Skip to main content
Download PDF

Clinical competence, communication ability and adherence to choosing wisely recommendations for lipid reducing drug use in older adults

BMC Geriatrics volume 23, Article number: 761 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Although lipid-lowering drugs are not recommended for primary prevention in patients 75+, prevalence of use is high and there is unexplained variation in prescribing between physicians. The objective of this study was to determine if physician communication ability and clinical competence are associated with prescribing lipid-lowering drugs for primary and secondary prevention.

Methods

We used a cohort of 4,501 international medical graduates, 161,214 U.S. Medicare patients with hyperlipidemia (primary prevention) and 49,780 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention) not treated with lipid-lowering therapy who were seen by study physicians in ambulatory care. Clinical competence and communication ability were measured by the ECFMG clinical assessment examination. Physician citizenship, age, gender, specialty and patient characteristics were also measured. The outcome was an incident prescription of lipid-lowering drug, evaluated using multivariable GEE logistic regression models for primary and secondary prevention for patients 75+ and 65-74.

Results

Patients 75+ were less likely than those 65-74 to receive lipid-lowering drugs for primary (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) and secondary (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.78) prevention. For every 20% increase in clinical competence score, the odds of prescribing therapy for primary prevention to patients 75+ increased by 24% (95% CI 1.02-1.5). Communication ability had the opposite effect, reducing the odds of prescribing for primary prevention by 11% per 20% score increase (95% CI 0.8-0.99) for both age groups. Physicians who were citizens of countries with higher proportions of Hispanic (South/Central America) or Asian (Asia/Oceania) people were more likely to prescribe treatment for primary prevention, and internal medicine specialists were more likely to treat for secondary prevention than primary care physicians.

Conclusion

Clinical competence, communication ability and physician citizenship are associated with lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary prevention in patients aged 75+.

Peer Review reports

Health care spending accounts for approximately 4.6%-18.8% of GDP in OECD countries. Differences in expenditure, ranging from 4.6% in Poland to 18.8% in the United States, are not associated with a commensurate variation in health outcomes [1,2,3,4]. One explanation for this lack of relationship, among others such as higher prices in the US [5], is that an estimated one-third of expenditures are for medical services that are unnecessary and possibly harmful [6, 7]. To address this problem, the American Board of Internal Medicine and Consumer Reports launched the Choosing Wisely Campaign, which provided recommendations for the reduction in the use of unnecessary tests and treatments in internal medicine [8]. Since that inaugural event, many medical specialty groups and countries have identified over 300 “do-not-do” low value health care practices [9]. One of the earliest recommendations was to not prescribe lipid lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with a limited lifetime expectancy, that is, those 75 years of age or older [10].

The prescription of lipid lowering drugs, specifically the “statins”, has more than doubled in the past decade in many countries [11], with growing evidence of their real-world effectiveness in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. They are now among the top five prescribed medications in North America and Europe [12, 13]. While Choosing Wisely guidelines have advised against prescribing lipid lowering drugs to persons 75 years of age or older, the prevalence of use for primary prevention in this age group is similar to, if not higher than, use in those under the age of 75 [14, 15]. However, there is considerable unexplained variation in adherence to lipid prescribing guidelines between physicians. Similar variations between physicians have been documented in the ordering of unnecessary lab tests, imaging, preventive screening, and antibiotic prescribing [16]. Physician characteristics associated with low value care vary by the indicator used, but common predictors include older and male physicians, larger fee for service vs capitated practices, and urban practice settings with a high specialist to primary care ratio [17,18,19]. Qualitative studies suggest that low value care may also be more likely to be ordered by physicians who are less knowledgeable, and/or have greater diagnostic uncertainty [20,21,22]. Communication ability has also been considered critical in order to effectively address patient demand and provide appropriate education. To date, no study has investigated whether these characteristics are associated with variation in the use of low value health care services, nor has any study examined physician characteristics associated with variation in lipid lowering drug prescribing.

We had a unique opportunity to evaluate the contribution of clinical competence and communication ability to variation in lipid prescribing for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older patients above and below the age of 75. We tested the hypothesis that greater clinical competence and better communication ability would be associated with recommended guidelines to only prescribe lipid lowering therapy for primary prevention to persons aged less than 75 years, and to prescribe lipid lowering therapy for secondary prevention in all patients with a prior history of cardiovascular events.

