Low value care is a health hazard that calls for patient empowerment

To protect themselves from the potential harms of low value care, patients must take an active role in clinical decision making

Low value care is care that is ineffective, harmful or confers marginal benefit at disproportionately high cost.1 Professionally‐led campaigns such as Choosing Wisely Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ EVOLVE program aim to reduce the prevalence of such care. However, similar overseas campaigns have been marred by selective focus on infrequent, low impact, or less financially lucrative practices;2 uncertainty about the most effective de‐adoption strategies;3 and limited success to date in reducing overuse.4 While clinician‐targeted education programs, audit and feedback, and decision support feature prominently, evidence appears stronger and impact seems greater for strategies directed to, or mediated by, patients.5

Framing low value care as a health hazard for patients

Although clinicians accept responsibility for resource stewardship, they also believe their primary care obligation is to the individual patient, with costs being a secondary consideration.6 Most patients hold similar views, until out‐of‐pocket expenses become unaffordable.7

Reframing low value care as having negative consequences, not just “worth a go” or “better safe than sorry”, may incentivise patients, clinicians and policymakers to engage more in mitigation efforts.8 Negative consequences can arise directly from an episode of low value care, or indirectly from subsequent downstream care cascades, such as invasively investigating incidental but benign findings from a previous unnecessary investigation. Harms can be physical, psychological, social, financial and relational (mistrust). Even providing potentially beneficial care to patients who do not want it can cause harm, at least psychologically. Moreover, giving low value care to one individual may result in delayed delivery of high value care to another individual, who may then suffer preventable harm.

The burden of negative consequences

Recent studies have begun to quantify the negative consequences of different forms of low value care. A review of 54 case descriptions of 63 overused services revealed an average of 3.2 negative consequences per case, most (33/54, 61%) featuring an overuse cascade feedback loop.9 Reported harms (91 in total) comprised injury (69%), psychological harm (16%), treatment burden (9%), financial loss (3%), and dissatisfaction (2%).9

Recent care cascades were reported by 374 internists in the United States following incidental findings from tests that a third deemed clinically inappropriate but which led to a new invasive test (77.2% of instances), an emergency department visit (54.8%), or hospitalisation (50.6%).10 These caused patients physical (15.6%) or psychological harm (68.4%), financial loss (57.5%), social disruptions (8.7%), and dissatisfaction (27.6%).10

Seven low value procedures characterised 9330 admissions to 225 Australian hospitals, including endoscopy for dyspepsia or colonoscopy for constipation in young people, knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis or meniscal tears, and spinal fusion for uncomplicated low back pain.11 Between 0.2% and 15.0% of patients, depending on the procedure, developed one or more hospital‐acquired complications, most commonly infection (26.3% of instances), with a twofold or more increase in the median length of stay.11 Among 72 unnecessary admissions to one US hospital of low risk syncope patients, one in eight had an adverse event from tests and treatments.12

In a study of 405 695 individuals with new onset, non‐specific low back pain, those receiving lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 weeks, compared with matched controls without an early MRI, incurred significantly more surgery (1.48% v 0.12%), greater opioid use (35.1% v 28.6%), and worse pain scores (3.99 v 3.87).13Among 5057 individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules on chest x‐rays, those receiving intense diagnostic investigation versus guideline‐concordant care had more procedure‐related adverse events (8.1% absolute increase) and more radiation exposure, with no higher incidence of advanced cancer at 2 years’ follow‐up.14

In a study of 1488 hospitalised patients who received antibiotics for at least 24 hours, 287 (19%) of the antibiotic regimens were not indicated (eg, asymptomatic bacteriuria, aspiration pneumonitis, congestive heart failure), with 56 (20%) being associated with an adverse drug event, including seven cases of Clostridium difficile infection.15 Adding aspirin with no clear indication to 1107 of 3280 patients (33.8%) prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for confirmed indications was associated with more bleeding events (31.6 v 26.0 bleeding events per 100 patient years) and hospitalisations (9.1 v 6.5) than matched controls receiving direct oral anticoagulants only.16

