内容精选
Content Selection
《英国医学杂志》 研究文章
The BMJ Research
De-adoption and exnovation in the use of carotid revascularization: retrospective cohort study [放弃/减少颈内血管重建术的使用:回顾性队列研究]
- 分享:
BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4695 (Published 26 October 2017)
Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j4695
Authors
Kimon Bekelis, Jonathan Skinner, Daniel Gottlieb, Philip Goodney
Abstract
Objective To determine physician characteristics associated with exnovation (scaling back on use) and de-adoption (abandoning use) of carotid revascularization.
Design Retrospective longitudinal cohort study.
Setting Medicare claims linked to the Doximity database provider registry, 2006-13.
Participants 9158 physicians who performed carotid revascularization on Medicare patients between 2006 and 2013.
Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were the number of carotid revascularization procedures for each physician per year at the end of the sample period, and the percentage change in the volume of carotid revascularization procedures.
Results At baseline (2006-07), 9158 physicians performed carotid revascularization. By 2012-13 the use of revascularization in this cohort had declined by 37.7%, with two thirds attributable to scaling back (exnovation) rather than dropping the procedure entirely (de-adoption). Compared with physicians with fewer than 12 years of experience, those with more than 25 years of experience decreased use by an additional 23.0% (95% confidence interval −36.7% to −9.2%). The lowest rates of decline occurred in physicians specializing in vascular or thoracic surgery, for whom the procedures accounted for a large share of revenue. Physicians with high proportions of patients aged more than 80 years or with asymptomatic carotid stenosis were less likely to reduce their use of carotid revascularization.
Conclusion Surgeons with more experience and the lowest share in carotid revascularization practice reduced their use of the procedure the most. These practice factors should be considered in quality improvement efforts when the evidence base evolves away from a specific treatment.