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

Introduction: 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.

Aim: To evaluate the Grattan Institute report and associated publications, and determine the validity of their assertions regarding hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) utilisation in Australia.

Methods: Critical analysis of the HBOT metadata included in the Grattan Institute study was undertaken and compared against other publicly available Australian Government and independent data sources. The consistency, accuracy and reproducibility of data definitions and terminology across the various publications were appraised and the authors' methodology was reviewed. Reference sources were examined for relevance and temporal eligibility.

Results: Review of the Grattan publications demonstrated multiple problems, including (but not limited to): confusing patient-treatments with total patient numbers; incorrect identification of 'appropriate' vs. 'inappropriate' indications for HBOT; reliance upon a compromised primary dataset; lack of appropriate clinical input, muddled methodology and use of inapplicable references. These errors resulted in a more than seventy-fold over-estimation of the number of patients potentially treated inappropriately with HBOT in Australia that year.

Conclusion: Numerous methodological flaws and factual errors have been identified in this Grattan Institute study. Its conclusions are not valid and a formal retraction is required.