Bad medicine: it’s not us, it’s the other lot, they say. So who do we believe?

Proudly supported by

  Last updated November 15, 2019 at 3:34 pm

Topics:  

Professional societies of doctors, surgeons or physiotherapists are more likely to criticise healthcare provided by others, research shows.


healthcare_surgeons_surgery




Why This Matters: Even professional societies aren’t immune to finger-pointing.




Patients might not be getting the best advice about which treatments do or don’t work, according to a new study. We found professional societies are more likely to call out other health professionals for providing low-value treatments rather than look in their own backyard.


Our study in BMC Health Services Research looked into recommendations under the global Choosing Wisely public health campaign. We found professional societies are reluctant to publish recommendations against healthcare and procedures that generate income for their members.


But they are much more comfortable at recommending against treatments that generate income for members of other professional societies.


How does the Choosing Wisely campaign work?


Choosing Wisely aims to reduce the use of medical tests, treatments and procedures that provide little-to-no benefit, or in some cases can harm.


It then recommends patients question their doctors about whether these so-called low-value tests, treatments or procedures are necessary.




To take part in the Choosing Wisely campaign, professional societies publish recommendations relevant to their members.


For example, a surgical society could list a surgical procedure of questionable effectiveness. A physiotherapy society could also list a poorly justified physiotherapy treatment. This ensures recommendations raise awareness of low-value care among the practitioners most likely to provide this care.


However, an ongoing concern is whether professional societies focus on low-value healthcare provided by their members or whether they tend to make recommendations for care provided by others, outside their own society.


Many low-value tests, treatments and procedures also generate substantial income for the practitioner who provides them. So societies might be reluctant to recommend against or “call out” these examples of low-value care because of fear of affecting their members’ bottom line.


What did we do?


To investigate these concerns, we evaluated all Choosing Wisely recommendations worldwide since the campaign began in 2012.




Also: Cost of asthma treatments means many Australians go without




We reviewed 1,293 recommendations from eight countries, including Australia, to investigate the proportion of recommendations that target income-generating treatments. We also investigated whether recommendations on income-generating treatments were more likely to come from societies involved, or not involved, in providing this care.


Treatments or procedures that attract a fee-for-service and are performed outside a routine encounter with a practitioner were considered income-generating for the practitioner performing the treatment. Examples included arthroscopic surgery of the knee and shoulder, cesarean section, removing a breast lump and radiotherapy.


healthcare_medical care_radiotherapy

Radiotherapy was one of the treatments counted as income-generating, as part of our study. from www.shutterstock.com


We then examined each recommendation and determined whether the society making the recommendation was targeting a treatment routinely provided by members of their society or members of another society.


There were over 230 professional societies with Choosing Wisely recommendations across medicine, surgery, diagnostic testing and allied health. Examples of professional societies from Australia included the: Royal Australian College of General PractitionersRoyal Australasian College of SurgeonsAustralian Physiotherapy Association; and Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia.


Here’s what we found


Overall, we found only 20% of Choosing Wisely recommendations target income-generating treatments. But more importantly, of these recommendations, most target treatments provided by practitioners that are not members of the society making the recommendation.


For example, the Australian Rheumatology Association recommends against arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis, a surgical intervention that rheumatologists don’t perform (this is generally carried out by orthopaedic surgeons):


“Do not perform arthroscopy with lavage and/or debridement or partial meniscectomy for patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee and/or degenerate meniscal tear.”


Meanwhile, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, whose members perform arthroscopy, doesn’t recommend against the procedure. Instead, it points the finger at clinicians who routinely provide insoles:


“Don’t use lateral wedge insoles to treat patients with symptomatic medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.”


Why does it matter?


Choosing Wisely aims to reduce waste in healthcare. But when societies mainly look for waste in fields other than their own, their recommendations are likely to have less impact.




Also: Mental healthcare in Australia is fundamentally flawed, say researchers




To illustrate this, eight societies of orthopaedic surgeons have collectively published 48 Choosing Wisely recommendations. But only nine of these recommendations target low-value surgery routinely performed by orthopaedic surgeons. Most of these are from the Netherlands Orthopaedic Association (five out of nine recommendations).


