Savings from reducing low-value general surgical interventions

Much attention has been paid to the inappropriate underuse of tests and treatments but until recently little attention has focused on the overuse that does not add value for patients and may even cause harm. Choosing Wisely is a campaign to engage physicians and patients in conversations about unnecessary tests, treatments and procedures. The campaign began in the United States in 2012, in Canada in 2014 and now many countries around the world are adapting the campaign and implementing it. This article describes the present status of Choosing Wisely programs in 12 countries. It articulates key elements, a set of five principles, and describes the challenges countries face in the early phases of Choosing Wisely. These countries plan to continue collaboration including developing metrics to measure overuse.

Background Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed ‘related articles’ function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Results From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65 %) were original research with the majority (59 %) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption—the most frequently cited was “disinvest” (39 % of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50 %), followed by identifying low-value practices (47 %), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40 %). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16 % to 46 %, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41 %) that demonstrate harm (73 %) and/or lack of efficacy (63 %) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption. Conclusions This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0488-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acute cholecystitis is a common disease, and laparoscopic surgery is the standard of care. Optimal timing of surgery for acute cholecystitis remains controversial: either early surgery shortly after hospital admission or delayed elective surgery after a conservative treatment with antibiotics. The ACDC ("Acute Cholecystitis-early laparoscopic surgery versus antibiotic therapy and Delayed elective Cholecystectomy") study is a randomized, prospective, open-label, parallel group trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive immediate surgery within 24 hours of hospital admission (group ILC) or initial antibiotic treatment, followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy at days 7 to 45 (group DLC). For infection, all patients were treated with moxifloxacin for at least 48 hours. Primary endpoint was occurrence of predefined relevant morbidity within 75 days. Secondary endpoints were as follows: (1) 75-day morbidity using a scoring system; (2) conversion rate; (3) change of antibiotic therapy; (4) mortality; (5) costs; and (6) length of hospital stay. Morbidity rate was significantly lower in group ILC (304 patients) than in group DLC (314 patients): 11.8% versus 34.4%. Conversion rate to open surgery and mortality did not differ significantly between groups. Mean length of hospital stay (5.4 days vs 10.0 days; P < 0.001) and total hospital costs (€2919 vs €4262; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in group ILC. In this large, randomized trial, laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 24 hours of hospital admission was shown to be superior to the conservative approach concerning morbidity and costs. Therefore, we believe that immediate laparoscopic cholecystectomy should become therapy of choice for acute cholecystitis in operable patients. (NCT00447304).