Methods

Design

A cohort of international medical graduates (IMGs) who successfully completed the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) clinical assessment of competence and communication ability and practiced in the United States was assembled. Lipid lowering drug prescribing for primary and secondary prevention was assessed in older Medicare patients seen by these physicians using Medicare data from 2014-2015.

Study population

A multi-step process was used to assemble the physician and patient study populations. First, all physicians who completed the required ECFMG clinical assessment examination were identified. Second, physicians were linked by first and last name, sex, and birthdate to the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile to identify physicians who had acquired a license to practice in the United States. As assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors is predominantly conducted by primary care physicians, the population was restricted to physicians in internal medicine, family medicine or general practice, based on the specialty recorded in the AMA Masterfile. Third, the national provider identifier of each physician was used to link to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative files to identify physicians in the cohort who had billed for Medicare patients. All patients who were 65 years of age or older and seen by these physicians in 2014 and 2015 were identified in the Medicare Carrier RIF file, inpatient files, outpatient file, and Part D files and then all health care services and medications received by these patients by any health professional were retrieved.

Patients were eligible for consideration if they had an evaluation and management visit in an outpatient setting with a study physician between July 2014 and November 2015, had continuous Part D drug coverage, had hyperlipidemia or a history of cardiovascular disease, and had not been dispensed a prescription for a lipid lowering drug from any physician in the 6 months prior to the evaluation visit. Thus, eligible patients were restricted to those whose management was being assumed by the study physician and were not prevalent users of lipid-lowering medications.

To evaluate primary prevention, all patients with hyperlipidemia and no history of cardiovascular disease were identified, and stratified by age: 75+ where primary prevention was not recommended, and 65-74 where treatment with lipid-lowering drugs was recommended. To evaluate secondary prevention, all patients with a history of cardiovascular disease were identified and were also stratified by age (75+ and 65-74) to enable comparisons with primary prevention. The presence of hyperlipidemia was measured using the Medicare chronic disease listing. Cardiovascular disease was defined as a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, other acute and subacute forms of Ischemia, old myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and other forms of chronic ischemic heart disease recorded in visits in the 6 months before the evaluation visit. To enable comparisons of physician characteristics that were associated with prescribing, for primary and secondary prevention, we restricted the physician population to those that conducted evaluation and management services to patients in both cohorts and age groups.

Outcome: prescription of lipid-lowering medication

We used data in the Part D drug insurance file of lipid-reducing medications dispensed within 30 days of an evaluation or management visit to measure prescription of these medications by the physician with whom the visit took place. Lipid-lowering drugs included HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cholesterol absorption inhibitors, PCSK9 inhibitors, citrate lyase inhibitors, bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acids. The prescribing physician had to be the study physician who conducted the evaluation visit. However, due to primary non-adherence to medications [23], these may not represent all lipid-reducing drug prescriptions written by physicians.

Predictors

Clinical competence and communication ability

The Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) Examination administered by the ECFMG between 1998 and 2004 was used as a measure of clinical competence. The CSA was put in place to ensure that all IMGs could demonstrate an acceptable level of clinical skills necessary for entry into US graduate medical education programs. The CSA was subsequently replaced by USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills, which, as of 2004, was required for graduates of all US and foreign medical schools. The CSA consisted of 10 or 11 modeled encounters between the candidate and a standardized patient. An overall clinical competence score was given based on history taking and physical examination conducted in these encounters and each candidate’s diagnosis and management plan as written in a post-encounter clinical note. An overall communication score was given based on the candidate’s interpersonal skills, assessed in each encounter by the standardized patient, as well as their spoken English proficiency. An acceptable clinical competence and communication score was required to pass the examination.

Other physician characteristics

Physician age, sex, specialty, and practice region have been associated with a variety of quality of care indicators [17,18,19, 24, 25]. These data were retrieved from the ECFMG database and the AMA Masterfile. As cardiovascular risk varies between different races and countries, we hypothesized that the physician’s country of origin may influence both their sensitivity to the importance of cardiovascular risk factor management as well as possibly the mix of patients in their respective practices. Physician citizenship at the time of medical school graduation was obtained from the ECFMG database and grouped into twelve geographic regions.

