Skip to main content
Download PDF

What is appropriate care? An integrative review of emerging themes in the literature

BMC Health Services Research volume 17, Article number: 452 (2017) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health care improvement efforts should be aligned in order to make a meaningful impact on health systems. Appropriate care delivery could be a unifying goal to help coordinate efforts to improve health outcomes and ensure system sustainability. A more complete understanding of how appropriate care is currently conceived in research and clinical practice could help inform a more integrated and holistic concept of appropriate care that could guide health care policy and delivery practices. We examined the current understanding of appropriate care by identifying its use and definitions in recently published literature.

Methods

An integrated review of the practices, goals and perspectives of appropriate care in English language peer-reviewed articles published from 2011 to 2016. Inductive content analysis was used to describe emerging themes of appropriate care in articles meeting inclusion criteria.

Results

This integrative review included empirical studies, reviews, and commentaries with various health care settings, cultural contexts, and perspectives. Conceptualizations of appropriate care varied, however most descriptions fell into five main categories: evidence-based care, clinical expertise, patient-centeredness, resource use, and equity. These categories were often used in combination, indicating an integrated understanding of appropriate care.

Conclusions

An understanding of how appropriate care is conceptualized in research and policy can help inform an integrated approach to appropriate care delivery in policy and practice according to the relevant priorities and circumstances.

Peer Review reports

Background

Rising health care costs and strained budgets underscore the need to ensure that scarce health care resources reach the people that most need them. Inappropriate care in the form of under-use, over-use, and misuse of health care services has been recognized by the Institute of Medicine as a barrier to health care quality [1] that plagues health care systems across the world [2,3,4,5,6] and ultimately reinforces health care disparities that lead to poor health outcomes. To help systems address these challenges, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) created a framework for health systems to bridge gaps in quality and improve outcomes by emphasizing the need for health systems to pursue care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable [7]. Furthermore, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) developed the Triple Aim of improving population health and patient experience of care while decreasing per capita costs to guide system improvement efforts [8]. Industrialized countries have sought to improve health care delivery through a variety of policies. For example, the Affordable Care Act in the United States seeks to expand access through mandatory health insurance and promote new models of care, such as Accountable Care Organizations, that foster cost-efficient and high quality care [9], though, such efforts are new and the results have been mixed [10]. In other countries, cost-effectiveness criteria for service coverage and pay-for-performance models (e.g. NHS England’s Quality Outcomes Framework for primary care [11]) have attempted to facilitate appropriate care delivery. Understanding how appropriate care delivery is understood and currently used in policy and research could help guide policy makers to take a comprehensive approach to delivering care that aligns with system, clinical, and patient perceptions of appropriate care and improves patient outcomes and experiences while curbing health care spending.

Appropriateness is a recognized element of health care system performance [12,13,14]. The World Health Organization defines appropriateness from a system’s perspective as care that is effective, efficient and in line with ethical principles of fair allocation [15]. Researchers and policy makers have made efforts to conceptualize and measure appropriate care, both prospectively through the development of evidence-based guidelines [16,17,18] and retrospectively by assessing guideline adherence for specific conditions [18,19,20]. A scoping literature review by Sanmartin and colleagues (2008) found that the concept of appropriate care has been chiefly operationalized as the net clinical benefit to the average patient using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, however, definitions and application of appropriateness varied by setting and service [21].

Although appropriate care has been recognized as an important element of high quality care delivery, the concept remains a patchwork concept with no uniform scope or meaning [21]. In addition, the patient perspective and considerations of patient preferences and values have been largely neglected [21]. A more integrative view of appropriate care delivery could help systems to create effective policies to support clinical practices that can more effectively meet patients’ needs.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a contemporary snapshot of how appropriate care is understood in the post-US health reform world by identifying major themes of appropriate care that can help frame a more comprehensive approach to improving health system performance.

Methods

We conducted an integrative review of recently peer-reviewed literature that focused on appropriate care delivery. Data was coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis to identify major categories to describe how appropriate care is used and conceptualized in research and practice.

Literature search method

We searched Scopus, PubMed, and Medline/Ovid for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2016. Although appropriate care is a dynamic and evolving concept based on government, policy, and market forces [22], the objective of this review was to identify how appropriate care is currently understood and is limited to papers published in the six years following the enactment of the Appropriate Care Act. Search terms included “appropriate care,” “appropriateness of care,” and “care appropriateness.” Because there were no correlating MeSH terms, we searched author keywords which have been found to have correlation with MeSH terms [23] and titles, which have been used as a technique in other reviews to find relevant literature that focus on a specific topic [24,25,26]. We focused our review on adults with decision-making capacity receiving medical care that aims to maintain or restore health by treatment or prevention of disease [27]. We therefore excluded articles that have target populations under the age of 18 and/or focused on non-medical care (e.g., treatment of women in shelters) or dental care. Empirical (qualitative and quantitative) studies, reviews, policy reports, and evidence-based commentaries were included. Non-research based articles and discussions were excluded [28]. Two reviewers separately searched for articles and excluded articles based on eligibility criteria to ensure a systematic and replicable literature retrieval process.

