Overuse of unnecessary care is widespread around the world. This so-called low-value care provides no benefit for the patient, wastes resources and can cause harm. The concept of low-value care is broad and there are different reasons for care to be of low-value. Hence, different strategies might be necessary to reduce it and awareness of this may help in designing a de-implementation strategy. Based on a literature scan and discussions with experts, we identified three types of low-value care. The type ineffective care is proven ineffective, such as antibiotics for a viral infection. Inefficient care is in essence effective, but is of low-value through inefficient provision or inappropriate intensity, such as chronic benzodiazepine use. Unwanted care is in essence appropriate for the clinical condition it targets, but is low-value since it does not fit the patients’ preferences, such as a treatment aimed to cure a patient that prefers palliative care. In this paper, we argue that these three types differ in their most promising strategy for de-implementation and that our typology gives direction in choosing whether to limit, lean or listen. We developed a typology that provides insight in the different reasons for care to be of low-value. We believe that this typology is helpful in designing a tailor-made strategy for reducing low-value care.

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.

Background: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries. Methods: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a ‘more is better’ culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy. Conclusion: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care.

The term ‘lower value services’ concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted. Dutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease. A total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted. In this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them.

Background Reducing the overuse of care that is proven to be of low value increases the quality and safety of care. We aimed to identify lessons for reducing low-value care by looking at: (1) The effects of eight de-implementation projects. (2) The barriers and facilitators that emerged. (3) The experiences with the different components of the projects. Methods We performed a process evaluation of eight multicentre projects aimed at reducing low-value care. We reported the quantitative outcomes of the eight projects on the volume of low-value care and performed a qualitative analysis of the project teams’ experiences and evaluations. A total of 40 hospitals and 198 general practitioners participated. Results Five out of eight projects resulted in a reduction of low-value care, ranging from 11.4% to 61.3%. The remaining three projects showed no effect. Six projects monitored balancing measures and observed no negative consequences of their strategy. The most important barriers were a lack of time, an inability to reassure the patient, a desire to meet the patient’s wishes, financial considerations and a discomfort with uncertainty. The most important facilitators were support among clinicians, knowledge of the harms of low-value care and a growing consciousness that more is not always better. Repeated education and feedback for clinicians, patient information material and organisational changes were valued components of the strategy. Conclusions Successfully reducing low-value care is possible in spite of the powerful barriers that oppose it. The projects managed to recruit many hospitals and general practices, with five of them achieving significant results without measuring negative consequences. Based on our findings, we offer practical recommendations for successfully reducing low-value care.