A nudge towards increased experimentation to more rapidly improve healthcare

Allison H. Oakes, Mitesh S. Patel
{"title":"A nudge towards increased experimentation to more rapidly improve healthcare","authors":"Allison H. Oakes, Mitesh S. Patel","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In any healthcare setting, the quality of care depends on the effectiveness of a given treatment, and on the way that the treatment is delivered. The complexities of modern healthcare have created gaps in our ability to consistently deliver the most effective and efficient care. As a result, significant undertreatment and overtreatment co-occur.1–3 This reality has led diverse stakeholders to overhaul the environment, context and systems in which healthcare professionals practice. However, while well intentioned, most ‘advances’ in healthcare delivery rely on untested or poorly tested interventions.4 5 This means that effective interventions don’t scale as fast as they should and that ineffective interventions persist despite providing no benefit. The current status quo presents an opportunity improve the delivery of care through a more systematic approach.\n\nSuccessful innovation requires experimentation. Embedded research teams around the world have started to systematically test the impact of using subtle changes to the way information is framed or choices are offered to nudge medical decision making.6 7 The trial by Schmidtke demonstrates the feasibility and necessity of rapid-cycle, randomised testing within a healthcare system.8 The authors randomly assigned 7540 front-line staff to either receive a standard letter reminding them of influenza vaccination or one of three letters that used insights from behavioural economics to try and better nudge healthcare workers through different ways of framing social norms. Despite this effort, they found that all four arms had the same vaccination rate of 43%, meaning none of the social norm interventions led to meaningful changes in behaviour. All too often, policies and programmes that ‘make sense’ have been implemented without any kind of formal evaluation. In the Schmidtke trial, however, the rigorous study design allowed researchers to quickly and decisively conclude that the social norms letters were no better than a …","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"179 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009948","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009948","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In any healthcare setting, the quality of care depends on the effectiveness of a given treatment, and on the way that the treatment is delivered. The complexities of modern healthcare have created gaps in our ability to consistently deliver the most effective and efficient care. As a result, significant undertreatment and overtreatment co-occur.1–3 This reality has led diverse stakeholders to overhaul the environment, context and systems in which healthcare professionals practice. However, while well intentioned, most ‘advances’ in healthcare delivery rely on untested or poorly tested interventions.4 5 This means that effective interventions don’t scale as fast as they should and that ineffective interventions persist despite providing no benefit. The current status quo presents an opportunity improve the delivery of care through a more systematic approach. Successful innovation requires experimentation. Embedded research teams around the world have started to systematically test the impact of using subtle changes to the way information is framed or choices are offered to nudge medical decision making.6 7 The trial by Schmidtke demonstrates the feasibility and necessity of rapid-cycle, randomised testing within a healthcare system.8 The authors randomly assigned 7540 front-line staff to either receive a standard letter reminding them of influenza vaccination or one of three letters that used insights from behavioural economics to try and better nudge healthcare workers through different ways of framing social norms. Despite this effort, they found that all four arms had the same vaccination rate of 43%, meaning none of the social norm interventions led to meaningful changes in behaviour. All too often, policies and programmes that ‘make sense’ have been implemented without any kind of formal evaluation. In the Schmidtke trial, however, the rigorous study design allowed researchers to quickly and decisively conclude that the social norms letters were no better than a …
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
推动增加实验以更快地改善医疗保健
在任何医疗环境中,护理质量都取决于特定治疗的有效性和提供治疗的方式。现代医疗保健的复杂性在我们持续提供最有效和高效护理的能力方面造成了差距。因此,严重的治疗不足和过度治疗同时发生。1-3这一现实导致不同的利益相关者对医疗专业人员执业的环境、背景和系统进行了彻底改革。然而,尽管初衷是好的,但医疗保健服务的大多数“进步”都依赖于未经测试或测试不佳的干预措施。4.5这意味着有效的干预措施没有达到应有的速度,无效的干预措施尽管没有带来任何好处,但仍会持续存在。目前的现状为通过更系统的方法改善护理提供了机会。成功的创新需要实验。世界各地的嵌入式研究团队已经开始系统地测试使用细微的变化来构建信息或提供选择来推动医疗决策的影响。6.7 Schmidtke的试验证明了快速循环的可行性和必要性,医疗系统内的随机测试。8作者随机分配了7540名一线工作人员,他们要么收到一封提醒他们接种流感疫苗的标准信,要么收到三封利用行为经济学见解的信中的一封,试图更好地推动医护人员通过不同的方式制定社会规范。尽管做出了这一努力,但他们发现,所有四只手臂的疫苗接种率都相同,为43%,这意味着没有一种社会规范干预措施能导致行为发生有意义的变化。“有意义”的政策和方案往往是在没有任何形式的正式评估的情况下实施的。然而,在Schmidtke试验中,严格的研究设计使研究人员能够迅速而果断地得出结论,社会规范字母并不比…
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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