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics that would influence both cardiovascular risk and the likelihood of lipid drug prescribing may differ between physician practices. For this reason, we measured patient sex and race (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, NA Native, other) using data from the CMS Master Beneficiary Summary File. For patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, we measured whether there was a diagnosis of hyperlipidemia in the Medicare Chronic Conditions file. Multimorbidity may reduce the likelihood of lipid-lowering drug prescribing if associated with limited life expectancy. We used the Elixhauser index [26, 27] to measure co-morbidities associated with an increased risk of mortality using diagnostic data from the outpatient, inpatient and carrier files in the six months prior to the evaluation and management visit. A count of the number of active medications at the time of the evaluation and management visit was also measured using the Part D files.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize physician and patient characteristics. To estimate the association between clinical competence, communication ability and the odds of lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary and secondary prevention, we used GEE logistic regression. Patient was the unit of analysis and physician was the clustering factor, accounted for using an exchangeable correlation coefficient. Clinical competence and communication scores were fit in separate models as continuous variables, adjusting for other physician and patient characteristics. Separate models were created for the primary prevention and secondary prevention cohorts. To test the hypothesis that clinical competence and communication ability would reduce the odds of lipid-drug prescribing for primary prevention in patients 75+, but not for secondary prevention, we added a two-way interaction term between score and age group in the primary prevention and secondary prevention cohort models. All analyses were done using SAS version 9.4.

Results

Among the 32,908 physicians who successfully completed the ECFMG examination, 26,023 applied for a license to practice and were found in the AMA files, 9314 of whom were in family medicine, general practice or internal medicine, and 4,501 (70.5%) billed for patients in both age groups in the primary and secondary prevention cohorts (supplement-figure 1). Overall, 60.5% of these 4,501 physicians were male, with a mean age of 43.4 years (Table 1). Approximately one-quarter were citizens of India at the time of medical school graduation (26.2%), 18% were citizens of the United States, and 13.2% were from Asia. 60.9% specialized in internal medicine, and 39.4% practiced in the southern U.S. Mean scores for communication ability were higher but more variable (77.38±7.91) than clinical competence scores (64.32±5.28).

Table 1 The Characteristics of the 4,501 physicians who conducted an evaluation and management visit in each of the four medicare cohorts
Full size table

Study physicians billed for an evaluation and management visit for 1,360,517 Medicare patients aged 65 or older in an ambulatory visit between July 2014 and November 2015; 583,779 of patients had Part D drug coverage, a history of cardiovascular disease or hyperlipidemia and were potentially eligible for inclusion (Fig.  1). Among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, 140,613 (73.9%) were prevalent users of lipid-lowering drugs. For those with hyperlipidemia alone, 232,172 (59.0%) were prevalent users. The remaining 161,214 patients were included in the primary prevention cohort and 49,780 were included in the secondary prevention cohort (Table 2).

Table 2 Characteristics of patients in the primary and secondary prevention cohorts in the 6 months prior to the evaluation and management visit, and the incidence of lipid drug prescribing
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Medicare patients seen by study physicians who were eligible for the primary and secondary prevention cohort

Full size image

Patient characteristics varied by cohort (Table 2). The primary prevention cohort was younger and had a higher proportion of females than the secondary prevention cohort, particularly among those aged 75+. The majority of patients were white in both cohorts and age groups (76.3%-82.1%). Patients in the secondary prevention cohort had higher levels of co-morbidity: 58.6%-69.5% had five or more co-morbidities, 32.1%-35.9% were taking six or more medications, and 81.1%-91.5% had hyperlipidemia. Overall the incident prescription of a lipid-lowering drugs was systematically lower for patients 75+ in both the primary prevention (2.5% vs 4.3% for aged 65-74), and secondary prevention cohorts (2.78% vs. 4.16% for aged 65-74).

More clinically competent physicians were more likely to prescribe lipid-lowering drug for primary prevention but only to patients aged 75+ (significant score*age stratum interaction: p=0.03) (Table 3). For every 20% increase in clinical competence score, the odds of prescribing a lipid-lowering drug for patients 75+ increased by 24% (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50). Clinical competence was not significantly associated with the odds of prescribing for secondary prevention although the direction and magnitude of the association was similar (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.96-1.49). Communication ability had the opposite effect on drug prescribing, reducing the odds of prescribing lipid-lowering drugs for primary prevention among patients 65+ by 11% per 20% increase in score (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99), and by 12% (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.02) for secondary prevention in patients 65+, although the latter was not statistically significant. There was no significant interaction between communication score and age stratum.

