Reducing Low-Value Care in Pediatric Trauma

Jillian M. Cotter,Eric R. Coon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.40906

2024-10-30

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Deshommes et al 1 add to the growing body of literature on low-value care by identifying low-value practices in pediatric trauma. Among 10 711 children in a pediatric trauma registry with a primary diagnosis of injury and admission to 1 of 59 provincial trauma centers in Canada, they evaluated the frequency and variation of 14 low-value care practices defined based on systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines. There were 5 clinical practices with moderate to high frequencies and interhospital variation: head computed tomography (CT) for children at low risk for traumatic brain injury (TBI), pretransfer CT for children with a clear indication for transfer, neurosurgical consultation for TBI without clinically significant intracranial lesions, hospital admission for isolated mild TBI, and hospital admission for isolated minor abdominal trauma. Three of these related to TBIs in children. The need to make quick decisions in a high-stakes environment likely increases the risk of low-value care in pediatric trauma. For example, no one wants to miss a serious intracranial bleed in a child. Additionally, caregiver stress is often high following trauma, which may further increase the delivery of low-value care. Most children with traumatic injuries are seen at trauma centers focused on treating adults. 2 Thus, clinician discomfort with managing the care of children may play a role in low-value care in these settings. Trauma also can require transferring children to hospitals with pediatric subspecialties or higher levels of care. Similar to when children are transferred from inpatient floors to the intensive care unit, the transition of care process may increase the use of low-value care. Despite the predilection for low-value care, there is a critical need to decrease low-value practices in pediatric trauma. Low-value practices provide little or no benefit to children, expose children to potential harms, contribute to health care waste, and increase health care costs. 3 For example, the overuse of CT scans for children at low risk for TBI unnecessarily exposes children to irradiation, which increases their lifetime risk of cancer. Additionally, unnecessary hospitalizations for children after a mild TBI or abdominal trauma poses financial and social burdens on families through missed work and separation from other members of their family and community. Children who are unnecessarily hospitalized are also exposed to nosocomial infections and downstream overtesting and overtreatment. 4 Traumatic injuries in children are among the leading causes of visits to the emergency department, with more than 10 million visits per year in the US. 5 Given this large volume, the potential gains of reducing even a small percentage of low-value care in pediatric trauma are huge. Ultimately, concerted deimplementation efforts will be needed to reduce the low-value care identified by Deshommes et al. 1 In the absence of such efforts, substantial reductions in low-value care are difficult to achieve. Overtreatment of children with mild TBI is a telling example. Despite the longstanding existence of multicenter, prospective, validated clinical decision rules, head imaging rates for children with mild TBI remain excessively high. Successful deimplementation requires an organized and incremental approach, involving steps such as identifying a low-value practice, being able to reliably measure the low-value practice, addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators for deimplementing the low-value practice in relevant contexts, and working to sustain the gains in reduced low-value care. 6 By demonstrating how previously defined low-value pediatric trauma care can be reliably measured in clinical practice settings, Deshommes et al 1 have made an important contribution to the early stages of concerted deimplementation. Logical next steps to build on this work include further identification of low-value care and more comprehensive measurement. Deshommes et al 1 reasonably focused on measuring low-value care that had been identified via systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines, but presumably low-value pediatric trauma care exists for which systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines do not yet exist. Relatedly, the present work could not assess 5 known low-value care services because those services are not well captured by administrative data. This is a common impediment to measuring low-value care, but comprehensive measurement will require approaches that go beyond easily extracted administrative data to include review of clinical notes. The manual and labor-intensive process of clinical note review may become more feasible with continued advances in language processing software. With more comprehensive identification and measurement of low-value pediatric trauma care, deimpleme -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal