In the era of evidence-based medicine (EBM), surgical care which no longer shows benefit or provides harm or provides marginal benefits at a disproportionately high cost is termed as Low Value Care (LVC). The term can be applied to diagnosis (including unwarranted secondary tests for incidental findings), treatment (adverse events, poor patient outcomes, and over-treatment), and system-level delivery of healthcare (inefficient use of resources threatening the sustainability of systems); 25–30% of total health care spending in USA is estimated to fall under this category [1]. Increasing awareness of health care economics and the need for value-based care has led to realization of this wastage, prompting initiatives such as the international ‘Choosing Wisely’ movement (starting from USA in 2012) and the UK NICE ‘do not do’ guidelines which work at achieving clinician consensus on what constitutes LVC and how its use can be reduced from everyday practice [2, 3]. The systemic process of identifying and reducing the use of LVC is labeled as de-implementation; aka de-adoption, de-escalation, de-commission, and scale-down etc.
What About Low Value Surgical Care?
Last decade has seen an increasing interest in this new science of de-implementation of LVC with many recommendations; however, publications on low value surgical care (LVSC) are scarce. Most of these have focused on de-implementation of radiological imaging and preoperative workups, with less than 5% of recommendations targeting low-value surgical procedures thereby missing out on a great opportunity [4]. Some of these recommendations include avoiding axillary lymph node dissection in clinically node negative axilla in Stage I and II Carcinoma breast without sentinel lymph node assessment, avoiding routine Cholecystectomy in asymptomatic cholelithiasis and possibility of active surveillance for low grade localized carcinoma prostate [4, 5]. It is clear that so much more can be done.
Importance of Reducing Low Value Surgical Care in Improving Health Equity
Value-based care delivery is relevant for all health systems, but it is of paramount importance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) given their resource constraints [6]. There is little research on de-implementation in LMICs but clearly a tremendous opportunity exists to weed out LVSC, avoid wasteful practices, and use the resultant significant savings to close the equity gaps in the delivery of high-quality surgical care [7, 8]. Evidence-based affordable solutions can easily replace those with disproportionately high cost and play an important role in this endeavor [9,10,11,12]. However, it must be ensured that idealistically pursued de-implementation efforts do not exacerbate existing inequities [13].
How to Go About De-Implementation?
An expert task force of multidisciplinary stakeholders including input from patient support groups, led by a clinical champion, systematically working with a framework-driven Delphi consensus process and based on EBM, examines a list of existing practices or guidelines, refines and reduces the long list to a short list, and selects and endorses a final list [14, 15]. Next stage is all about implementation science, i.e., identification of local context and priorities, identification of barriers to implementing and potential interventions to overcome these, rigorous evaluations of implementation programmes, spread of effective implementation programmes, and sustain the process [16,17,18]. Review of these at regular time intervals will ensure newer emerging evidence is given due weightage.
The process of de-implementation can be directed at the level of patients, surgeons, other health care workers, hospitals, insurance companies, and policy makers in an attempt to bring about the necessary changes [18]. Strategies include making regulations so that the right thing must be done; simplification by making the right choice the easiest; incentivization; substitution, where an older practice is replaced by an easier or simpler one; new evidence demonstrating a current practice is ineffective, or unsafe or has unjustifiable costs and market withdrawal of a product [18].
Current Status of De-Implementation of LVC and LVSC
Despite early enthusiasm for Choosing Wisely campaigns, desired changes on the ground are few and far in between; moreover, its complexities lead to lack of assessment tools for its impact, hard data, and well-defined targets [16, 19,20,21]. A close look at de-implementation challenges shows that these are not dissimilar to those studied in the implementation science.
Barriers and Facilitators for De-Implementation
In addition to unfamiliarity with this nascent science and complexities of the whole process, most frequently reported barriers are patient-related (lack of awareness, belief that more is better, demands, and preferences), provider-related (lack of awareness/conviction re: LVC, belief that their experience is better, lack of time for shared decision making, the number of tests recommended by specialists, malpractice concerns), health system-related (lack of leadership support, financial incentives to do more—irrespective of value, and resistance/restriction by insurance regulators), evidence-related (heterogeneous studies with imprecise measures and high risk of bias, low quality systematic reviews, lack of credible strong evidence to support de-implementation), or society-related (cultural norms or health policy) [6, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, it must be conceded that it is an evolving science with heterogeneous metrics and such scientific exercises take time [23, 28].