Data analysis

We used inductive content analysis to extract, analyze, and interpret data from the articles that met inclusion criteria. Content analysis is a systematic research method that allows researchers to make valid inferences from data by translating context-specific information into general categories that can be combined into a general statement [29]. This method has three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting. In the preparation phase, articles were chosen as the unit of analysis and read through to obtain a sense of the data. Article characteristics were extracted, including purpose, methodology, country, healthcare setting, care description, and target population. Next, data on how articles conceptualized appropriate care was organized through coding, category creation and abstraction. After thorough examination of article content, articles’ conceptualization of appropriate care was recorded through a summary definition. From this content, themes and subthemes were further abstracted into main categories. Major themes were inductively constructed from the emerging categories. Abstraction was performed by JR-P and repeated by TJ for a subsample to validate method reliability.

Results

Literature retrieval

The literature search yielded 306 articles published between since 2011 and 2016 (Fig. 1). After filtering for duplicate records, 122 articles were considered for review. Sixty-three of these articles were subsequently excluded because they did not meet eligibility criteria. Fifty-nine articles were eligible for abstraction [5, 30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of literature selection

Full size image

Study description

The reviewed literature included quantitative studies (N = 21), qualitative studies (N = 6), mixed methods designs (N = 7), case studies (N = 2), reviews and policy papers (N = 14), and commentaries (N = 9) (Table 1). Thirty of the articles were either conducted in the US (for empirical studies) or written from the US perspective, and 18 were conducted in or based on a perspective from other industrialized countries, including Canada (N = 6), Australia (N = 6), Italy (N = 5), England or the UK (N = 5), Japan (N = 2), Israel (N = 2), the Netherlands (N = 1), Switzerland (N = 2), Germany (N = 1), Ireland (N = 1) and the European region (N = 2) (Table 1). Five articles spanned more than one country or had an international focus and only one study took place in a developing nation, (i.e., Afghanistan).

Table 1 Description of articles
Full size table

Article characteristics

Table 1 provides a description of the articles included in the review. Of the articles that specified health care setting, most took place in the hospital (N = 30). Other settings included primary care (N = 11), secondary or specialized care (N = 8), integrated care or care that took place in more than one setting (N = 8), other types of care settings such as home health, nursing homes, urgent care walk-in clinics, and remote care (i.e. telehealth) (N = 13), and settings that were not specified (N = 12). Articles focused on therapeutic procedures (e.g., stenting, fracture stabilization surgery), diagnostic testing (e.g., PSA testing for prostate cancer, blood culture collection for UTI diagnosis), condition management or monitoring (e.g., chronic pain management, telehealth monitoring for PTSD), setting - specific care (e.g., intensive care unit services and primary care services), and age-specific care (e.g., geriatric care). Most articles related to specific health conditions (N = 38), including orthopedic fractures (N = 11), obstetrics and maternity care (N = 6), cardiac and cardiovascular conditions (N = 7), cancer (N = 4), mental health (N = 3), pain management (N = 2), bleeding disorders (N = 2), gastrointestinal disorders (N = 2), and other medical conditions (i.e., sickle cell disease, Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, liver failure, and urinary tract infection). Eleven of the 59 articles focused on minority patients or populations, six articles targeted older patients, four articles focused on women and one focused on men. Most articles defined appropriate care from a clinical perspective (N = 39), more than a third of studies defined appropriate care from the health system perspective (N = 22), and slightly less than a third were defined from the patient perspective (N = 16). Sixteen articles represented more than one perspective.

Main results

During the review process, five categories emerged from the inductive content analysis of the articles’ full text. These categories included evidence-based care, patient-centeredness, clinical expertise, effective use of resources, and equity (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Categories of appropriate care

Full size image

Evidence-based care

Forty articles discussed elements of evidence-based care, which we define as care that is proven to improve health outcomes. Evidence-based care included outcomes research, the assessment and use of evidence-based standards (i.e., guidelines, quality indicators), and the use of scientific evidence in treatment (Fig. 3). Appropriate care was determined based on positive health outcomes, adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and applying evidence in practice. One prominent theme in the outcomes-based literature was creating and testing Early Appropriate Care, an evidence-based protocol for timing stabilization of fractures after traumatic injury. Other studies focused on evaluating clinical effectiveness and guideline adherence from a systems-level perspective to reduce unnecessary care [33, 55, 69, 79] and decrease outcome variation [35, 36, 40, 49, 53, 55, 86] and from a clinical perspective to ensure safe and effective care [34–36, 41, 42, 46, 49, 67, 68, 70, 80, 81, 85]. In addition, many articles indicated the need for more evidence and guidelines to guide clinical decisions, especially for populations that are underrepresented in research, such LGBT patients [45] and the elderly [48, 68].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Evidence-based care

