# Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure

## TL;DR

This study explores a failed attempt to reduce unnecessary heart diagnostic procedures in Germany by implementing regional treatment guidelines.

## Contribution

The paper provides insights into the challenges of implementing evidence-based treatment pathways in clinical practice.

## Key findings

- Regional treatment pathways for coronary heart disease received little support from physicians.
- Participants showed minimal commitment to change despite guideline recommendations.
- Overutilization of coronary angiograms persists due to lack of feedback and adherence to evidence.

## Abstract

The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study.

General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis.

Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one’s own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees.

Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-10904-5.