Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives Low-value care can harm patients and healthcare systems. Despite a decade of global endeavours, low value care has persisted. Identification of barriers and enablers is essential for effective deimplementation of low-value care. This scoping review is an evidence summary of barriers, enablers and features of effective interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice worldwide.
Design A mixed-methods scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework.
Data sources Medline, CINAHL, Embase, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to 5 December 2022.
Eligibility criteria Primary studies which employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore deimplementation of low-value care in an EM setting and reported barriers, enablers or interventions were included. Reviews, protocols, perspectives, comments, opinions, editorials, letters to editors, news articles, books, chapters, policies, guidelines and animal studies were excluded. No language limits were applied.
Data extraction and synthesis Study selection, data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Barriers, enablers and interventions were mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment.
Results The search yielded 167 studies. A majority were quantitative studies (90%, 150/167) that evaluated interventions (86%, 143/167). Limited provider abilities, diagnostic uncertainty, lack of provider insight, time constraints, fear of litigation, and patient expectations were the key barriers. Enablers included leadership commitment, provider engagement, provider training, performance feedback to providers and shared decision-making with patients. Interventions included one or more of the following facets: education, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback, clinical decision support, nudge, clinical champions and training. Multifaceted interventions were more likely to be effective than single-faceted interventions. Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions was influenced by fidelity of the intervention facets. Use of behavioural change theories such as the Theoretical Domains Framework in the published studies appeared to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to deimplement low-value care.
Conclusion High-fidelity, multifaceted interventions that incorporated education, stakeholder engagement, audit/feedback and clinical decision support, were administered daily and lasted longer than 1 year were most effective in achieving deimplementation of low-value care in emergency departments. This review contributes the best available evidence to date, but further rigorous, theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are needed to supplement the growing body of evidence to effectively deimplement low-value care in emergency medicine practice.
- ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE
- Change management
- Quality in health care
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Extra data can be accessed via the Dryad data repository at http://datadryad.org/ with the doi: 10.5061/dryad.3bk3j9kpp
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Extra data can be accessed via the Dryad data repository at http://datadryad.org/ with the doi: 10.5061/dryad.3bk3j9kpp
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors VG conceived and designed the study with critical feedback from RE, NM, TSG, ND, MC and KC. VG conducted literature search. VG and ND performed title and abstract screening, data abstraction and quality assessment. RE and KC resolved conflicts. VG drafted the manuscript which was critically reviewed and approved RE, NM, TSG, ND, MC and KC. VG accepts full responsibility for the overall content as guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.