In the early 1990s claims were made that in all areas of health care, “30-40% of patients do not receive treatments of proven effectiveness”, and, “20-25% of patients have treatments that are unnecessary or potentially harmful”. Many such practices were diffused prior to the acceptance of modern evidence-based standards of clinical- and cost-effectiveness. I define disinvestment in the context of health care as the processes of withdrawing (partially or completely) resources from any existing health care practices, procedures, technologies or pharmaceuticals that are deemed to deliver little or no health gain relative to their cost, and thus are not efficient health resource allocations. Arguably disinvestment has been central to Evidence-Based Medicine(EBM) for well over a decade yet despite general advances in EBM, this topic remains relatively unexplored. This thesis examines the ongoing challenges that exist within the Australian context relating to effective disinvestment. Upper airway surgical procedures for the treatment of adult Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSA) are used as a case study to contextualise these challenges. This thesis has six sections: 1. A review of the literature outlines developments in EBM broadly and provides a detailed background to OSA, including the numerous treatment options for the condition. This review examines evidence that highlights the importance of ‘highly effective treatment’ over ‘subtherapeutic treatment’ as a necessity to confer improved health outcomes in OSA. It is argued that claims of surgical success inherent in most published results of surgery effectiveness fail to assimilate contemporary evidence for clinically significant indicators of success. 2. Section two comprises the first reported meta-analysis in this area. It presents the pooled success rates of surgery according to various definitions. Specifically, when the traditional ‘surgical’ definition of success is applied the pooled success rate for Phase I (i.e. soft palate) surgical procedures is 55% (that is 45% fail). However, using a more stringent definition (endorsed by the peak international sleep medicine body), success is reduced to 13% (that is 87% fail). Similarly for Phase II (i.e. hard palate) procedures success rates decrease from 86% to 43% respectively when moving from a surgical to a medical definition of success. That various medical specialties differentially define treatment success, I argue, creates uncertainty for observers and non-clinical participants in this debate (eg policy stakeholders and patients). This represents a barrier to disinvestment decisions. 3. Results are presented from a clinical audit of surgical cases conducted as a component of this thesis. Both clinical effectiveness and procedural variability of surgery are reported. A unique methodology was utilised to capture data from multiple centres. It is the first time such a methodology has been reported to measure procedural variability alongside clinical effectiveness (inclusive of a comparative treatment arm). The observed cohort (n=94) received 41 varying combinations of surgery in an attempt to treat OSA. Results on effectiveness demonstrate an overall physiological success rate of 13% (according to the most stringent definition; phases I and II combined). This demonstration of procedural variability combined with limited effectiveness highlights clinical uncertainty in the application of surgical procedures. 4. Section four outlines how a qualitative phase of enquiry, directed at exploring the perspectives and experiences of surgery recipients, was approved by three independent research ethics review boards but was not supported by a small group of surgeons, resulting in the project being canceled. Potential consequences of this for impeding health services research (HSR) are discussed. 5. Two sets of results are reported from a qualitative phase of enquiry (semi-structured interviews) involving senior Australian health policy stakeholders. The first results are of policy stakeholders’ perspectives on the surgical meta-analysis and clinical audit studies in 2 and 3 above. The second results are from an extended series of questions relating to challenges and direction for effecting disinvestment mechanisms in Australia. Stakeholder responses highlight that Australia currently has limited formal systems in place to support disinvestment. Themes include how defining and proving inferiority of health care practices is not only conceptually difficult but also is limited by data availability and interpretation. Also, as with any policy endeavour there is the ever-present need to balance multiple interests. Stakeholders pointed to a need, and a role, for health services and policy research to build methodological capacity and decision support tools to underpin disinvestment. 6. A final discussion piece is presented that builds on all previous sections and summarises the specific challenges that exist for disinvestment, including those methodological in nature. The thesis concludes with potential solutions to address these challenges within the Australian and international context. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment represent one measure to further improve equity, efficiency, quality of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation. / http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url= http://library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=1297655 / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, 2007
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/280288 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Elshaug, Adam Grant |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds