PRACTICE PARTNER
Dr. Judith Plante, a Council member and member
of the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports
Committee (ICRC), can offer some reassurance in that
respect. “We fully endorse the mandate of Choosing
Wisely and the ICRC supports the effort to reduce un-
necessary testing,” she said.
Because each patient situation is unique, she urges
physicians and patients to use CWC materials to de-
termine an appropriate treatment plan together. “The
CWC recommendations can spur important conversa-
tions. A physician who communicates with his or her
patient, listens to their concerns and provides an expla-
nation as to why a particular test or procedure is not in
the patient’s best interest is not likely to be subject to a
complaint,” she said.
If the patient does, in fact, proceed with a complaint,
the physician should be able to present evidence that he
or she documented the conversation, said Dr. Plante.
This April marks the fifth anniversary of CWC
(choosingwiselycanada.org), run by a team from the
University of Toronto, the Canadian Medical Associa-
tion and St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. The broader
Choosing Wisely movement has a presence in 20
countries.
CWC has partnered with professional societies repre-
senting the range of clinical specialties to create rec-
ommendations (reviewed yearly). These identify tests,
treatments and procedures commonly used in each
specialty that 1) aren’t supported by evidence, and 2)
could expose patients to harm.
The CWC website includes the lists (broken down
into 50 categories), along with how-to resources, imple-
mentation toolkits, and success stories from clinicians
and hospitals.
If so many tests, treatments and procedures are un-
warranted – and can in fact do more harm than good
– what’s the rationale for continuing them?
There are several drivers, says CWC. Defensive medi-
cine and a fear of trouble or malpractice lawsuits can
lead to over-investigations. So can practice habits that
are hard to break, evidence or not.
Some systems encourage (or reward) over-ordering.
36
DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2019
In other cases, patients are seen to insist on a certain
test, treatment or procedure (though Dr. Levinson says
doctors overestimate how much patients really demand
them).
The CWC recommendations aren’t meant to dictate
all decisions or supplant medical judgment, but aim
to trigger conversations with patients. CWC puts four
questions front and centre:
1. Is this test, treatment or procedure really needed?
2. What are the downsides?
3. Are there simpler, safer options?
4. What happens if you do nothing?
“If you have these conversations, you’ll discover that
patients want reassurance,” says Dr. Levinson, an expert
in the field of physician-patient communication.
Such conversations can give patients context for
decisions, draw out their concerns and involve them so
they’re on board.
When patients and their families are not on board,
that deserves a conversation too. Dr. Levinson gives the
example of a child brought into emergency after hitting
his head during a hockey game.
If everything seems okay, you could leave out a CT
scan. What if the parents are extremely anxious? Order-
ing a CT might feel like the safest thing to do, and would
give mom and dad peace of mind. No one would fault
(or sue) the doctor for the order. The fact that the child
gets excess radiation, or that a false positive leads to more
invasive tests … well, would anyone blame the doctor?
Addressing the CWC’s four questions goes a long
way to avoiding an easy but unneeded course of ac-
tion. Maybe the parents in this case will agree with the
doctor’s conclusion. Or maybe they share the story of
a relative who died from a fall after an undiagnosed
subdural hematoma. That’s an important element to
consider in a conversation too.
At least such conversations help lead to the best pos-
sible decisions. Many tests, treatments and procedures
may be unnecessary. Open dialogues with patients
never are.
MD