The role of patients in reducing low value care

While clinicians often complain of patients demanding inappropriate care,7 many patients perceive the negative consequences of overuse,17 and interventions that empower patients to challenge such overuse are effective in decreasing it by 25–40%.18 In a review of 22 studies, 19 (86%) reported significant reductions in unnecessary use of antibiotics and benzodiazepines, Caesarean deliveries, elective labour inductions, surgery for knee and hip osteoarthritis, non‐beneficial intensive care treatments, computed tomography scans for mild head injury in children, cardiac stress testing in low risk adults, and routine screening tests (full blood counts, electrocardiograms).18 These empowerment interventions comprised patient‐oriented educational materials and shared decision‐making protocols, the latter having greater effect. In another study, encouraging patients to identify their health concerns before a clinical encounter, and increasing their knowledge about their condition and care options, also rendered clinician advice more concordant with best practice by 33–60%.19

However, successful engagement depends on several factors: motivation and ability of clinicians to engage patients in decision making; clinician knowledge of, and agreement with, what constitutes low value care; the clinical context; and availability of decision support resources for both parties within clinical workflows. Clinicians do not always attempt to facilitate patient involvement and may not adjust care to patient preferences.20 Such engagement is time‐consuming for clinicians and inadequately remunerated, impractical in emergency situations or for patients unable or unwilling to engage, and may incite patient anxiety or dissuade them from further consultations.

In response, evidence‐based strategies can overcome these barriers21 and reinforce patient perceptions of receiving optimal care and their desire to reconsult. More research needs to define the most effective mix of techniques for supporting patient engagement (eg, educating clinicians on communication techniques, deploying multidisciplinary teams, using trained decision coaches and patient decision aids), and their effects on consultation time and costs.22 Whether such engagement, by specifically reducing low value care, actually improves patient health remains uncertain, although its absence predisposes to worse clinical outcomes, lower quality care and increased health care utilisation.23

Empowering patients to engage in reducing low value care

Many patients refrain from participating in discussions aimed at avoiding overuse because of a power asymmetry wherein they sense the need to seek clinician permission to discuss their options, feel they have insufficient knowledge to ask pertinent questions or understand the jargon (“doctor knows best”), and fear repercussions from being seen to challenge clinician credibility (desire to be a good patient). Alternatively, patients may want to avoid responsibility for making a wrong decision they will later regret, or feel unable to participate because of illness symptoms, cognitive impairment, language or cultural barriers, or need for emergency or intensive care.17

Nevertheless, clinicians must avoid making false assumptions about how much a patient desires involvement in decision making. Methods are needed for identifying which patients, encounters and clinicians need more support to enact the most appropriate form of shared decision making. Patients usually desire a more active role when the matter is serious, invasive interventions are being considered, or if significant out‐of‐pocket costs, lengthy time off work, or interruptions to social activities may be incurred. Younger patients, women and those with higher educational and socio‐economic status are more likely to participate.24 Greater engagement and less overuse are seen within long term clinician–patient relationships characterised by mutual trust and continuity of care,25 and where public messaging within practice environments encourages and legitimates engagement.26

Patients can be trained to ask questions, and adult learning programs can assist those with low health literacy.27 Choosing Wisely Australia (www.choosingwisely.org.au) and other organisations28 provide conversation starter patient resources; other sources provide topic‐specific lists of questions (eg, www.prosdex.com for prostate‐specific cancer antigen testing, and www.bresdex.com for breast cancer surgery). Decision aids, option grids and fact boxes can also assist.

As a minimum, patients should be encouraged to ask these questions:

• Is there a decision we need to make? In urgent situations, clinicians may need to reach out and not wait for patients to ask.
• What are my options? All clinically viable options should be presented, including doing nothing.
• What are potential benefits and harms of each option? Where possible, these should be expressed using natural numbers (eg, four out of 100 people like you will experience a stroke every year; this treatment will reduce that to two out of 100, although one person of 100 will have a significant bleeding event).
• How will each option affect me in terms of what I consider important? Patients may want to know costs involved, duration of inability to work or perform social activities, skill and place of those performing a procedure.

Consumer organisations should be resourced to run community education campaigns focused on engagement, while clinicians must be educated about the benefits of patient engagement and receive the tools, time and remuneration to support it within busy work schedules.

Conclusion

Efforts to increase patient empowerment in decision making should be seen as foundational for reducing low value care, and should underpin all other strategies targeting clinicians, payers and policymakers.