Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34153558›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2021

A Health Systems Ethical Framework for De-implementation in Health Care.

Alison S Baskin, Ton Wang, Jacquelyn Miller, Reshma Jagsi, Eve A Kerr, Lesly A Dossett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alison S BaskinUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ton WangCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jacquelyn MillerCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Ann Arbor, MI.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Eve A KerrDepartment of Internal Medicine , Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lesly A DossettCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: ldossett@med.umich.edu.

Funding

University of Michigan Surgical Oncology Research Training ProgramT32CA009672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JACQUELINE SARA JERUSS, WEIPING ZOU · 1991 to 2026
$6.0M
Error Identification Between Health Systems—A Patient Safety Blind SpotK08HS026030 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DOSSETT, LESLY A · 2018 to 2021
$604k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS026030NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnnecessary health care not only drive up costs, but also contribute to avoidable patient harms, underscoring an ethical obligation to eliminate practices which are harmful, lack evidence, and prevent spending on more beneficial services. To date, de-implementation ethics discussions have been limited and focused on clinical ethics principles. An analysis of de-implementation ethics in the broader context of the health care system is lacking.

methodsTo better understand the ethical considerations of de-implementation, recognizing it as a health care systems issue, we applied Krubiner and Hyder's bioethical framework for health systems activity. We examine ethics principles relevant to de-implementation, which either call for or facilitate the reduction of low value surgery. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: From 11 health systems principles proposed by Krubiner and Hyder, we identified the 5 principles most pertinent to the topic of de-implementation: evidence and effectiveness, transparency and public engagement, efficiency, responsiveness, and collaboration. An analysis of de-implementation through the lens of these principles not only supports de-implementation but proves an obligation at the health system level to eliminate low value care. Recognizing the challenge of defining "value," the proposed framework may increase the legitimacy and objectivity of de-implementation.

conclusionsWhile there is no single ideal ethical framework from which to approach de-implementation, a health systems framework allows for consideration of the systems-level factors impacting de-implementation. Framing de-implementation as a health systems issue with systems-wide ethical implications empowers providers to think about new ways to approach potential roadblocks to reducing low-value care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareMoralsHumansDe-implementationEthical frameworkEthicsHealth systemsLow value careSystems-level

Identifiers

PMID34153558
PMCPMC8678146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.