Choosing Wisely (CW) campaigns globally have focused attention on the need to reduce low-value care, which can represent up to 30% of the costs of healthcare. Despite early enthusiasm for the CW initiative, few large-scale changes in rates of low-value care have been reported since the launch of these campaigns. Recent commentaries suggest that the focus of the campaign should be on implementation of evidence-based strategies to effectively reduce low-value care. This paper describes the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework (CWDIF), a novel framework that builds on previous work in the field of implementation science and proposes a comprehensive approach to systematically reduce low-value care in both hospital and community settings and advance the science of de-implementation.The CWDIF consists of five phases:Phase 0, identification of potential areas of low-value healthcare;Phase 1, identification of local priorities for implementation of CW recommendations;Phase 2, identification of barriers to implementing CW recommendations and potential interventions to overcome these;Phase 3, rigorous evaluations of CW implementation programmes;Phase 4, spread of effective CW implementation programmes. We provide a worked example of applying the CWDIF to develop and evaluate an implementation programme to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing in healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgeries and to further develop the evidence base to reduce low-value care.

Background Overuse of diagnostic testing substantially contributes to healthcare expenses and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary harm. Our objective was to systematically identify and examine studies that assessed the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse across healthcare settings to estimate the overall prevalence of low-value diagnostic overtesting. Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception until 18 February 2020 to identify articles published in the English language that examined the prevalence of diagnostic testing overuse using database data. Each of the assessments was categorised as using a patient-indication lens, a patient-population lens or a service lens. Results 118 assessments of diagnostic testing overuse, extracted from 35 studies, were included in this study. Most included assessments used a patient-indication lens (n=67, 57%), followed by the service lens (n=27, 23%) and patient-population lens (n=24, 20%). Prevalence estimates of diagnostic testing overuse ranged from 0.09% to 97.5% (median prevalence of assessments using a patient-indication lens: 11.0%, patient-population lens: 2.0% and service lens: 30.7%). The majority of assessments (n=85) reported overuse of diagnostic testing to be below 25%. Overuse of diagnostic imaging tests was most often assessed (n=96). Among the 33 assessments reporting high levels of overuse (≥25%), preoperative testing (n=7) and imaging for uncomplicated low back pain (n=6) were most frequently examined. For assessments of similar diagnostic tests, major variation in the prevalence of overuse was observed. Differences in the definitions of low-value tests used, their operationalisation and assessment methods likely contributed to this observed variation. Conclusion Our findings suggest that substantial overuse of diagnostic testing is present with wide variation in overuse. Preoperative testing and imaging for non-specific low back pain are the most frequently identified low-value diagnostic tests. Uniform definitions and assessments are required in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude of diagnostic testing overuse.

Objective To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Design A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. Eligibility criteria We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. Data extraction and synthesis The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. Results We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). Conclusions This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are considered important instruments to improve quality of care. However, success is dependent on adherence, which may be improved using peer assessment, a strategy in which professionals assess performance of their peers in a simulated setting.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether peer assessment is more effective than case-based discussions to improve knowledge and guideline-consistent clinical reasoning in the Dutch physical therapy guideline for low back pain (LBP).Design: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted.Setting and Participants: Ten communities of practice (CoPs) of physical therapists were cluster randomized (N=90): 6 CoPs in the peer-assessment group (n=49) and 4 CoPs in the case-based discussion group (control group) (n=41).Intervention: Both groups participated in 4 educational sessions and used clinical patient cases. The peer-assessment group reflected on performed LBP management in different roles. The control group used structured discussions.Measurements: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 6 months. The primary outcome measure was knowledge and guideline-consistent reasoning, measured with 12 performance indicators using 4 vignettes with specific guideline-related patient profiles. For each participant, the total score was calculated by adding up the percentage scores (0–100) per vignette, divided by 4. The secondary outcome measure was reflective practice, as measured by the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (20–100).Results: Vignettes were completed by 78 participants (87%). Multilevel analysis showed an increase in guideline-consistent clinical reasoning of 8.4% in the peer-assessment group, whereas the control group showed a decline of 0.1% (estimated group difference=8.7%, 95% confidence interval=3.9 to 13.4). No group differences were found on self-reflection.Limitations: The small sample size, a short-term follow-up, and the use of vignettes as a proxy for behavior were limitations of the study.Conclusions: Peer assessment leads to an increase in knowledge and guideline-consistent clinical reasoning.

Background: Low-value care is healthcare leading to no or little clinical benefit for the patient. The best (combinations of) interventions to reduce low-value care are unclear. Purpose: To provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating deimplementation strategies, to quantify the effectiveness and describe different combinations of strategies. Methods: Analysis of 121 RCTs (1990–2019) evaluating a strategy to reduce low-value care, identified by a systematic review. Deimplementation strategies were described and associations between strategy characteristics and effectiveness explored. Results: Of 109 trials comparing deimplementation to usual care, 75 (69%) reported a significant reduction of low-value healthcare practices. Seventy-three trials included in a quantitative analysis showed a median relative reduction of 17% (IQR 7%–42%). The effectiveness of deimplementation strategies was not associated with the number and types of interventions applied. Conclusions and Implications: Most deimplementation strategies achieved a considerable reduction of low-value care. We found no signs that a particular type or number of interventions works best for deimplementation. Future deimplementation studies should map relevant contextual factors, such as the workplace culture or economic factors. Interventions should be tailored to these factors and provide details regarding sustainability of the effect.

Objective: General practitioners have an important role in reducing low-value care as gatekeepers of the health system. The aim of this study was to assess the experiences of Dutch general practitioners regarding low-value care and to identify their needs to decrease low-value primary care.Design: We performed a cross-sectional study.Participants: We sent a survey to 500 general practitioners.Setting: Primary care in the Netherlands.Primary and secondary outcomes: The survey contained questions about the provision of low-value care and on clinical cases about lumbosacral spine X-rays in patients with low back pain and vitamin B₁₂laboratory tests without an evidence-based indication. We also asked general practitioners what they needed to reduce low-value care.Results: A total of 182 general practitioners (37%) responded. 67% indicated that low-value care practices are regularly provided in general practice. 57% of the general practitioners have seen negative consequences of low-value care, in particular side effects of medication. The most provided low-value care practices are medication prescriptions such as antibiotics and laboratory tests such as vitamin B₁₂tests. The most reported drivers are patient-related. General practitioners want to maintain a good relationship with their patients by offering their patients an intervention instead of watchful waiting. Lack of time also plays a major role. In order to reduce low-value care, general practitioners suggested that educating patients on the value of tests and treatments might help. Supporting general practitioners and other healthcare professionals with clear guidelines as well as having more time for consultation were also mentioned by general practitioners.Conclusion: General practitioners are aware of providing unnecessary care despite their role as gatekeepers and have reasons for this. They need support in order to change their practice. This support might consist of better education of healthcare professionals and providing more time for consultation. Local and national media, such as websites and television, could be used to educate patients while guidelines could support professionals in reducing low-value care.