Responses

Download PDFPDF

Measuring 21 low-value hospital procedures: claims analysis of Australian private health insurance data (2010–2014)
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response to letter regarding hyperbarix oxygen therapy
    • Kelsey Chalmers, Research Associate Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney
    • Other Contributors:
      • Tim Badgery-Parker, Research Fellow
      • Adam G Elshaug, Professor of Health Policy

    We thank Dr Sherlock for their interest in our study and her letter. Defining, identifying and measuring low-value care is complex, and there are multiple potential approaches and solutions. Due to heterogeneous treatment effects and other issues, what is considered low-value will (by definition) encompass more than what is universally accepted as wasted or ‘no-value’ care. In our approach, we developed measures or indicators of low-value care to signpost where further investigation may be required. Episodes with indicated low-value hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) were in the ‘negligible’ or ‘near zero use of low-value procedures’ in the results for both papers [1, 2]. While the definition for the low-value procedure indication here may be debated, importantly we found that indicated low-value HBOT was uncommon.
    We included HBOT in this list of procedures because it passed our criteria of being a potential measurable low-value procedure within the claims data, especially since a previous study using Australian hospital data had included it [3]. The fact that there was multiple National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ‘do not do’ recommendations on HBOT meant that we included it on our list of low-value procedures.

    We used the term ‘multiple indications’ for brevity in the results table in the main text, following guidance from journal editors and sub-editors to do so. We find Dr Sherlock’s critique of this somewhat disingenuous and misleading...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Editor's Note

    BMJ Open's editorial team has received the comments from Dr Sherlock on this paper. The authors of the paper have been contacted and have been asked to provide a response.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Inappropriate Referencing

    The authors of the article “Measuring 21 low- value hospital procedures: claims analysis of Australian private health insurance data (2010-2014)” have perplexingly examined prevalence of low-value procedures without adequately justifying the appearance of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) appearing on the list (for” multiple indications”, again not defined)1.
    The same authors made the same mistake in a similar article (Low-value care in Australian public hospitals; prevalence and trends over time) also published in BMJ Quality and Safety this year2. They also quoted the work of another author in that report who made the same error in his paper3. These errors of fact have been reported by several authors yet continue to be presented as factually correct4 5 6.
    Evidence-based medicine requires evidence. To define a list of accepted low-value procedures where not a single reference supports the assertion is misleading at best. The authors claim the list of procedures in this paper (and their previous paper) was based upon recommendations from a variety of sources. This list included the Royal Australasian College of Physicians EVOLVE campaign (hyperbaric does not appear in any recommendation), the Australian Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign (no reference on the website for hyperbaric services), CW Canada (no reference to hyperbaric oxygen), CW UK (hyperbaric not mentioned), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Do not Do recommendations (hyperbaric no...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.