De-implementation works better when recommendations are easy to follow using multicomponent clinician-based interventions in academic research facilities and facilities with a high volume of patients [20, 22, 29]. It helps when de-implementation efforts are led by a clinical champion and tailored to the specific barriers, when the healthcare professionals are willing to change and collaborate, when the available evidence is strong and convincing, when auditing and feedback are included in the process, when grass-root level collaborators are involved in framing/disseminating of the guidelines and developing a decision support tool, and when a leveraging quality collaborative such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is available [13, 23, 25, 27, 30]. Rather than simply discontinuing a practice, replacing it with a better option may help to overcome behavioral inertia and motivate change [31].
The Way Forwards
Awareness of the new science of de-implementation is the first step to choose wisely as its knowledge can allow Surgeons to make comparisons across studies and identify LVSCs. Such evidence-based assessment may find three categories of surgical care: those with clear low value (need de-implementation), those with clear high value (need continuation), and those falling within the gray area between the two (need re-assessment and value-based decision-making at individual level). Importance of such optimization of resources cannot be overemphasized in LMICs given their resource constrains. In the Indian context choose wisely has already been implemented in Oncology by the National Cancer Grid and annual meetings are held on this [7]. This example can be followed, and a multifaceted road-map for India and other LMICs can be made where de-escalating of costs without affecting safety is the need of the hour. This can only begin when surgeons start combining the science of evidence-based surgical care with health care economics (cost-minimization, cost–benefit, and cost-effectiveness analysis). An effective beginning can be made by teaching this to undergraduate and postgraduate students so they are LVC savvy when they start working. A strong ethical foundation will allow them to resist the pressures of corporate health care to maximize revenues. Similarly, evidence base of innovative affordable surgical solutions should be sufficient to answer questions in the courts of law, should that unfortunate situation arises. It is a clarion call to all academic surgical societies to expand their leadership role into this nascent discipline of de-implementation and use it to choose wisely to further their commitment to value-based quality surgical care.
References
Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N (2019) Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA 322(15):1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.13978
https://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed on 19th Dec 2022
https://www.nice.org.uk/sharedlearning/nice-do-not-do-prompts. Accessed on 19th Dec 2022
Antunez AG, Telem DA, Dossett LA (2019) Assessment of surgical specialty societies’ choosing wisely recommendations. JAMA Surg 154(10):971–973. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2309
Shubeck SP, Morrow M, Dossett LA (2022) De-escalation in breast cancer surgery. NPJ Breast Cancer 8(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-022-00383-4
Rubagumya F, Sengar M, Ka S, Hammad N, Booth CM, Karim S (2022) Choosing wisely-barriers and solutions to implementation in low and middle-income countries. Curr Oncol 29(7):5091–5096. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29070403
Pramesh CS, Chaturvedi H, Reddy VA, Saikia T, Ghoshal S, Pandit M et al (2019) Choosing Wisely India: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care. Lancet Oncol 20(4):e218–e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30092-0
Rubagumya F, Mitera G, Ka S, Manirakiza A, Decuir P, Msadabwe SC et al (2020) Choosing Wisely Africa: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care. JCO Glob Oncol 6:1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.20.00255
Sharma D, Agarwal P, Agrawal V (2022) Surgical innovation in LMICs—the perspective from India. Surgeon 20(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.11.002. (Epub 2021 Dec 23 PMID: 34922838)
Yadav SK, Carpenter A, Rai R, Jha CK, Sharma D (2022) Low-cost vacuum assisted core needle biopsy technique for breast lumps. World J Surg 46(6):1445–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06475-3
Chavda J, Mishra A, Silodia A, Yadav SK, Sharma DB, Sharma D, Khandare M (2022) Validation sentinel lymph node biopsy study in cN0 axilla using low-cost dual dye technique: potential solution for resource poor settings. Breast Cancer Res Treat 193(1):105–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06556-w
