violations in medicine, such as sexual abuse, criminal prescribing of opioids, and unnecessary surgeries, directly harm patients and undermine trust in the profession of medicine. We review the literature on violations in medicine and present an analysis of 280 cases. Nearly all cases involved repeated instances (97%) of intentional wrongdoing (99%), by males (95%) in nonacademic medical settings (95%), with oversight problems (89%) and a selfish motive such as financial gain or sex (90%). More than half of cases involved a wrongdoer with a suspected personality disorder or substance use disorder (51%). Despite clear patterns, no factors provide readily observable red flags, making prevention difficult. Early identification and intervention in cases requires significant policy shifts that prioritize the safety of patients over physician interests in privacy, fair processes, and proportionate disciplinary actions. We explore a series of 10 questions regarding policy, oversight, discipline, and education options. Satisfactory answers to these questions will require input from diverse stakeholders to help society negotiate effective and ethically balanced solutions.

Medical Overtreatment: Friend or Foe?

"Overtreatment" is a neologism coined some 15 years ago to denote medical and surgical interventions that are unnecessary. It is a topical term for an old concept. However, it has rapidly become a shibboleth for those inclined toward finger-pointing and blaming in matters of health policy. As such, it is a "foe" that heats up rather than modulates debate. But if one examines the notion in the context of the contemporary patient-physician dialogue, it is anything but a foe. Overtreatment and its fellow travelers, overutilization and overprescription, face off with contrary notions when a patient contends with the challenge of evaluating any clinical option.