Table 3 The association between clinical competence, communication ability and other physician and patient characteristics and the prescription of lipid reducing agents for primary and secondary prevention in patients 75+ and 65-74 years
Full size table

Physician citizenship at time of medical school graduation was associated with lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary prevention but not secondary prevention (Table 3). Compared to U.S. citizens, physicians from South America (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.69), Central America (OR 1.33, 95% CI, 1.11-1.59), Asia (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38), and Eastern Europe (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.50) were more likely to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs to patients with hyperlipidemia. Compared to physicians practicing in the northeast, those practicing in all other regions were more likely to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs for primary and secondary prevention. Physician age and specialty influenced prescribing for secondary but not primary prevention. Older physicians (OR 1.08 per 5 years, 95% CI 1.02-1.13) and internal medicine specialists compared to primary care (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35) were more likely to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs.

Patient characteristics influenced the likelihood of lipid-lowering drug prescribing in a comparable way for both primary and secondary prevention (Table 3). Patients 75+ were 38% (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) less likely to receive a lipid-lowering drug for primary prevention and 30% (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.78) less likely to receive drug treatment for secondary prevention compared to those aged 65-74. The odds of receiving a lipid-lowering medication were higher with a co-existing diagnosis of hyperlipidemia in those with a cardiovascular history, and in Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. In contrast, the likelihood of receiving a prescription decreased by 4%-8% for every one point increase in the Elixhauser comorbidity score (OR 0.96, OR 0.92), and by 6%-8% for every one medication increase in the number of active drugs (OR 0.92, OR 0.94) for primary and secondary prevention respectively. Female patents were 8% less likely to receive a prescription compared to males for primary prevention (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97) and 9% less likely for secondary prevention (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.00).

Discussion

This is the first opportunity to examine the role of clinical competence and communication ability in the recommended and non-recommended prescription of lipid-lowering drugs for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We found more competent physicians were more, not less likely, to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs for primary prevention to patients 75+. Greater communication ability was associated with a lower likelihood of prescribing lipid-lowering treatment for primary prevention. Physician citizenship, specialty, age and region of practice were associated with lipid-lowering drug prescribing. Female patients and those with a greater number of comorbidities and drugs were less likely to receive lipid-lowering drugs. Black, Asian and Hispanic patients were more likely than white patients to receive drug treatment.

Physician performance on standardized licensure/certification examinations of clinical competence and communication ability have been shown to predict the likelihood of complaints to licensing authorities, and the quality of prescribing and preventive care, even after years in practice [28,29,30]. Communication ability played a surprisingly important role in reducing the odds of lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary prevention. It is possible that physicians with better interpersonal skills opted to intervene by counselling changes in diet and lifestyle, rather than prescribing. The quality of a physician’s interpersonal skills may also be associated with a more productive doctor-patient relationship where treatment options are more likely to be discussed, or alternately with greater skill in inspiring health behavior change through motivational interviewing [31,32,33]. Better communication skills are associated with a reduction in the likelihood of prescribing unnecessary medication [34,35,36], but this relationship has not been studied in situations where medication management might be recommended, and should be addressed in future research. Contrary to expectation, greater levels of clinical competence increased, not decreased, the likelihood of lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary prevention for patients 75+. Higher scores were also associated with a greater likelihood of recommended drug treatment for secondary prevention, although not significant, suggesting that guideline adherence may not be nuanced to situations that are of lower value. Assessments of clinical competence are designed to measure positive actions with respect to the quality of data collection, diagnosis, and management, and would not generally penalize candidates for ordering unnecessary test and treatments [37, 38].