Full size image

Some commentaries and case studies questioned the ability of evidence and guidelines to account for context or real world disease complexity. For example, commentaries by Lin (2015) and Lippi & Favaloro (2012) discuss guideline interpretation and implementation challenges that can lead to negative outcomes [49, 58] and case studies by Schneider (2014) and Fanari (2015) illustrate how gaps in guidelines can cause clinicians to overlook vital elements of appropriate care, which can lead to poor outcomes if practices are not effectively monitored [76, 83]. Ackerman (2012) also challenged the use of guidelines, stating that guidelines must be combined with clinical expertise and patient values to ensure appropriate care delivery [46].

Clinical expertise

Thirty-eight articles discussed the importance of clinical expertise in appropriate care delivery. Articles defined appropriate care in terms of adequate education and training for health care professionals, the use of expert opinion/ professional consensus to guide clinical decisions, and clinician discretion to tailor treatment to patient cases and to manage uncertainty (Fig. 4). Articles emphasized the importance of education and training in specialty medical fields [68], the proper use of guidelines and protocols [32], and cultural competence and effective communication to help clinicians identify patient-specific risks and needs, align treatment goals, and enable shared decision-making [39, 45, 55, 59,60,61,62,63, 68, 71, 74, 75, 78, 86]. To ensure effective communication within the therapeutic relationship, articles also discussed the need to overcome language barriers [62, 63, 74, 75].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Clinical expertise

Full size image

Professional discretion was viewed as an important element of appropriate care that enables clinicians to assess necessity [5, 36, 47, 51, 54, 66], translate evidence for specific patient risks, needs, and goals [36, 43, 45, 46, 55, 66, 68, 71, 87], balance patient needs with costs [47], and manage uncertainty [30, 43, 47, 55, 64, 66].

Professional consensus and knowledge exchange appeared throughout the literature as tools for making appropriate care decisions to reduce variation in service use [41, 42, 58, 66], confirm indications [37, 64], coordinate care [73], manage uncertainty [43, 55, 64], and create standards and guidelines [33, 34, 36, 46, 53, 84].

Patient-centeredness

Considerations of patient-centered care were present in about half of the reviewed articles (N = 30). Elements of patient-centeredness included providing patients with context-specific, responsive, coordinated care and supporting patient autonomy through open communication and shared decision-making (Fig. 5). Context-specific care tailors health care services to patients’ health profile, medical history, and risk factors [33, 36, 43, 45, 49, 55, 61, 62, 64, 68, 87]. Responsiveness refers to culturally sensitive and respectful care that accounts for patient values, culture, needs and preferences. Responsiveness was especially emphasized in articles that focused on providing culturally appropriate care to various groups, including immigrant minorities [59, 61,62,63], LGBT veterans [45], and women in Afghanistan [65]. Coordinated and integrated care involves managing health and social services across conditions and settings [36, 39, 40, 43, 50, 68, 73] (Fig. 5). Other elements of patient-centered care included shared decision-making through open communication of goals and expectations [49, 55, 60, 68, 71] that help identify patient perceptions and acceptability of care [40, 43, 50, 53, 54, 60, 61, 68, 71], health literacy and patient activation [33, 52, 65], and building a relationship of trust with providers [45, 60, 61, 65]. Patient-centered care requires patient empowerment and engagement through disease prevention and self-management tools, education, and effective communication.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Patient-centeredness

Full size image

Resource use

The role of resource use in determining appropriate care was discussed in 33 articles. Subthemes included variation in resource use, cost-effectiveness, and health care setting (Fig. 6). Twenty articles discussed variation in resource use to reduce waste and unnecessary care and ensure proper provision [33, 40, 42, 47, 50, 56,57,58, 64, 66, 82] and to assess equity in health care delivery practices [33, 45, 50, 58, 63]. Cost-effectiveness was discussed in terms of allocating resources at the health system level [41, 66, 69, 77], making clinical decisions in practice [37, 43, 47, 58, 82], and decreasing cost in damage care orthopedics [67].