Kumar Yadav S, Sharma D, Bala Sharma D, Mishra A, Agarwal P (2022) Low-cost solutions incorporated in a standard surgical pathway for early breast cancer: a pilot study. Trop Doct 25:494755221141932. https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755221141932
Alishahi Tabriz A, Turner K, Clary A, Hong YR, Nguyen OT, Wei G et al (2022) De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review. Implement Sci 17(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01197-5
Mitera G, Earle C, Latosinsky S, Booth C, Bezjak A, Desbiens C et al (2015) Choosing Wisely Canada cancer list: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care. J Oncol Pract 11(3):e296-303. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2015.004325
Sipilä R, Mäkelä M, Komulainen J (2019) Highlighting the need for de-implementation—Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 19(1):638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4460-z
Grimshaw JM, Patey AM, Kirkham KR, Hall A, Dowling SK, Rodondi N et al (2020) De-implementing wisely: developing the evidence base to reduce low-value care. BMJ Qual Saf 29(5):409–417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010060
Kroon D, van Dulmen SA, Westert GP, Jeurissen PPT, Kool RB (2022) Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 12(11):e062902. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062902
Pitt SC, Dossett LA (2022) Deimplementation of low-value care in surgery. JAMA Surg 157(11):977–978. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2343
Bhatia RS, Levinson W, Shortt S, Pendrith C, Fric-Shamji E, Kallewaard M et al (2015) Measuring the effect of Choosing Wisely: an integrated framework to assess campaign impact on low-value care. BMJ Qual Saf 24(8):523–531. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004070
Wang T, Bredbeck BC, Sinco B, Shubeck S, Baskin AS, Skolarus T, Dossett LA (2021) Variations in persistent use of low-value breast cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 156(4):353–362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6942
Parker G, Kastner M, Born K, Shahid N, Berta W (2022) Understanding low-value care and associated de-implementation processes: a qualitative study of Choosing Wisely Interventions across Canadian hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 22(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07485-6
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Kullgren JT, Fagerlin A, Klamerus ML, Bernstein SJ, Kerr EA (2017) Perceived barriers to implementing individual Choosing Wisely® recommendations in two national surveys of primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med 32(2):210–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3853-5
Admon AJ, Gupta A, Williams M, Valley TS, Sjoding MW, Wiener RS, et al (2018) Appraising the evidence supporting Choosing Wisely® recommendations. J Hosp Med 13(10):688–691. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2964
Norton WE, Chambers DA (2020) Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci 15(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9
Berlin NL, Skolarus TA, Kerr EA, Dossett LA (2020) Too much surgery: overcoming barriers to deimplementation of low-value surgery. Ann Surg 271(6):1020–1022. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003792
Moore L, Tardif PA, Lauzier F, Bérubé M, Archambault P, Lamontagne F et al (2020) Low-value clinical practices in adult traumatic brain injury: an umbrella review. J Neurotrauma 37(24):2605–2615. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2020.7044
Leigh JP, Sypes EE, Straus SE, Demiantschuk D, Ma H, Brundin-Mather R et al (2022) Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study. BMC Health Serv Res 22(1):450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07827-4
Moore L, Bérubé M, Tardif PA, Lauzier F, Turgeon A, Cameron P et al (2022) Low-value practices in trauma care expert consensus group. Quality indicators targeting low-value clinical practices in trauma care. JAMA Surg 157(6):507–514. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0812
Cliff BQ, Avanceña ALV, Hirth RA, Lee SD (2021) The impact of choosing wisely interventions on low-value medical services: a systematic review. Milbank Q 99(4):1024–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12531
Sharma D, Cotton M (2021) A call for glocal guidelines for global health. Trop Doct 51(3):285–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755211026510
Kulkarni SA, Leykum LK, Moriates C (2021) Deimplementation: discontinuing low-value, potentially harmful hospital care. J Hosp Med 16(1):63. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3563
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, D., Agarwal, P., Agrawal, V. et al. Low Value Surgical Care: Are We Choosing Wisely?. Indian J Surg 85, 1017–1019 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-03739-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-03739-7