The importance of physician citizenship in predicting treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease has not been previously investigated. We found that physicians who were citizens of countries with a higher proportion of persons who were of Hispanic or Asian origin were more likely to prescribe drug treatment for primary prevention. Of interest, physician citizenship was only a factor in treatment decisions for primary not secondary prevention. Physicians from these countries may be more sensitive to underlying differences in risk of cardiovascular disease in Hispanic, Asian and Black populations. Racial mix and higher levels of cardiovascular risk factors may also explain the regional differences in lipid-lowering drug prescribing with higher levels of cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in the South [39,40,41]. Consistent with this hypothesis, patients with higher cardiovascular risk, males [42, 43], patients with hyperlipidemia [44, 45], and those who were Black, Asian or Hispanic [46, 47] were more likely to be prescribed a lipid-lowering drug. Also consistent with Choosing Wisely guidelines, those with a lower life expectancy, older patients with multiple comorbidities and drugs were less likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering therapy.

Our finding that internal medicine specialists were more likely than primary care physicians to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs for secondary prevention may be related to a higher concentration of patients with cardiovascular disease in their practice, or greater familiarity with guidelines for secondary prevention. Similar trends are noted in other studies that have compared clinical guideline adherence for specialists in comparison to primary care physicians [48,49,50,51,52,53].

There are limitations to be considered in the interpretation of the results. First, we measured what medications were dispensed, not what was prescribed. Primary non-adherence to the prescription of a new drug is estimated to be approximately 15% and is as high as 20% for lipid-lowering drugs [23]. As non-adherence has been associated with lower scores on clinical skills examination [54], our study may be measuring a combination of both the likelihood of prescribing lipid-lowering drugs as well as primary adherence to treatment. Our results, based on statin prescribing in 2014-1015, may not represent the incidence of statin prescribing in 2023 when most drugs were off-patent, however this is unlikely to be differential among physicians with varying levels of ability. Also, Choosing Wisely recommendations started in 2011, and the recommendation related to lipid-reducing drug prescribing for primary prevention may not have yet had an impact on training programs of physicians in this cohort. Administrative databases have known limitations in the lack of availability of patient lifestyle and clinical data, characteristics that could influence the likelihood of prescribing and differ among physicians [55,56,57,58]. We have no reason to believe that this possibility of residual confounding would be differential among physicians with varying levels of competence and communication ability.

In conclusion, clinical competence and communication ability are associated with the likelihood of prescribing lipid-lowering drug treatment for primary prevention, as is physician citizenship and practice region. Future research should test the hypothesis that physicians with better communication skills are more likely to provide lifestyle and behavioral interventions for patients with hyperlipidemia, and investigate why more clinically competent physicians and those from countries with a higher proportion of the population at risk of cardiovascular disease are more likely to prescribe lipid-lowering drugs for primary prevention.

Availability of data and materials

The data analyzed in this study are not publicly available. Those wishing to obtain the data used in this study should contact Dr. John Boulet (bouletjr@gmail.com), the data custodian for the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, as well as the Centre for Medicare & Medicaid Services DUA team (DataUseAgreement@cms.hhs.gov re: project number DUA RSCH-2017-51585) to obtain approval for access.

Abbreviations

IMG:

International Medical Graduate

ECFMG:

Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates

AMA:

American Medical Association

CMS:

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CSA:

Clinical Skills Assessment

OR:

Odds Ratio

CI:

Confidence Interval

SD:

Standard Deviation

References

  1. Gunja MZ, Gumas ED, Williams II RD. U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes. The Commonwealth Fund; 2023.

  2. Global Health Expenditure Database: World Health Organization; 2023 [Available from: https://apps.who.int/nha/database.

  3. Bradley EH, Elkins BR, Herrin J, Elbel B. Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(10):826.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR. The perfect storm of overutilization. JAMA. 2008;299(23):2789–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson GF, Hussey P, Petrosyan V. It’s still the prices, stupid: why the US spends so much on health care, and a tribute to uwe reinhardt. Health Aff. 2019;38(1):87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Piper K. Results-driven healthcare: addressing the staggering cost of poor performance. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2008;1(5):6–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clinician Lists: Choosing Wisley; 2023 [Available from: https://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/.

  10. AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine: Fifteen Things Physicians and Patients Should Question: Choosing Wisely; [Available from: https://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/amda-the-society-for-post-acute-and-long-term-care-medicine/.

