Physician Assessment and Feedback During Quality Circle to Reduce Low-Value Services in Outpatients: a Pre-Post Quality Improvement Study.

The impact of the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign is debated as recommendations alone may not modify physician behavior. The aim of this study was to assess whether behavioral interventions with physician assessment and feedback during quality circles (QCs) could reduce low-value services. Pre-post quality improvement intervention with a parallel comparison group involving outpatients followed in a Swiss-managed care network, including 700 general physicians (GPs) and 150,000 adult patients. Interventions included performance feedback about low-value activities and comparison with peers during QCs. We assessed individual physician behavior and healthcare use from laboratory and insurance claims files between August 1, 2016, and October 31, 2018. Main outcomes were the change in prescription of three low-value services 6 months before and 6 months after each intervention: measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prescription rates of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and statins. Among primary care practices, a QC intervention with physician feedback and peer comparison resulted in lower rates of PPI prescription (pre-post mean prescriptions per GP 25.5 ± 23.7 vs 22.9 ± 21.4, p value<0.01; coefficient of variation (Cov) 93.0% vs 91.0%, p=0.49), PSA measurement (6.5 ± 8.7 vs 5.3 ± 6.9 tests per GP, p<0.01; Cov 133.5% vs 130.7%, p=0.84), as well as statins (6.1 ± 6.8 vs 5.6 ± 5.4 prescriptions per GP, p<0.01; Cov 111.5% vs 96.4%, p=0.21). Changes in prescription of low-value services among GPs who did not attend QCs were not statistically significant over this time period. Our results demonstrate a modest but statistically significant effect of QCs with educative feedback in reducing low-value services in outpatients with low impact on coefficient of variation. Limiting overuse in medicine is very challenging and dedicated discussion and real-time review of actionable data may help

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dispensing in Outpatients: Comparison of Different Measurement Approaches.

This paper aims at comparing different approaches to measure potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) with routinely collected data on prescriptions, patient age institutionalization status (ie in nursing home or in the community). A secondary objective is to measure the rate and prevalence of PIM dispensing and to identify problematic practices in Switzerland. The studied population includes about 90,000 insured over 17 years old from a Swiss health maintenance organization in 2019 and 2020. We computed and compared the number of PIM per patient for Beers criteria, Priscus list, Laroche, NORGEP and Prescrire approaches. We also created a composite indicator that accounts for the specificities of the Swiss context (adaptation to the Swiss drugs' market, recommendations in force related to sleeping pills, anxiolytics and NSAIDs). We also stratified the analysis per physician, including initiation and cessation of PIM prescription. Our comparison revealed similarities between the approaches, but also that each of them had specific gaps that provides further motivation for the development of a composite approach. PIM rate was particularly high for sleeping pills, anxiolytics, NSAIDs, even when analyses were limited to chronic use. Drugs with anticholinergic effect were also frequently prescribed. Based on our composite indicator, 27% of insured over 64 years old received at least one PIM in 2020, and 8% received more than one. Our analyses also reveal that for sleeping pills and anxiolytics, half of the volume (or prevalence?) occurs in the <65 population. We observed strong variations between physicians and a significant proportion of new users among patients with PIM. Our results show that PIMs prescribing is very frequent in Switzerland and is driven mostly by a few drug categories. There is important physician variation in PIM prescribing that warrants the development of intervention targeted at high PIM-prescribers

Recherche scientifique en médecine de famille: expériences, barrières et besoins des praticiens [Scientific research in family medicine: practitioners' experience, barriers and needs].

Scientific data from family medicine are relevant for the majority of the population. They are therefore essential from an ethical and public health perspective. We need to promote quality research in family medicine despite methodological, financial and logistic barriers. To highlight the strengths and weaknesses of research in family medicine in the French-speaking part of Switzerland we asked practitioners from this region to share their experience, critics and needs in relation to research. This article summarizes their contribution in light of the international literature