Identifying and acting on inappropriate metadata: a critique of the Grattan Institute Report on questionable care in Australian hospitals.

Abstract

In an era of ever-increasing medical costs, the identification and prohibition of ineffective medical therapies is of considerable economic interest to healthcare funding bodies. Likewise, the avoidance of interventions with an unduly elevated clinical risk/benefit ratio would be similarly advantageous for patients. Regrettably, the identification of such therapies has proven problematic. A recent paper from the Grattan Institute in Australia (identifying five hospital procedures as having the potential for disinvestment on these grounds) serves as a timely illustration of the difficulties inherent in non-clinicians attempting to accurately recognize such interventions using non-clinical, indirect or poorly validated datasets.