By shying away from publishing recommendations that target ineffective and expensive interventions performed by their own members, professional societies are not acting in line with the spirit of the campaign.


Choosing Wisely could have a large impact on redirecting health-care spending from low-value care to recommended care, thereby improving the lives of millions. But for the campaign to realise its potential, ensuring future recommendations focus on the care provided by members of the society making the recommendation is a good place to start.


This article was co-authored by Joshua Zadro from the University of Sydney and Christopher Maher from the Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney. 


This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here


More Like This


Are we really ready to take advantage of AI in healthcare


Do we need better care in our dying days?




About the Author

Ian Harris
Ian Harris is Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at UNSW. He is a practicing orthopaedic surgeon specialising in trauma surgery and lectures nationally and internationally on the orthopaedic treatment of fractures. He also directs a research unit specialising in surgical outcomes and the evidence base for surgery.

Published By

Featured Videos

Placeholder
Big Questions: Cancer
Placeholder
A future of nanobots in 180 seconds
Placeholder
Multi-user VR opens new worlds for medical research
Placeholder
Precision atom qubits achieve major quantum computing milestone
Placeholder
World's first complete design of a silicon quantum computer chip
Placeholder
Micro-factories - turning the world's waste burden into economic opportunities
Placeholder
Flip-flop qubits: a whole new quantum computing architecture
Placeholder
Ancient Babylonian tablet - world's first trig table
Placeholder
Life on Earth - and Mars?
Placeholder
“Desirable defects: Nano-scale structures of piezoelectrics” – Patrick Tung
Placeholder
Keeping Your Phone Safe from Hackers
Placeholder
Thru Fuze - a revolution in chronic back pain treatment (2015)
Placeholder
Breakthrough for stem cell therapies (2016)
Placeholder
The fortune contained in your mobile phone
Placeholder
Underwater With Emma Johnston
Placeholder
Flip-flop qubits: a whole new quantum computing architecture
Placeholder
The “Dressed Qubit” - breakthrough in quantum state stability (2016)
Placeholder
Pinpointing qubits in a silicon quantum computer (2016)
Placeholder
How to build a quantum computer in silicon (2015)
Placeholder
Quantum computer coding in silicon now possible (2015)
Placeholder
Crucial hurdle overcome for quantum computing (2015)
Placeholder
New world record for silicon quantum computing (2014)
Placeholder
Quantum data at the atom's heart (2013)
Placeholder
Towards a quantum internet (2013)
Placeholder
Single-atom transistor (2012)
Placeholder
Down to the Wire (2012)
Placeholder
Landmark in quantum computing (2012)
Placeholder
1. How Quantum Computers Will Change Our World
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – What will a quantum computer do?
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – Quantum Hardware
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – Quantum Algorithms
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – Quantum Logic
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – Entanglement
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts - Quantum Measurement
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts – Spin
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts - Quantum Bits
Placeholder
Quantum Computing Concepts - Binary Logic
Placeholder
Rose Amal - Sustainable fuels from the Sun
Placeholder
Veena Sahajwalla - The E-Waste Alchemist
Placeholder
Katharina Gaus - Extreme Close-up on Immunity
Placeholder
In her element - Professor Emma Johnston
Placeholder
Martina Stenzel - Targeting Tumours with Tiny Assassins
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Why are we all athletes?
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Megafauna murder mystery
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Why are we so hairy?
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Why grannies matter
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Why do only humans experience puberty?
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Evolution of the backside
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Why we use symbols
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Evolutionary MasterChefs
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - The Paleo Diet fad
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Are races real?
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Are We Still Evolving?
Placeholder
How Did We Get Here? - Dangly Bits
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: Climate Migrants
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: De-Extinction
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: Nuclear Disasters
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: Storm Surges
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: How the Japan tsunami changed science
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: How the World Trade Centre collapsed
Placeholder
Catastrophic Science: Bushfires