Fig. 6
figure 6

Resource use

Full size image

Equity

Equity was discussed in 14 articles. This category included many themes that overlap previously discussed themes, including demographic and geographic variation in resource use [33, 40, 42, 50, 58, 63] and health related outcomes [33, 45, 50, 57, 60, 63], access to health care services [33, 45, 52, 60, 63, 65, 68, 75, 74, 78, 79], and non-discriminatory care [45, 59, 62, 78] (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Equity

Full size image

Discussion

Using content analysis, this integrative review identified emerging themes from the literature to inform a more integrated approach to appropriate care. Although the use of appropriate care in the literature varied, our review revealed five emerging categories: evidence-based care, clinical expertise, patient-centeredness, resource use, and equity, which were employed in varying combination with overlapping themes and subthemes (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). These elements correspond with the IOM’s performance targets of proving safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, equitable care and provides guidance for how systems can achieve the IHI’s Triple Aim of improving population health, improving experiences of care, and decreasing per capita costs [7, 8].

Most articles conceptualized appropriate care from a clinical perspective using outcomes research, peer consensus, and guideline adherence to determine whether care was appropriate. The system perspective defined appropriate care in terms of guideline adherence, cost-effectiveness, and reduced variation in resource use and outcomes between geographic regions, health care facilities, and demographic groups. These findings contrast with findings from the review by Sanmartin et al. (2008) that found appropriateness of care to be most often defined according to RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methods [21], and better correspond with Brien et al.’s (2014) review of system level appropriateness in Canada, which found appropriate care to be defined in terms of health services utilization, accordance with guidelines, and cost-effectiveness [41]. However, unlike past reviews, this review found more representation of the patient perspective that focused on tailoring evidence-based care to account for patient needs and preferences and providing culturally sensitive care.

Emphasis on research outcomes and evidence-based guidelines conveyed a reliance on evidence-based measures to mitigate uncertainty in clinical decision-making and reduce variations in health care delivery practices. Researchers with the Dartmouth Atlas Project that investigates variation in care refer to clear-cut evidence - based treatment as effective care and assert that it should always be used in indicated circumstances [88]. However, the review also questioned the sole reliance on evidence to determine appropriateness as insufficient and sometimes even dangerous. Limited evidence for certain populations and conditions, as well as disease - specific guidelines were shown to not always account for disease complexity and patient variability and leave a degree of ambiguity and uncertainty that must be qualified by clinician discretion, patient input, and effective monitoring. Research by other authors also discusses the limits of evidence for providing patient-centered care. Reeve and colleagues (2013) found that English primary care physicians are skeptical of “tick-box” models of care that evaluate performance based on disease-specific guidelines, because they are often unable to account for the high degree of complexity and uncertainty that is common in primary care [89]. Reeve (2010) therefore espouses the use of Interpretive Medicine that allows physicians to use a range of evidence and context-specific knowledge to interpret patients’ experience of illness [90].

Furthermore, findings from our review suggest that patient input and expertise may be able to guide appropriate care decisions. Articles in the review discussed the role of patients in determining appropriate care when different options with varying long and short-term effects exist, such as therapies for Parkinson’s Disease [43], chronic gastrointestinal conditions [71], or end of life care [68]. Anstey et al. (2016) and Piers et al. (2011) found that effective communication with patients’ families about end of life care could also decrease overuse of unnecessary or futile care in the intensive care unit [51, 5]. In the US context, the Dartmouth Atlas developed the term preference sensitive care to describe care with many viable options and tradeoffs that can only be deemed appropriate by the patient [91]. Preference sensitive care not only ensures that care is appropriate for patient - specific needs and goals, but also helps to curb unnecessary variation in services due to resource availability and perverse incentives for providing care. Empowering patients to take an active role in health care seeking and decisions can also contribute to appropriate care delivery by providing patients with education and tools to overcome barriers to access (e.g., Afghani women requiring perinatal services [65]); manage chronic conditions (e.g. people with arthritis waiting to receive services [52]) ; understand risks of elective procedures (e.g. women seeking genital surgery [39]); and communicate their health needs and risk factors without fear of discrimination (e.g., LGBT veterans [45]). Furthermore, the Choosing Wisely campaign has tried to harness patient expertise to mitigate overuse by providing patients with a list of relevant questions to ask their doctors when they are making specific health care decisions [17].

