Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results. RESULTS: Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

Effects of task shifting from primary care physicians to nurses: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Task-shifting from primary care physicians (PCPs) to nurses is one option to better and more efficiently meet the needs of the population in primary care and to overcome PCP shortages. This protocol outlines an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effects of delegation or substitution by nurses of PCPs' activities regarding clinical, patient-relevant, professional and health services-related outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic literature search for secondary literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and Health Technology Assessments in German and English comprising randomised controlled trials and prospective controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. Search terms will include Medical Subject Headings combined with free text words. At least one-third of abstracts and full-text articles are reviewed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. We will only consider reviews if they include controlled trials, if the profession that substituted or delegated tasks was a nurse, if the profession of the control was a PCP, if the assessed intervention was the same in the intervention and control group and if the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire score is ≥5. The corrected covered area will be calculated to describe the degree of overlap of studies in the reviews included in the study. We will report the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The overview of secondary literature does not require the approval of an Ethics Committee and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183327.

Palliative Care Survey: Awareness, Knowledge and Views of the Styrian Population in Austria.

BACKGROUND: No population-based data on awareness and knowledge of palliative care currently exist in Austria. We therefore conducted a survey to determine the general awareness and knowledge of palliative care in Styria, a federal state in Austria. We also asked participants to imagine what services they would need as a patient or family member, where they themselves would like to receive such services, and what fears they imagined patients with a terminal illness would have. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey consisting of 18 questions that address several aspects of palliative care was carried out in the adult population of Styria, Austria, from October 2019 to March 2020. RESULTS: A total of 419 questionnaires were analyzed, whereby 70.3% of respondents had at least heard of palliative care. Of these, significantly more were female, had a university degree and were aged 50 to 64. The main goal of palliative care was chosen correctly by 67.1% of participants, with the proportion of correct answers increasing in line with education and reaching 82.0% among university graduates. Overall, 73.2% believed that the greatest need of terminally ill persons was a reduction in physical suffering, whereas the greatest perceived need of relatives was the availability of specialist care around the clock. About one-third believed that the greatest fear of palliative patients was that of death, which was chosen significantly more often by men than women. If terminally ill, some 39% of respondents would wish to be looked after at home by professional carers, and women and people that had completed high school chose this answer significantly more often. The most desired service that should be provided to patients and relatives was home pain management at 69.9%, followed by time off for family caregivers at 58.0%. This item was chosen significantly more often by women. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the care of severely ill patients at home, it would make sense to develop targeted information campaigns. These should also attempt to deliver targeted information to less informed groups of people, such as young, poorly educated men, in order to raise their awareness of the difficulties and challenges of providing care to terminally ill patients and thus increase the acceptance of support options.

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify key policy objectives by investigating the perception of important stakeholders and affected professionals concerning relevance and feasibility of a successful primary care (PC) reform. BACKGROUND: Since 2013, the Austrian PC system has been undergoing a reform process to establish multiprofessional primary care units. The reforms have various defined objectives and lack clear priorities. METHODS: After the definition and consensus-based selection of 12 policy objectives, a cross-sectional online survey on their relevance and feasibility was distributed via email and social media to PC and public health networks. The survey was conducted in the period from January to February 2020. Results were analyzed descriptively, and further, Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact Test was performed for group comparison regarding respondents' characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: In total, 169 questionnaires were completed. A total of 46.3% of the responders had more than 20 years of professional experience (female: 60.5%). A mandatory internship in general practice, vocational training for general practice, and a modern remuneration system were the three top-rated policy objectives regarding relevance. A mandatory internship in general practice, specialization in general practice, and coding of services and diagnosis were assessed as the most feasible objectives. The group comparisons regarding working field, years of professional experience, age, and sex did not show any meaningful results in the evaluation of relevance and feasibility. DISCUSSION: In the view of the study participants, easily obtainable objectives include adapting the duration and setting of internships for medical students, as well as mandatory vocational training for GP trainees. Further efforts are necessary to achieve complex objectives such as the adoption of a modern remuneration scheme and a comprehensive quality assurance program. Building capacity and creating team-oriented environments are also important aspects of a successful PC reform.

Facilitators and barriers in general practitioners' choice to work in primary care units in Austria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recent reforms in Austria have focused on establishing team-based care within multiprofessional primary care units, to enhance amongst others, the work attractiveness of general practice. Nearly 75% of qualified general practitioners are not working as contracted physicians with the social health insurance. This study aims to explore the facilitators of and barriers to non-contracted general practitioners to work in a primary care unit. METHODS: We conducted twelve semi-structured, problem-centered interviews among purposively sampled non-contracted general practitioners. To extract categories of facilitators and barriers for working in a primary care unit, transcribed interviews were inductively coded using qualitative content analysis. Subcategories were grouped into factors (facilitators and barriers) of thematic criteria and mapped on the macro-, meso-, micro-, and individual levels. RESULTS: We identified 41 categories, including 21 facilitators and 20 barriers. Most facilitators were located at the micro-level, while most barriers were located at the macro-level. Teamwork and associated conditions made primary care units attractive as workplaces and corresponded with individual demands. In contrast, system factors tended to reduce the attractiveness of working as a general practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted efforts are needed to address relevant factors at all of the levels mentioned above. These need to be carried out and consistently communicated by all stakeholders. Efforts to strengthen the holistic approach in primary care, like modern remuneration and patient steering mechanisms, are essential. Financial support, consulting services as well as training on entrepreneurship, management, leadership, and team-based care may help to reduce the risk and burden of founding and running a primary care unit.

Quality of chronic care in general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy: a comparative process of care intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators to assess the quality of primary care have only been applied on a national or regional level in European countries, and there have been no comparisons between regions of different countries. In the interventional pre-post-study "Improvement of Quality by Benchmarking - IQuaB" (level of evidence: 3), we aimed to improve and compare quality of process care in 57 participating general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy. METHODS: The intervention consisted of self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles. Quality indicators for eight common chronic diseases (e. g., diabetes) were extracted from the electronic health records in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Based on 19 quality indicators, a supra-regional quality score was calculated and compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A relatively weak baseline performance was identified in both regions. In all three assessments, the median quality score increased in both regions and was significantly higher in South Tyrol than in Salzburg. During the study period the median supra-regional quality score increased from 20.00 to 38.00 in the Salzburg sample and from 47.00 to 79.50 in the South Tyrolian sample. The differences between the two regions were significant at baseline and after intervention (2012: p=0.015, 2014: p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Despite data extraction challenges in Austria, we are convinced that our data highlight real differences in (processual) quality of care between the two regions. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons underlying the persisting differences between the two regions may include: (1) different functions in electronic health records, (2) benchmarking as an integral part of the electronic health record, (3) gate-keeping system and use of registration lists, (4) state-supported quality initiatives.