Reducing Low-value Care for Trauma Admissions
- Conditions
- Trauma Injury
- Interventions
- Behavioral: Audit & feedback with educational outreach and facilitationBehavioral: Simple audit & feedback (usual practice)
- Registration Number
- NCT05744154
- Lead Sponsor
- Laval University
- Brief Summary
In Canada, injury leads to more potential years of life lost and to greater costs than heart and stroke diseases combined. Furthermore, more than 50% of patients hospitalised following injury do not receive optimal care, 20% of injury deaths are estimated to be preventable, and significant variations in injury mortality and morbidity have been observed across trauma centers in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Over the past decades, emphasis on adherence to evidence-based processes of care (rewards for doing more) and rapid innovation in imaging and therapeutic techniques has led to an exponential rise in unnecessary tests and procedures. Whole body computed tomography scan for single-system trauma is just one example. Low-value clinical practices, defined as "the common use of a particular intervention when the benefits don't justify the potential harm or cost" consume up to 30% of healthcare budgets. They expose patients to physical and psychological adverse events and put enormous pressure on healthcare budgets, thereby threatening accessible, universal health care. The objective of this research project is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices for injury admissions. The results of this study should directly lead to improvements in the health systems across Canada and elsewhere. Medium and long-term advantages include an increase in healthcare efficiency and effectiveness, a reduction in costs, an increase in the availability of resources for patients who need them and a reduction in adverse events for patients hospitalized following injury.
- Detailed Description
RATIONALE: While simple Audit \& Feedback (A\&F) has shown modest effectiveness for reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance linked to accreditation.
OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care.
METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Level I-III trauma centers in an inclusive Canadian trauma system (n=29) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A\&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The multifaceted intervention, developed using extensive background work and United Kingdom Medical Research Council guidelines for the Development of Complex Interventions, includes an A\&F report, educational materials, virtual educational meetings, and virtual facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be patient-level use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging for transfers, unintended consequences, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios.
IMPACT: This innovative, timely research project will advance knowledge on the incremental effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention over simple A\&F to de-implement low-value care. The intervention has a high probability of success because it targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. This intervention has the potential to reduce the adverse effects and indirect expenses of low-value trauma care for patients and families. It could also free up resources, reduce delays to care, and decrease healthcare professionals' workload, at a time of unprecedented strain on healthcare resources.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- NOT_YET_RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 29
All adult level I-III trauma centers in the Trauma Care Continuum of the province of Québec -
Level IV centers (patient volume too low)
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Audit & feedback with educational outreach and facilitation Audit & feedback with educational outreach and facilitation The intervention includes: 1) refinement with end users, 2) an A\&F report sent to local governing authorities presenting for each practice: performance compared to peers (simple A\&F), a summary message indicating if action is required and a list of potential actions, 3) educational materials (a clinical vignette; consequences of the practice; links to practice guidelines, clinical decision rules and shared decision-making tools; a case review tool), 4) virtual educational meetings with the local trauma Medical Director, trauma program manager and data analyst, and 5) two virtual facilitation visits 2 and 4 months after the transmission of the report to support committees in preparing their action plan. Simple audit & feedback Simple audit & feedback (usual practice) The control arm will receive the quality improvement intervention currently in place in the Québec Trauma Care Continuum (i.e. simple A\&F report presenting their performance compared to peers on quality indicators measuring adherence to high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes) with the addition of quality indicators on low-value care (already planned by provincial authorities for the 2023 evaluation cycle). Simple A\&F was chosen for the control because it is standard practice in Québec and in most integrated trauma systems and the effectiveness of A\&F for de-implementation has been documented.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Low-value initial diagnostic imaging 18-month interval (6 to 24 months) after implementation Proportion of low-risk patients who receive head, cervical spine or whole-body computed tomography in the emergency department
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Repeat post-transfer imaging 18-month interval (6 to 24 months) after implementation Proportion of patients with imaging in referral center with no disease progression who are re-imaged in receiving center following transfer
Low-value specialist consultation 18-month interval (6 to 24 months) after implementation Proportion of low-risk patients who receive neurosurgical or spine surgery consultation
Pre-transfer imaging 18-month interval (6 to 24 months) after implementation Proportion of patients with a clear indication to transfer who receive imaging in referral center
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Université Laval
🇨🇦Québec, Quebec, Canada