Although evidence-based care, professional expertise, patient-centeredness, resource use, and equity were discussed across health care contexts, conceptualizations of how these elements should be applied varied by health care system especially in terms of appropriate allocation of resources, reinforcing Sharpe’s (1997) claim that system level appropriateness is shaped by system values and priorities for resource allocation and equity [22]. Appropriate care in health systems with tax-based financing (e.g. Italy, Australia, Canada, England) emphasized monitoring cost-effectiveness, while appropriate care in more market-based health systems (e.g. USA, the Netherlands) focused on reducing resource and outcome variation. Furthermore, the use of provider incentives was discussed in the light of the relative country context. Fuchs (2011) advocated for the use of capitation in the US to curb costs and replace traditional fee-for-service models [47]. However, because managed care has come under scrutiny in the US for cutting costs at the expense of quality, the Affordable Care Act has launched new models of delivery that tie quality to remuneration and provide opportunities for providers to share savings [90]. Conversely, Ackermann (2012) discussed how performance-based incentives in the Australian context could facilitate unintended “perverse” incentives to over-treat or undertreat, giving the example of how the Medicare Benefits Schedule remunerates practitioners for Type 2 Diabetes screening if the screen is positive, creating an incentive not to screen and to overdiagnose [46]. Pape et al. (2016) illustrated how even clear-cut evidence-based guidelines, such as Early Appropriate Care for determining the timing of fracture surgery, can be context - specific due to the use of different emergency room procedures in different countries [80]. Furthermore, countries with large minority communities (i.e., USA, Australia, England) or rising rates of immigration (i.e., USA, Japan) emphasized the importance of cultural competence and respect for delivering appropriate care to diverse patients [53, 59,60,61,62,63, 73, 45].

Although understandings of appropriateness inevitably vary by context, the review gleaned implications for appropriate care provision. The importance of evidence-based care and guidelines to support clinical decision-making points to a need for further investment in research and infrastructure that make evidence accessible to health care practitioners. Guideline and protocol development should also include clinician input on implementation challenges, education and training, and feedback mechanisms [32] to prevent against misuse and misinterpretation that can lead to inappropriate diagnosis and care [58]. In addition, increased awareness of patient diversity and unique needs require medical schools and continuing education programs to include cultural competency and communication training to facilitate person-based care and shared decision-making.

This review considers the insights from varying perspectives of appropriate care to create a more comprehensive view of appropriate care delivery that includes every level of the health care system. However, this review is limited by its focus on adult populations, English language literature, specific search terms, and publication years. Future research could employ more scoping review methods to evaluate the use and understanding of appropriate care and how it changes according to population and context.

Conclusion

Although conceptualizations of appropriate care vary in the literature, they are often characterized by evidence-based care, clinical expertise, patient-centeredness, resource use, and equity. Evidence-based care is essential to providing appropriate care, but must be qualified by clinician discretion, respect for patient wishes and values, and context - specific concepts of equitable distribution of resources. This integrated understanding of appropriate care can help inform policy and clinical delivery practices according to context-specific means and priorities.

Abbreviations

CHD:

Congenital heart disease

CP:

Clinical pathways

CS:

Caesarian section

GP:

General practitioner

ICU:

Intensive care unit

LGBT:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

LOS:

Length of stay

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

QOL:

Quality of life

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

VHA:

Veterans health administration

References

  1. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asch SM, Sloss EM, Hogan C, Brook RH, Kravitz RL. Measuring underuse of necessary care among elderly Medicare beneficiaries using inpatient and outpatient claims. JAMA. 2000;284(18):2325–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu X, Mills A. Evaluating payment mechanisms: how can we measure unnecessary care? Health Policy Plan. 1999;14(4):409–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.

  5. Piers RD, Azoulay E, Ricou B, Dekeyser Ganz F, Decruyenaere J, Max A, Michalsen A, Maia PA, Owczuk R, Rubulotta F, Depuydt P, Meert AP, Reyners AK, Aquilina A, Bekaert M, Van den Noortgate NJ, Schrauwen WJ, Benoit DD, APPROPRICUS Study Group of the Ethics Section of the ESICM. Perceptions of appropriateness of care among European and Israeli intensive care unit nurses and physicians. JAMA 2011;306(24):2694–2703.

  6. Schoen C, Osborn R, How SK, Doty MM, Peugh J. In chronic condition: experiences of patients with complex health care needs, in eight countries, 2008. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(1):w1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Crossing the Quality Chasm. A framework for improving quality. In: Anonymous improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions: quality Chasm series. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anonymous Accountable care organizations. In: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 2013. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ACO/index.html?redirect=/ACO/. Accessed 9 Jan 2014.

  10. James J. Health policy brief: pay-for-performance. In: Health Affairs. 2012. http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=78. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.

  11. Anonymous Quality and Outcomes Framework. In: Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). 2015. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/qof. Accessed 8 Apr 2016.

