‘Low-value’ clinical care in general practice: a cross-sectional analysis of low-value care in early-career GPs’ practice

Abstract

Abstract Nonevidence-based and ‘low-value’ clinical care and medical services are ‘questionable’ clinical activities that are more likely to cause harm than good or whose benefit is disproportionately low compared with their cost. This study sought to establish general practitioner (GP), patient, practice, and in-consultation associations of an index of key nonevidence-based or low-value ‘questionable’ clinical practices. The study was nested in the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training study—an ongoing (from 2010) cohort study in which Australian GP registrars (specialist GP trainees) record details of their in-consultation clinical and educational practice 6-monthly. The outcome factor in analyses, performed on Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training data from 2010 to 2020, was the score on the QUestionable In-Training Clinical Activities Index (QUIT-CAI), which incorporates recommendations of the Australian Choosing Wisely campaign. A cross-sectional analysis used negative binomial regression (with the model including an offset for the number of times the registrar was at risk of performing a questionable activity) to establish associations of QUIT-CAI scores. A total of 3206 individual registrars (response rate 89.9%) recorded 406 812 problems/diagnoses where they were at risk of performing a questionable activity. Of these problems/diagnoses, 15 560 (3.8%) involved questionable activities being performed. In multivariable analyses, higher QUIT-CAI scores (more questionable activities) were significantly associated with earlier registrar training terms: incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 0.95] and 0.85 (95% CI 0.80, 0.90) for Term 2 and Term 3, respectively, compared to Term 1. Other significant associations of higher scores included the patient being new to the registrar (IRR 1.27; 95% CI 1.12, 1.45), the patient being of non-English-speaking background (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04, 1.47), the practice being in a higher socioeconomic area decile (IRR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), small practice size (IRR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00, 1.10), shorter consultation duration (IRR 0.99 per minute; 95% CI 0.99, 1.00), and fewer problems addressed in the consultation (IRR 0.84; 95% CI 0.79, 0.89) for each additional problem]. Senior registrars’ clinical practice entailed less ‘questionable’ clinical actions than junior registrars’ practice. The association of lower QUIT-CAI scores with a measure of greater continuity of care (the patient not being new to the registrar) suggests that continuity should be supported and facilitated during GP training (and in established GPs’ practice).