Addressing unwarranted clinical variation: a rapid review of current evidence

Reema Harrison, Elizabeth Manias, Stephen Mears, David Heslop, Reece Hinchcliff, Liz Hay

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness. Design: Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used. Data sources: A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Data synthesis: Results were merged using reference-management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature. Results: A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV. Conclusion: Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence-based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field.

LanguageEnglish
Pages53-65
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Literature
Databases
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Publications
Software
Delivery of Health Care
Health

Cite this

Harrison, Reema ; Manias, Elizabeth ; Mears, Stephen ; Heslop, David ; Hinchcliff, Reece ; Hay, Liz. / Addressing unwarranted clinical variation : a rapid review of current evidence. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2019 ; Vol. 25, No. 1. pp. 53-65.
@article{885e047951ab4743a0a0e781f879db88,
title = "Addressing unwarranted clinical variation: a rapid review of current evidence",
abstract = "Introduction: Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness. Design: Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used. Data sources: A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Data synthesis: Results were merged using reference-management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature. Results: A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV. Conclusion: Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence-based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field.",
keywords = "clinical guidelines, clinical variation, effective care, health care, health services, unwarranted clinical variation",
author = "Reema Harrison and Elizabeth Manias and Stephen Mears and David Heslop and Reece Hinchcliff and Liz Hay",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jep.12930",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "53--65",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",
number = "1",

}

Harrison, R, Manias, E, Mears, S, Heslop, D, Hinchcliff, R & Hay, L 2019, 'Addressing unwarranted clinical variation: a rapid review of current evidence' Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12930

Addressing unwarranted clinical variation : a rapid review of current evidence. / Harrison, Reema; Manias, Elizabeth; Mears, Stephen; Heslop, David; Hinchcliff, Reece; Hay, Liz.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 53-65.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Addressing unwarranted clinical variation

T2 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

AU - Harrison,Reema

AU - Manias,Elizabeth

AU - Mears,Stephen

AU - Heslop,David

AU - Hinchcliff,Reece

AU - Hay,Liz

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Introduction: Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness. Design: Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used. Data sources: A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Data synthesis: Results were merged using reference-management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature. Results: A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV. Conclusion: Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence-based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field.

AB - Introduction: Unwarranted clinical variation (UCV) can be described as variation that can only be explained by differences in health system performance. There is a lack of clarity regarding how to define and identify UCV and, once identified, to determine whether it is sufficiently problematic to warrant action. As such, the implementation of systemic approaches to reducing UCV is challenging. A review of approaches to understand, identify, and address UCV was undertaken to determine how conceptual and theoretical frameworks currently attempt to define UCV, the approaches used to identify UCV, and the evidence of their effectiveness. Design: Rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology was used. Data sources: A range of text words, synonyms, and subject headings were developed for the major concepts of unwarranted clinical variation, standards (and deviation from these standards), and health care environment. Two electronic databases (Medline and Pubmed) were searched from January 2006 to April 2017, in addition to hand searching of relevant journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Data synthesis: Results were merged using reference-management software (Endnote) and duplicates removed. Inclusion criteria were independently applied to potentially relevant articles by 3 reviewers. Findings were presented in a narrative synthesis to highlight key concepts addressed in the published literature. Results: A total of 48 relevant publications were included in the review; 21 articles were identified as eligible from the database search, 4 from hand searching published work and 23 from the grey literature. The search process highlighted the voluminous literature reporting clinical variation internationally; yet, there is a dearth of evidence regarding systematic approaches to identifying or addressing UCV. Conclusion: Wennberg's classification framework is commonly cited in relation to classifying variation, but no single approach is agreed upon to systematically explore and address UCV. The instances of UCV that warrant investigation and action are largely determined at a systems level currently, and stakeholder engagement in this process is limited. Lack of consensus on an evidence-based definition for UCV remains a substantial barrier to progress in this field.

KW - clinical guidelines

KW - clinical variation

KW - effective care

KW - health care

KW - health services

KW - unwarranted clinical variation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059774704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jep.12930

DO - 10.1111/jep.12930

M3 - Review article

VL - 25

SP - 53

EP - 65

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 1

ER -