  12. Arah OA, Westert GP, Hurst J, Klazinga NS. A conceptual framework for the OECD health care quality indicators project. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(Suppl 1):5–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). A performance measurement framework for the Canadian health system. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Commonwealth Fund. First report and recommendations of the Commonwealth Fund’s international working group on quality indicators. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anonymous Proceedings of the Appropriateness in Health Care Services. 23–25 March 2000; Koblenz, Germany. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment system for acute care hospitals and fiscal year 2010 rates; and changes to the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and rate years 2010 and 2009 rates. Final rules and interim final rule with comment period. Fed Regist. 2009;74(165):43753–4236.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Anonymous Choosing Wisely. 2016. http://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed 9 Jan 2016.

  18. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, van het Loo M, McDonnell J, Vader JP, Kahan JP. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, Hibbert PD, Westbrook JI, Coiera EW, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;197(2):100–5.

  20. Medicare.gov. Hospital compare: timely and effective care. 2014. http://medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/About/Timely-Effective-Care.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2015.

  21. Sanmartin C, Murphy K, Choptain N, Conner-Spady B, McLaren L, Bohm E, et al. Appropriateness of healthcare interventions: concepts and scoping of the published literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3):342–9.

  22. Sharpe VA. The politics, economics, and ethics of “appropriateness”. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1997;7(4):337–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Névéol A, Doğan RI, Lu Z. Author keywords in Biomedical journal articles. AMIA Ann Symp Proc. 2010;2010:537–41.

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Wyk K, Backwell A, Townson A. A narrative literature review to direct spinal cord injury patient education programming. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015;21(1):49–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoon PD, Chalasani V, Woo HH. Systematic review and meta-analysis on management of acute urinary retention. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(4):297–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Caldeira S, Timmins F. Resilience: synthesis of concept analyses and contribution to nursing classifications. Int Nurs Rev. 2016;63(2):191–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anonymous Medical definition of health care. In: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. 2016. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/health%20care. Accessed 15 Apr 2016.

  28. Chiu L, Emblen JD, Van Hofwegen L, Sawatzky R, Meyerhoff H. An integrative review of the concept of spirituality in the health sciences. West J Nurs Res. 2004;26(4):405–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonvicini L, Candela S, Evangelista A, Bertani D, Casoli M, Lusvardi A, et al. Public and private pregnancy care in Reggio Emilia Province: an observational study on appropriateness of care and delivery outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:72.

  31. Hosaka Y, Bito S, Matsubara K, Aoki Y, Iwata S. Association between the number of blood cultures and appropriateness of care for suspected bacteremic urinary tract infection in the elderly. J Infect Chemother. 2011;17(3):341–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. King R, Michelman M, Curran V, Bean J, Rowden P, Lindsey J. Patient-centered approach to ensuring appropriateness of care through blood management. South Med J. 2013;106(6):362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liang Y, Du F, Thompson IM, Turner BJ. Limited PSA testing in indigent men in South Texas: an appropriate care or missing a prevention opportunity? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21(9):1489–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Nahm NJ, Como JJ, Wilber JH, Vallier HA. Early appropriate care: definitive stabilization of femoral fractures within 24 hours of injury is safe in most patients with multiple injuries. J Trauma. 2011;71(1):175–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Panella M, Marchisio S, Brambilla R, Vanhaecht K, Di Stanislao F. A cluster randomized trial to assess the effect of clinical pathways for patients with stroke: results of the clinical pathways for effective and appropriate care study. BMC Med. 2012;10:71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Poulos CJ, Magee C, Bashford G, Eagar K. Determining level of care appropriateness in the patient journey from acute care to rehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:291.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sandella JM, Boulet JR, Langenau EE. An evaluation of cost and appropriateness of care as recommended by candidates on a national clinical skills examination. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(4):303–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vallier HA, Wang X, Moore TA, Wilber JH, Como JJ. Timing of orthopaedic surgery in multiple trauma patients: development of a protocol for early appropriate care. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(10):543–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bateson D. Female genital mutilation and modification: providing sensitive and appropriate care. Medicine Today. 2013;14(3):60–3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Breivik H, Eisenberg E, O’Brien T. The individual and societal burden of chronic pain in Europe: the case for strategic prioritisation and action to improve knowledge and availability of appropriate care. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Brien S, Gheihman G, Tse YK, Byrnes M, Harrison S, Dobrow MJ. A scoping review of appropriateness of care research activity in Canada from a health system-level perspective. Healthc Policy. 2014;9(4):48–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Brindis R, Goldberg SD, Turco MA, Dean LS. President’s page: quality and appropriateness of care: the response to allegations and actions needed by the cardiovascular professional. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(1):111–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen JJ. Implications for managed care for improving outcomes in Parkinson’s disease: balancing aggressive treatment with appropriate care. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(Suppl 12):S322–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. D’Alleyrand JCG, O’Toole RV. The evolution of damage control orthopedics. Current evidence and practical applications of early appropriate care. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(4):499–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sharpe VA, Uchendu US. Ensuring appropriate care for LGBT veterans in the veterans health administration. Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44:S53–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ackermann E. Barriers to “appropriate care” in general practice. Med J Aust. 2012;197(2):76–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fuchs VR. The doctor’s dilemma - what is “appropriate” care? N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):585–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hubbard J. Adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer: ageism or appropriate care? J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(24):3209–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lippi G, Favaloro EJ. Laboratory diagnostics and appropriate care of people with haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2011; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2011.02528.x.

