Reduction in use of MRI and arthroscopy among patients with degenerative knee disease in independent treatment centers versus general hospitals: a time series analysis.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzae004
Laurien S Kuhrij, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Lisanne van Lier, Razia Alimahomed, Rob G H H Nelissen, Leti van Bodegom-Vos
{"title":"Reduction in use of MRI and arthroscopy among patients with degenerative knee disease in independent treatment centers versus general hospitals: a time series analysis.","authors":"Laurien S Kuhrij, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Lisanne van Lier, Razia Alimahomed, Rob G H H Nelissen, Leti van Bodegom-Vos","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of MRI and arthroscopy are considered low-value care in most patients with degenerative knee disease. To reduce these modalities, there have been multiple efforts to increase awareness. Reductions have been shown for general hospitals (GH), but it is unclear whether this may be partly explained by a shift of patients receiving these modalities in independent treatment centers (ITCs). The aims of this study were to assess (i) whether the trend in use of MRI and arthroscopy in patients with degenerative knee disease differs between ITCs and GH, and (ii) whether the Dutch efforts to raise awareness on these recommendations were associated with a change in the trend for both types of providers. All patients insured by a Dutch healthcare insurer aged ≥50 years with a degenerative knee disease who were treated in a GH or ITC between July 2014 and December 2019 were included. Linear regression was used with the quarterly percentage of patients receiving an MRI or knee arthroscopy weighted by center volume, as the primary outcome. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the Dutch efforts to raise awareness. A total of 14 702 patients included were treated in 90 GHs (n = 13 303, 90.5%) and 29 ITCs (n = 1399, 9.5%). Across the study period, ITCs on an average had a 16% higher MRI use (P < .001) and 9% higher arthroscopy use (P = .003). MRI use did not change in both provider types, but arthroscopy use significantly decreased and became stronger in ITCs (P = .01). The Dutch efforts to increase awareness did not significantly influence either MRI or arthroscopy use in ITCs (P = .55 and P = .84) and GHs (P = .13 and P = .70). MRI and arthroscopy uses were higher in ITCs than GHs. MRI use did not change significantly among patients ≥ 50 years with degenerative knee disease in both provider types between 2014 and 2019. MRI- and arthroscopy use decreased with ITCs on average having higher rates for both modalities, but also showing a stronger decrease in arthroscopy use. The Dutch efforts to increase awareness did not accelerate the already declining trend in the Netherlands.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10849166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of MRI and arthroscopy are considered low-value care in most patients with degenerative knee disease. To reduce these modalities, there have been multiple efforts to increase awareness. Reductions have been shown for general hospitals (GH), but it is unclear whether this may be partly explained by a shift of patients receiving these modalities in independent treatment centers (ITCs). The aims of this study were to assess (i) whether the trend in use of MRI and arthroscopy in patients with degenerative knee disease differs between ITCs and GH, and (ii) whether the Dutch efforts to raise awareness on these recommendations were associated with a change in the trend for both types of providers. All patients insured by a Dutch healthcare insurer aged ≥50 years with a degenerative knee disease who were treated in a GH or ITC between July 2014 and December 2019 were included. Linear regression was used with the quarterly percentage of patients receiving an MRI or knee arthroscopy weighted by center volume, as the primary outcome. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the Dutch efforts to raise awareness. A total of 14 702 patients included were treated in 90 GHs (n = 13 303, 90.5%) and 29 ITCs (n = 1399, 9.5%). Across the study period, ITCs on an average had a 16% higher MRI use (P < .001) and 9% higher arthroscopy use (P = .003). MRI use did not change in both provider types, but arthroscopy use significantly decreased and became stronger in ITCs (P = .01). The Dutch efforts to increase awareness did not significantly influence either MRI or arthroscopy use in ITCs (P = .55 and P = .84) and GHs (P = .13 and P = .70). MRI and arthroscopy uses were higher in ITCs than GHs. MRI use did not change significantly among patients ≥ 50 years with degenerative knee disease in both provider types between 2014 and 2019. MRI- and arthroscopy use decreased with ITCs on average having higher rates for both modalities, but also showing a stronger decrease in arthroscopy use. The Dutch efforts to increase awareness did not accelerate the already declining trend in the Netherlands.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独立治疗中心与综合医院相比,膝关节退行性疾病患者使用核磁共振成像和关节镜的减少情况--时间序列分析。
背景:在大多数膝关节退行性疾病患者中,核磁共振成像和关节镜被认为是低价值的治疗方法。为了减少这些方式的使用,人们一直在努力提高对它们的认识。综合医院(GH)的使用率有所下降,但尚不清楚其部分原因是否是由于在独立治疗中心(ITC)接受这些方式治疗的患者发生了转移。本研究的目的是评估:1.膝关节退行性疾病患者使用核磁共振成像和关节镜的趋势在ITC和GH之间是否存在差异;2.荷兰为提高对这些建议的认识所做的努力是否与这两类医疗机构的趋势变化有关:方法:纳入2014年7月至2019年12月期间在GH或ITC接受治疗的所有荷兰医疗保险公司投保的50岁及以上膝关节退行性疾病患者。采用线性回归法,以接受核磁共振成像或膝关节镜检查的患者的季度百分比(按中心数量加权)作为主要结果。采用间断时间序列分析来评估荷兰努力提高意识的效果:共有 14702 名患者接受了 90 家 GH(n=13303,90.5%)和 29 家 ITC(n=1399,9.5%)的治疗。在整个研究期间,ITC使用核磁共振成像的比例平均高出16%(p结论:在整个研究期间,ITC使用核磁共振成像的比例平均高出16%:ITC的核磁共振成像和关节镜使用率高于GH。2014年至2019年期间,两类医疗机构中年龄≥50岁的膝关节退行性疾病患者的核磁共振成像使用率没有明显变化。关节镜检查的使用率确实有所下降,ITC的两种检查方式的平均使用率都较高,但关节镜检查的使用率下降幅度更大。荷兰在提高认识方面所做的努力并没有加速荷兰已经出现的下降趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Examining the joint effect of clinical quality, meaningful use of HIT and patient-caregiver interaction on mortality rates in US acute care hospitals. Five-Year Analysis of Hospital Complaints at a Japanese Tertiary Teaching Hospital. Addressing the continuing challenges of developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Setting standards in residential aged care: identifying achievable benchmarks of care for long-term aged care services. The maturity of lean management in a large academic medical center in Finland: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1