  11. Walley T, Folino-Gallo P, Stephens P, Van Ganse E. Trends in prescribing and utilization of statins and other lipid lowering drugs across Europe 1997–2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60(5):543–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Aitken M, Kleinrock M, J. P. The Use of Medicines in the U.S. 2022: Usage and Spending Trends and Outlook to 2026. IQVIA Institute; 2022.

  13. Presription Cost Analysis - England, 2018. National Health Service (NHS); 2019.

  14. Nanna MG, Navar AM, Wang TY, Mi X, Virani SS, Louie MJ, et al. Statin use and adverse effects among adults >75 years of age: insights from the patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry. J American Heart Assoc. 2018;7(10):e008546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Byrne P, Cullinan J, Murphy C, Smith SM. Cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence and predictors of statin utilisation in Ireland with a focus on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018524.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwartz AL, Jena AB, Zaslavsky AM, McWilliams JM. Analysis of physician variation in provision of low-value services. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(1):16–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Colla CH, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Schpero WL, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely: prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bouck Z, Ferguson J, Ivers NM, Kerr EA, Shojania KG, Kim M, et al. Physician characteristics associated with ordering 4 low-value screening tests in primary care. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(6):e183506-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barreto TW, Chung Y, Wingrove P, Young RA, Petterson S, Bazemore A, et al. Primary care physician characteristics associated with low value care spending. J American Board Family Med. 2019;32(2):218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith ME, Vitous CA, Hughes TM, Shubeck SP, Jagsi R, Dossett LA. Barriers and facilitators to de-implementation of the choosing wisely(®) guidelines for low-value breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(8):2653–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ingvarsson S, Augustsson H, Hasson H, Nilsen P, von Thiele SU, von Knorring M. Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin MP, Nguyen T, Probst MA, Richardson LD, Schuur JD. Emergency physician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding ACEP’s choosing wisely recommendations: a survey study. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(6):668–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lemstra M, Nwankwo C, Bird Y, Moraros J. Primary nonadherence to chronic disease medications: a meta-analysis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:721–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharp AL, Klau MH, Keschner D, Macy E, Tang T, Shen E, et al. Low-value care for acute sinusitis encounters: who’s choosing wisely? Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(7):479–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hong AS, Ross-Degnan D, Zhang F, Wharam JF. Clinician-level predictors for ordering low-value imaging. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(11):1577–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care. 2009;47(6):626–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, Wenghofer E, Jacques A, Klass D, et al. Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities. JAMA. 2007;298(9):993–1001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Brailovsky C, Grand’Maison P, Lescop J, Norcini J, et al. Association between licensing examination scores and resource use and quality of care in primary care practice. JAMA. 1998;280(11):989–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee WD, Hanley JA, Norcini J, Girard N, et al. Association between licensure examination scores and practice in primary care. JAMA. 2002;288(23):3019–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hardcastle SJ, Fortier M, Blake N, Hagger MS. Identifying content-based and relational techniques to change behaviour in motivational interviewing. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11(1):1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Albury C, Hall A, Syed A, Ziebland S, Stokoe E, Roberts N, et al. Communication practices for delivering health behaviour change conversations in primary care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Berman AC, Chutka DS. Assessing effective physician-patient communication skills: “Are you listening to me, doc?” Korean J Med Educ. 2016;28(2):243–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Cals JWL, Butler CC, Hopstaken RM, Hood K, Dinant G-J. Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b1374.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Strumann C, Steinhaeuser J, Emcke T, Sönnichsen A, Goetz K. Communication training and the prescribing pattern of antibiotic prescription in primary health care. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233345.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Légaré F, Labrecque M, Cauchon M, Castel J, Turcotte S, Grimshaw J. Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial. Can Med Assoc J. 2012;184(13):E726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kane MT. The assessment of professional competence. Eval Health Prof. 1992;15(2):163–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kane MT. The Future of Testing for Licensure and Certification Examinations. In: Plake BS, Witt JC, editors. Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Testing: The Future of Testing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1986.

  39. Sekikawa A, Kuller LH. Striking variation in coronary heart disease mortality in the United States among black and white women aged 45–54 by state. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9(5):545–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. QuickFacts: United States: United States Census Bureau; [Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120221.

