Why Not? Persuading Clinicians to Reduce Overuse.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore how best to deimplement nonrecommended medical services, which can result in excess costs and patient harm.MethodsWe conducted telephone interviews with 15 providers at 3 health systems from June 19 to November 21, 2017. Using the case of nonrecommended imaging in patients with cancer, participants assessed the potential for 7 rationales or “arguments,” each characterizing overuse in terms of a single problem type (cost or quality) and affected stakeholder group (clinicians, institutions, society, or patients), to convince colleagues to change their practices. We tested rationales for all problem-stakeholder combinations appearing in prior deimplementation studies.ResultsParticipants’ views varied widely. Relatively few found cost arguments powerful, except for patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Participants were divided on institution-quality and clinician-quality rationales. Patient-quality rationales resonated strongly with nearly all participants. However, a “yes, but” phenomenon emerged: after initially expressing strong support for a rationale, participants often undercut it with denials or rationalizations.ConclusionDeimplementation efforts should combine multiple rationales appealing to clinicians’ diverse perspectives and priorities. In addition, efforts must consider the complex cognitive dynamics that can undercut data and reasoned argumentation.