Low-value clinical practices in injury care: a scoping review and expert consultation survey

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of healthcare resources. Choosing Wisely and other organisations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a 5-point Likert scale from clearly low-value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low-value by at least one level I, II or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit and 5 in orthopaedics. We also identified 87 'grey zone' practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 'grey zone' practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step towards the de-implementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury : an umbrella review protocol

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to 50 000 deaths, 85 000 disabilities and costs $60 billion each year in the USA. Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of TBI have improved little over the last three decades. In a previous scoping review and expert consultation survey, we identified 13 potentially low-value clinical practices in acute TBI. The objective of this umbrella review is to synthesise the evidence on potentially low-value clinical practices in the care of acute TBI. Methods and analysis Using umbrella review methodology, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Epistemonikos, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and PubMed to identify systematic reviews evaluating the effect of potential intrahospital low-value practices using tailored population, intervention, comparator, outcome and study design questions based on the results of a previous scoping review. We will present data on the methodological quality of these reviews (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2), reported effect sizes and strength of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. Knowledge users from five healthcare quality organisations and clinical associations are involved in the design and conduct of the study. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at international scientific meetings and to clinical, healthcare quality and patient–partner associations. This work will support the development of metrics to measure the use of low-value practices, inform policy makers on potential targets for deimplementation and in the long term reduce the use of low-value clinical practices in acute TBI care

Internally coated endotracheal tubes with silver sulfadiazine in polyurethane to prevent bacterial colonization : a clinical trial

Objective: Coated medical devices have been shown to reduce catheter-related infections. We coated endotracheal tubes ( ETT) with silver sulfadiazine ( SSD), and tested them in a clinical study to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of preventing bacterial colonization. Design: A prospective, randomized clinical trial, phase I-II. Setting: Academic intensive care unit ( ICU). Participants: Forty-six adult patients expected to need 12-24 h of intubation were randomized into two groups. Interventions: Patients were randomized to be intubated with a standard non-coated ETT ( St-ETT, n = 23; control group), or with a SSD-coated ETT ( SSD-ETT, n = 23). Measurements and results: Coating with SSD prevented bacterial colonization of the ETT ( frequency of colonization: SSD-ETT 0/23, St-ETT 8/23; p < 0.01). No organized bacterial biofilm could be identified on the lumen of any ETT; however, SSD was associated with a thinner mucus layer ( in the SSD-ETT secretion deposits ranged from 0 to 200 mu m; in the St-ETT deposits ranged between 50 and 700 mu m). No difference was observed between the two groups in the tracheobronchial brush samples ( frequency of colonization: SSD-ETT 0/23, St-ETT 2/23; p = 0.48). No adverse reactions were observed with the implementation of the novel device. Conclusion: SSD-ETT can be safely used in preventing bacterial colonization and narrowing of the ETT in patients intubated for up to 24 h ( mean intubation time 16 h)

Implementation and Evaluation of a Wiki Involving Multiple Stakeholders Including Patients in the Promotion of Best Practices in Trauma Care: The WikiTrauma Interrupted Time Series Protocol

Contains fulltext : 152344.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Trauma is the most common cause of mortality among people between the ages of 1 and 45 years, costing Canadians 19.8 billion dollars a year (2004 data), yet half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive evidence-based care, and significant regional variation in the quality of care across Canada exists. Accordingly, our goal is to lead a research project in which stakeholders themselves will adapt evidence-based trauma care knowledge tools to their own varied institutional contexts and cultures. We will do this by developing and assessing the combined impact of WikiTrauma, a free collaborative database of clinical decision support tools, and Wiki101, a training course teaching participants how to use WikiTrauma. WikiTrauma has the potential to ensure that all stakeholders (eg, patients, clinicians, and decision makers) can all contribute to, and benefit from, evidence-based clinical knowledge about trauma care that is tailored to their own needs and clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective will be to study the combined effect of WikiTrauma and Wiki101 on the quality of care in four trauma centers in Quebec. METHODS: First, we will pilot-test the wiki with potential users to create a version ready to test in practice. A rapid, iterative prototyping process with 15 health professionals from nonparticipating centers will allow us to identify and resolve usability issues prior to finalizing the definitive version for the interrupted time series. Second, we will conduct an interrupted time series to measure the impact of our combined intervention on the quality of care in four trauma centers that will be selected-one level I, one level II, and two level III centers. Participants will be health care professionals working in the selected trauma centers. Also, five patient representatives will be recruited to participate in the creation of knowledge tools destined for their use (eg, handouts). All participants will be invited to complete the Wiki101 training and then use, and contribute to, WikiTrauma for 12 months. The primary outcome will be the change over time of a validated, composite, performance indicator score based on 15 process performance indicators found in the Quebec Trauma Registry. RESULTS: This project was funded in November 2014 by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. We expect to start this trial in early 2015 and preliminary results should be available in June 2016. Two trauma centers have already agreed to participate and two more will be recruited in the next months. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that this study will add important and unique evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and cost savings of using collaborative platforms to adapt knowledge implementation tools across jurisdictions