  50. Schoormans D, Sprangers MAG, Mulder BJM. Future challenges in providing appropriate care for adults with congenital heart disease. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):3115–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Anstey MH, Adams JL, McGlynn EA. Perceptions of the appropriateness of care in California adult intensive care units. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Barber CE, Patel JN, Woodhouse L, Smith C, Weiss S, Homik J, et al. Development of key performance indicators to evaluate centralized intake for patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17(1):322.

  53. Bradford D, Hansen D, Karunanithi M. Making an APPropriate Care Program for Indigenous Cardiac Disease: Customization of an Existing Cardiac Rehabilitation Program. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:343-7.

  54. Broekhuis SM, Van Dijk WD, Giesen P, Pavilanis A. Walk-in clinics in Québec, Canada: patients and doctors do not agree on appropriateness of visits. Fam Pract. 2014;31(1):92–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kazandjian VA, Lipitz-Snyderman A. HIT or miss: the application of health care information technology to managing uncertainty in clinical decision making. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(6):1108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Korst LM, Feldman DS, Bollman DL, Fridman M, El Haj IS, Fink A, et al. Cross-sectional survey of California childbirth hospitals: implications for defining maternal levels of risk-appropriate care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):527.e1–527.e12.

  57. Korst LM, Feldman DS, Bollman DL, Fridman M, El Haj IS, Fink A, et al. Variation in childbirth services in California: a cross-sectional survey of childbirth hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(4):523.e1–8.

  58. Lin GA, Harris IS. Can appropriate use criteria lead to appropriate care? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(1):4–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Martin SS. Exploring discrimination in American health care system: perceptions/experiences of older Iranian immigrants. J Cross-Cult Gerontol. 2012;27(3):291–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Mataoui F, Kennedy SL. Providing culturally appropriate care to American Muslims with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2016;20(1):11–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. McCormick WC. Culturally appropriate care is essential to quality care for older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2014;35(6):486–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Mcfadden A, Renfrew MJ, Atkin K. Does cultural context make a difference to women’s experiences of maternity care? A qualitative study comparing the perspectives of breast-feeding women of Bangladeshi origin and health practitioners. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):e124–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mochizuki Y, Iwasaki Y, Masaki H. The asian research & collaboration center for nursing & cultural studies in Japan. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(SUPPL. 2):4–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Morgan S, Henderson KM, Tapley A, Scott J, Van Driel ML, Spike NA, et al. Pathology test-ordering behaviour of Australian general practice trainees: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(6):528–35.

  65. Newbrander W, Natiq K, Shahim S, Hamid N, Skena NB. Barriers to appropriate care for mothers and infants during the perinatal period in rural Afghanistan: a qualitative assessment. Global Public Health. 2014;9(SUPPL.1):S93–S109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Paprica PA, Culyer AJ, Elshaug AG, Peffer J, Sandoval GA. FROM TALK to ACTION: POLICY STAKEHOLDERS, APPROPRIATENESS, and SELECTIVE DISINVESTMENT. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(4):236–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Tasker A, Hughes A, Kelly M. Managing polytrauma: picking a way through the inflammatory cascade. Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(3):127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Tolson D, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, Aquino J, Beard J, Benetos A, et al. International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics: a global agenda for clinical research and quality of Care in Nursing Homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011;12(3):184–9.

  69. Tucker S, Brand C, Wilberforce M, Challis D. The balance of care approach to health and social care planning: Lessons from a systematic literature review. Health Serv Manag Res. 2013;26(1):18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vallier HA, Moore TA, Como JJ, Dolenc AJ, Steinmetz MP, Wagner KG, et al. Teamwork in trauma: system adjustment to a protocol for the Management of Multiply Injured Patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(11):e446–50.

  71. Vaucher C, Maillard MH, Froehlich F, Burnand B, Michetti P, Pittet V. Patients and gastroenterologists’ perceptions of treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases: do their perspectives match? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016:1–6.

  72. Weinberg DS, Narayanan AS, Moore TA, Vallier HA. Prolonged resuscitation of metabolic acidosis after trauma is associated with more complications. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10(1):153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Brooks E, Novins DK, Noe T, Bair B, Dailey N, Lowe J, et al. Reaching rural communities with culturally appropriate care: a model for adapting remote monitoring to American Indian veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(4):272–7.