  41. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases C. The burden of cardiovascular diseases among US States. JAMA Cardiology. 2018;3(5):375–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jousilahti P, Vartiainen E, Tuomilehto J, Puska P. Sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, and coronary heart disease. Circulation. 1999;99(9):1165–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Price JF, Gerald F, Fowkes R. Risk factors and the sex differential in coronary artery disease. Epidemiology. 1997;8(5):584–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Cook NR, Bradwin G, Buring JE. Non–HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins a-i and B100, standard lipid measures, lipid ratios, and CRP as risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. JAMA. 2005;294(3):326–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pekkanen J, Linn S, Heiss G, Suchindran CM, Leon A, Rifkind BM, et al. Ten-year mortality from cardiovascular disease in relation to cholesterol level among men with and without preexisting cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(24):1700–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kurian AK, Cardarelli KM. Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors a systematic review. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):143–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Safford MM, Brown TM, Muntner PM, Durant RW, Glasser S, Halanych JH, et al. Association of race and sex with risk of incident acute coronary heart disease events. JAMA. 2012;308(17):1768–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Tamblyn R, Girard N, Boulet J, Dauphinee D, Habib B. Association of clinical competence, specialty and physician country of origin with opioid prescribing for chronic pain: a cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31(5):340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kenny SJ, Smith PJ, Goldschmid MG, Newman JM, Herman WH. Survey of physician practice behaviors related to diabetes mellitus in the U.S.: physician adherence to consensus recommendations. Diabetes Care. 1993;16(11):1507–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Salinas GD, Williamson JC, Kalhan R, Thomashow B, Scheckermann JL, Walsh J, et al. Barriers to adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guidelines by primary care physicians. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011;6:171–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoorn CJGM, Crijns HJGM, Dierick-van Daele ATM, Dekker LRC. Review on factors influencing physician guideline adherence in cardiology. Cardiol Rev. 2019;27(2):80–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kumar A, Fonarow GC, Eagle KA, Hirsch AT, Califf RM, Alberts MJ, et al. Regional and practice variation in adherence to guideline recommendations for secondary and primary prevention among outpatients with atherothrombosis or risk factors in the United States: a report from the REACH registry. Critical Pathways Cardiol. 2009;8(3):104–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Grossman Z, Silverman BG, Miron D. Physician specialty is associated with adherence to treatment guidelines for acute otitis media in children. Acta Paediatr. 2013;102(1):e29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, Wenghofer E, Jacques A, Klass D, et al. Influence of physicians’ management and communication ability on patients’ persistence with antihypertensive medication. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1064–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wu J, Zhu S, Yao GL, Mohammed MA, Marshall T. Patient factors influencing the prescribing of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in UK general practice: a national retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e67611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Pouwels KB, Dolk FCK, Smith DRM, Smieszek T, Robotham JV. Explaining variation in antibiotic prescribing between general practices in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(suppl_2):ii27–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Suissa S, Garbe E. Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of drug effects—advantages and disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(12):725–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sarrazin MSV, Rosenthal GE. Finding pure and simple truths with administrative data. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1433–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

This study was funded by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) (grant number not applicable), and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (grant number IOP-112675).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, 2001 McGill College Avenue., Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada

    Robyn Tamblyn & Fiona K. I. Chan

  2. Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Robyn Tamblyn

  3. Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Robyn Tamblyn, Teresa Moraga, Nadyne Girard, Fiona K. I. Chan & Bettina Habib

  4. Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER), Philadelphia, PA, USA

    John Boulet

Authors
  1. Robyn Tamblyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Moraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nadyne Girard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fiona K. I. Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bettina Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Boulet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in the design of the study and analysis. RT and JB obtained access to the data. TM and NG conducted data analyses. RT drafted the main manuscript text. TM, NG and BH prepared tables and figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript and provided feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn Tamblyn.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the McGill University Institutional Review Board, study number A10-E69-16B. The need for informed consent was waived by the McGill University Institutional Review Board because it was a retrospective study using de-identified administrative health data. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 eFigure 1. International Medical Graduates Who Completed the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) Clinical Assessment Examination and Were Eligible for the Primary and Secondary Prevention Cohorts.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamblyn, R., Moraga, T., Girard, N. et al. Clinical competence, communication ability and adherence to choosing wisely recommendations for lipid reducing drug use in older adults. BMC Geriatr 23, 761 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04429-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04429-5

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us