28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Health systems are currently subject to unprecedented financial strains. Inappropriate test use wastes finite health resources (overuse) and delays diagnoses and treatment (underuse). As most patient care is provided in primary care, it represents an ideal setting to mitigate waste.

          Objective

          To identify overuse and underuse of diagnostic tests in primary care.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources and eligibility criteria

          We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1999 to October 2017 for studies that measured the inappropriateness of any diagnostic test (measured against a national or international guideline) ordered for adult patients in primary care.

          Results

          We included 357 171 patients from 63 studies in 15 countries. We extracted 103 measures of inappropriateness (41 underuse and 62 overuse) from included studies for 47 different diagnostic tests.

          The overall rate of inappropriate diagnostic test ordering varied substantially (0.2%–100%)%).

          17 tests were underused >50% of the time. Of these, echocardiography (n=4 measures) was consistently underused (between 54% and 89%, n=4). There was large variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests (38%–78%, n=8).

          Eleven tests were inappropriately overused >50% of the time. Echocardiography was consistently overused (77%–92%), whereas inappropriate overuse of urinary cultures, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy varied widely, from 36% to 77% (n=3), 10%–54% (n=10) and 8%–52% (n=2), respectively.

          Conclusions

          There is marked variation in the appropriate use of diagnostic tests in primary care. Specifically, the use of echocardiography (both underuse and overuse) is consistently poor. There is substantial variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests and the overuse of upper endoscopy, urinary cultures and colonoscopy.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42016048832.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.

          Although interest in clinical guidelines has never been greater, uncertainty persists about whether they are effective. The debate has been hampered by the lack of a rigorous overview. We have identified 59 published evaluations of clinical guidelines that met defined criteria for scientific rigour; 24 investigated guidelines for specific clinical conditions, 27 studied preventive care, and 8 looked at guidelines for prescribing or for support services. All but 4 of these studies detected significant improvements in the process of care after the introduction of guidelines and all but 2 of the 11 studies that assessed the outcome of care reported significant improvements. We conclude that explicit guidelines do improve clinical practice, when introduced in the context of rigorous evaluations. However, the size of the improvements in performance varied considerably.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

            Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting. To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention. Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting. 4 malpractice insurance companies. Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4). Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate. Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal.

              There is increasing concern about the quality, reliability, and independence of practice guidelines. Because no information is available on the methodological quality of the guidelines developed by specialty societies, we undertook a survey on those published in peer-reviewed journals. Practice guidelines produced by specialty societies and published in English between January, 1988, and July, 1998, where identified through MEDLINE. Their quality was assessed in terms of whether they reported: the type of professionals and stakeholders involved in the development process; the strategy to identify primary evidence; and an explicit grading of recommendations according to the quality of supporting evidence. Overall, 431 guidelines were eligible for the study. Most did not meet the criteria: 67% did not report any description of the type of stakeholders, 88% gave no information on searches for published studies, and 82% did not give any explicit grading of the strength of recommendations. There was improvement over time for searches (from 2% to 18%, p<0.001) and explicit grading of evidence (from 6% to 27%, p<0.001). All three criteria for quality were met in only 22 (5%) guidelines. Despite improvement over time, the quality of practice guidelines developed by specialty societies is unsatisfactory. Explicit methodological criteria for the production of guidelines shared among public agencies, scientific societies, and patients' associations need to be set up. Common standards of reporting, following the same principles that led to the CONSORT statement for randomised clinical trials, should be promoted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2018
                11 February 2018
                : 8
                : 2
                : e018557
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Science , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [2 ] departmentBodleian Health Care Libraries , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Jack W O’Sullivan; jack.osullivan@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-018557
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018557
                5829845
                29440142
                0a65862c-c12f-422f-9c0c-05560e40121c
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 06 July 2017
                : 12 December 2017
                : 13 December 2017
                Categories
                Epidemiology
                Research
                1506
                1692
                655
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                epidemiology,quality in health care
                Medicine
                epidemiology, quality in health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article