Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study

被引:161
作者
Elshaug, Adam G. [1 ]
Watt, Amber M.
Mundy, Linda [2 ]
Willis, Cameron D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Hlth Care Policy, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Univ Adelaide, Sch Populat Hlth, Natl Horizon Scanning Unit, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[3] Univ British Columbia, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Evaluat, Vancouver Coastal Hlth Res Inst, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
DISINVESTMENT; DECISIONS;
D O I
10.5694/mja12.11083
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To develop and apply a novel method for scanning a range of sources to identify existing health care services (excluding pharmaceuticals) that have questionable benefit, and produce a list of services that warrant further investigation. Design and setting: A multiplatform approach to identifying services listed on the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS; fee-for-service) that comprised: (i) a broad search of peer-reviewed literature on the PubMed search platform; (ii) a targeted analysis of databases such as the Cochrane Library and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) "do not do" recommendations; and (iii) opportunistic sampling, drawing on our previous and ongoing work in this area, and including nominations from clinical and non-clinical stakeholder groups. Main outcome measures: Non-pharmaceutical, MBS-listed health care services that were flagged as potentially unsafe, ineffective or otherwise inappropriately applied. Results: A total of 5209 articles were screened for eligibility, resulting in 156 potentially ineffective and/or unsafe services being identified for consideration. The list includes examples where practice optimisation (ie, assessing relative value of a service against comparators) might be required. Conclusion: The list of health care services produced provides a launchpad for expert clinical detailing. Exploring the dimensions of how, and under what circumstances, the appropriateness of certain services has fallen into question, will allow prioritisation within health technology reassessment initiatives.
引用
收藏
页码:556 / 560
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1999, A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines
[2]  
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, TECHN EV CTR ASS
[3]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2012, HLTH TECHNOLOGY ASSE
[4]   Choosing Wisely Helping Physicians and Patients Make Smart Decisions About Their Care [J].
Cassel, Christine K. ;
Guest, James A. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (17) :1801-1802
[5]  
Cotter D., 2009, NATL CTR HLTH CARE T
[6]   Rational disinvestment [J].
Donaldson, C. ;
Bate, A. ;
Mitton, C. ;
Dionne, F. ;
Ruta, D. .
QJM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2010, 103 (10) :801-807
[7]  
Elshaug Adam G, 2007, Aust New Zealand Health Policy, V4, P23, DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-4-23
[8]   Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money [J].
Elshaug, Adam G. ;
Moss, John R. ;
Littlejohns, Peter ;
Karnon, Jonathan ;
Merlin, Tracy L. ;
Hiller, Janet E. .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2009, 190 (05) :269-273
[9]   Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? [J].
Garner, Sarah ;
Littlejohns, Peter .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343
[10]   USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF "DISINVESTMENT" [J].
Henshall, Chris ;
Schuller, Tara ;
Mardhani-Bayne, Logan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2012, 28 (03) :203-210