How do Swiss general practitioners agree with and report adhering to a top-five list of unnecessary tests and treatments? Results of a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background: In 2014, the ‘Smarter Medicine’ campaign released a top five list of unnecessary tests and treatments in Swiss primary care, such as imaging for acute low-back pain and long-term prescribing of proton pump inhibitors.

Objectives: Measure general practitioners’ (GPs) agreement with the recommendations and self-reported adherence.

Methods: Cross-sectional, online survey of GPs in the ‘Swiss primary care active monitoring’ (SPAM) network, which assessed awareness of ‘Smarter Medicine’ and views on each recommendation. Questions included whether the clinical situation is common, whether the recommendation is followed, whether GPs agree with the recommendation and reasons why the recommendation would not be followed.

Results: One-hundred-and-sixty-seven of 277 GPs from the SPAM network participated (60%), of which 104 (62%) knew of ‘Smarter Medicine’, including 79% in German areas, 49% in French areas and 38% in Italian areas (P < 0.001). Agreement with the five recommendations was high, with scores around nine out of 10. The proportion saying they typically follow each recommendation was 68 to 74%, except not continuing long-term PPI prescriptions without attempting dose reduction, with only 34%. Common reasons for not following the recommendations were patient or other provider requests and situations that might suggest the need for more aggressive care.

Conclusion: Two years after the launch of the campaign, awareness and acceptance of ‘Smarter Medicine’ appear to be high among Swiss GPs. By self-report, the recommendations are adhered to by most of the respondents but there may be room for improvement, especially for long-term PPI prescriptions.

Keywords:

• Clinical decision-making
• general practice
• medical overuse
• proton pump inhibitors
• rational use of medications

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the SGIM-Foundation. The funding source did not have any role in the design of the study or the analysis of the results.