Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):196.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0747-7.

Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list

Joost Johan Godert Wammes  1 , M Elske van den Akker-van Marle  2 , Eva W Verkerk  3 , Simone A van Dulmen  3 , Gert P Westert  3 , Antoinette D I van Asselt  4   5 , R B Kool  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list

Joost Johan Godert Wammes et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: The term 'lower value services' concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted.

Methods: Dutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease.

Results: A total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted.

Conclusions: In this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them.

Keywords: Choosing Wisely; De-adoption; De-implementation; Disinvestment; Guideline; Low-value; Medical reversal; Waste.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Number of lower-value services per ICD10 group for Dutch guidelines and NICE do-not-do list
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Ranking results from Dutch guidelines (method 1)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Ranking results from Dutch guidelines (method 2)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Institute of Medicine. IOM definition of quality. 2001. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Global/News%20Announcements/Crossing-th.... Accessed 6 June 2016.
    1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.362. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.1000. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgan DJ, et al. Setting a research agenda for medical overuse. BMJ. 2015;351:h4534. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4534. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types