  74. Trinh NH, Hagan PN, Flaherty K, Traeger LN, Inamori A, Brill CD, et al. Evaluating patient acceptability of a culturally focused psychiatric consultation intervention for Latino Americans with depression. J Immigr Minor Health. 2014;16(6):1271–7.

  75. Trinh N, Hails K, Flaherty K, Chang T, Fava M, Yeung A. Lessons learned: implementation of a culturally focused psychiatric consultation service for Latino Americans and Asian Americans. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2015;26(3):792–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Fanari Z, Abraham N, Hammami S, Doorey AJ. Aggressive measures to decrease door to balloon time may increase the incidence of unnecessary cardiac catheterization and delay appropriate care. Del Med J. 2015;87(9):276–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mancuso P, Valdmanis VG. Care appropriateness and health productivity evolution: a non-parametric analysis of the Italian regional health systems. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(5):595–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Matthie N, Jenerette C. Sickle cell disease in adults: developing an appropriate care plan. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19(5):562–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Mitchell RA, Stanger D, Shuster C, Telford J, Lam E, Enns R. Repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic yield and associated change in access to appropriate care. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:7678403.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Pape HC, Andruszkow H, Pfeifer R, Hildebrand F, Barkatali BM. Options and hazards of the early appropriate care protocol for trauma patients with major fractures: towards safe definitive surgery. Injury. 2016;47(4):787–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Reich MS, Dolenc AJ, Moore TA, Vallier HA. Is early appropriate care of axial and femoral fractures appropriate in multiply-injured elderly trauma patients? J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11(1):106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Dello Russo S, Mascia D, Morandi F. Individual perceptions of HR practices, HRM strength and appropriateness of care: a meso, multilevel approach. Int J Hum Resour Man. 2016;

  83. Schneider F, Poidevin A, Riehm S, Herbrecht JE, Guillot M. Liver transplantation in case of acetaminophen poisoning: importance of assessment of the colon if arterial lactate increases despite appropriate care. Transplantation. 2014;98(2):e10–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Vallier HA, Dolenc AJ, Moore TA. Early appropriate care: a protocol to standardize resuscitation assessment and to expedite fracture care reduces hospital stay and enhances revenue. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(6):306–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wynell-Mayow W, Guevel B, Quansah B, O’Leary R, Carrothers AD. Cambridge Polytrauma pathway: are we m aking appropriately guided decisions? Injury. 2016;47(10):2117–21.

  86. Brooks E, Spargo G, Yellowlees P, O’Neill P, Shore JH. Integrating culturally appropriate care into telemental health practice. In Myers K, Turvey CL editors. Telemental Health: Clinical, Technical, and Administrative Foundations for Evidenced-Based Practice. Waltham: Elsevier; 2013. pp 63-79.

  87. Pittet V, Maillard MH, Lauvergeon S, Timmer M, Michetti P, Froehlich F, et al. Acceptance of inflammatory bowel disease treatment recommendations based on appropriateness ratings: do practicing gastroenterologists agree with experts? J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9(2):132–9.

  88. Anonymous Effective care. In: The Dartmouth atlas of health care. 2014. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/keyissues/issue.aspx?con=2939. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.

  89. Reeve J, Dowrick CF, Freeman GK, Gunn J, Mair F, May C, et al. Examining the practice of generalist expertise: a qualitative study identifying constraints and solutions. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;4(12):2042533313510155.

  90. Reeve J. Interpretive medicine: supporting generalism in a changing primary care world. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2010;(88):1–20, v.

  91. Anonymous Preference-sensitive care. In: The Dartmouth atlas of health care. 2014. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/keyissues/issue.aspx?con=2938. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

There was no funding for the research or the writing of this paper.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Authors’ contributions

All authors were involved in the conceptualization and design of the review. JR-P and TJ collected the literature and selected articles for review based on eligibility criteria agreed upon by all authors. JR-P and TJ reviewed articles and JR-P, NB-A, and TJ were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data. JR-P drafted the article and NB-A and TJ critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved final version for submission.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, 8006, Zürich, Switzerland

    Joelle Robertson-Preidler & Nikola Biller-Andorno

  2. Department of Health Systems Management, Rush University, 1700 W. Van Buren Street, Suite 126B, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Tricia J. Johnson

Authors
  1. Joelle Robertson-Preidler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikola Biller-Andorno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tricia J. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joelle Robertson-Preidler.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robertson-Preidler, J., Biller-Andorno, N. & Johnson, T.J. What is appropriate care? An integrative review of emerging themes in the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 17, 452 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2357-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2357-2

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us