Eveline Hudon

Characteristics of primary care practices associated with high quality of care

Background: No primary practice care model has been shown to be superior in achieving high-quality primary care. We aimed to identify the organizational characteristics of primary care practices that provide high-quality primary care. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional observational study involving a stratified random sample of 37 primary care practices from 3 regions of Quebec. We recruited 1457 patients who had 1 of 2 chronic care conditions or 1 of 6 episodic care conditions. The main outcome was the overall technical quality score. We measured organizational characteristics by use of a validated questionnaire and the Team Climate Inventory. Statistical analyses were based on multilevel regression modelling. Results: The following characteristics were strongly associated with overall technical quality of care score: physician remuneration method (27.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.0–35.0), extent of sharing of administrative resources (7.6; 95% CI 0.8–14.4), presence of allied health professionals (15.3; 95% CI 5.4–25.2) and/or specialist physicians (19.6; 95% CI 8.3–30.9), the presence of mechanisms for maintaining or evaluating competence (7.7; 95% CI 3.0–12.4) and average organizational access to the practice (4.9; 95% CI 2.6–7.2). The number of physicians (1.2; 95% CI 0.6–1.8) and the average Team Climate Inventory score (1.3; 95% CI 0.1–2.5) were modestly associated with high-quality care. Interpretation: We identified a common set of organizational characteristics associated with high-quality primary care. Many of these characteristics are amenable to change through practice-level organizational changes.

A cluster randomized controlled Trial to Evaluate an Ambulatory primary care Management program for patients with dyslipidemia: the TEAM study

Background: Few studies have reported the efficacy of collaborative care involving family physicians and community pharmacists for patients with dyslipidemia. Methods: We randomly assigned clusters consisting of at least two physicians and at least four pharmacists to provide collaborative care or usual care. Under the collaborative care model, pharmacists counselled patients about their medications, requested laboratory tests, monitored the effectiveness and safety of medications and patients’ adherence to therapy, and adjusted medication dosages. After 12 months of follow-up, we assessed changes in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the primary outcome), the proportion of patients reaching their target lipid levels and changes in other risk factors. Results: Fifteen clusters representing a total of 77 physicians and 108 pharmacists were initially recruited, and a total of 51 physicians and 49 pharmacists were included in the final analyses. The collaborative care teams followed a total of 108 patients, and the usual care teams followed a total of 117 patients. At baseline, mean LDL cholesterol level was higher in the collaborative care group (3.5 v. 3.2 mmol/L, p = 0.05). During the study, patients in the collaborative care group were less likely to receive high-potency statins (11% v. 40%), had more visits with health care professionals and more laboratory tests, were more likely to have their lipid-lowering treatment changed and were more likely to report lifestyle changes. At 12 months, the crude incremental mean reduction in LDL cholesterol in the collaborative care group was −0.2 mmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.3 to −0.1), and the adjusted reduction was −0.05 (95% CI −0.3 to 0.2). The crude relative risk of achieving lipid targets for patients in the collaborative care group was 1.10 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.26), and the adjusted relative risk was 1.16 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.34). Interpretation: Collaborative care involving physicians and pharmacists had no significant clinical impact on lipid control in patients with dyslipidemia. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial register no. ISRCTN66345533.

Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care.

In Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients’ cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care. To compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer. Canadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialists A total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients’ care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care. Most specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission. Lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.BackgroundIn Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients’ cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care.ObjectiveTo compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer.DesignCanadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialistsParticipantsA total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients’ care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care.ResultsMost specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission.ConclusionLung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.

Family Physician Involvement in Cancer Care Follow-up: The Experience of a Cohort of Patients With Lung Cancer

PURPOSE There has been little research describing the involvement of family physicians in the follow-up of patients with cancer, especially during the primary treatment phase. We undertook a prospective longitudinal study of patients with lung cancer to assess their family physician’s involvement in their follow-up at the different phases of cancer. METHODS In 5 hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada, patients with a recent diagnosis of lung cancer were surveyed every 3 to 6 months, whether they had metastasis or not, for a maximum of 18 months, to assess aspects of their family physician’s involvement in cancer care. RESULTS Of the 395 participating patients, 92% had a regular family physician but only 60% had been referred to a specialist by him/her or a colleague for the diagnosis of their lung cancer. A majority of patients identified the oncology team or oncologists as mainly responsible for their cancer care throughout their cancer journey, except at the advanced phase, where a majority attributed this role to their family physician. At baseline, only 16% of patients perceived a shared care pattern between their family physician and oncologists, but this proportion increased with cancer progression. Most patients would have liked their family physician to be more involved in all aspects of cancer care. CONCLUSIONS Although patients perceive that the oncology team is the main party responsible for the follow-up of their lung cancer, they also wish their family physicians to be involved. Better communication and collaboration between family physicians and the oncology team are needed to facilitate shared care in cancer follow-up.

Pharmacotherapeutic management of chronic noncancer pain in primary care: lessons for pharmacists

Purpose Describe the pharmacotherapeutic management of primary-care patients with chronic noncancer pain, assess their satisfaction with pain treatment, and identify the determinants of their satisfaction. Methods A cohort study was conducted in Quebec (Canada). Patients reporting chronic noncancer pain with an average pain intensity of at least 4 on a 0–10 scale (10= worst possible pain) and having an active analgesic prescription from a primary-care physician were recruited. They completed a telephone interview and a self-administered questionnaire to document their pain, emotional well-being, satisfaction with treatment, and barriers/beliefs/attitudes about pain and its treatment. Information on pharmacotherapy was based on an administrative provincial database and pharmacies’ charts. Determinants of patients’ satisfaction were identified using multivariate linear regression models. Results Four hundred and eighty six patients participated. Their mean age was 58.4 years and they had had pain for a mean of 11.7 years (standard deviation, ±11.1) at an average pain intensity of 6.5 in the past week. Although 90% reported adverse gastrointestinal effects, 36.4% and 54.4% of these patients took no over-the-counter or prescribed medication for constipation or nausea, respectively. On a scale from 0–100, the mean overall satisfaction score was 64.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] =63.5–65.9). Patient satisfaction was low, particularly regarding the “information about pain and its treatment” (mean 50.6; 95% CI =47.6–53.7) and “treatment efficacy” (mean 53.6; 95% CI =51.5–55.6) subscales. The overall treatment satisfaction score decreased with more pain disability, probable depression and anxiety, more barriers to pain treatment, higher incidence of nausea, and use of over-the-counter analgesics. Conclusion In primary care, patients’ level of satisfaction with their pain treatment is not optimal. This study underlines how the expanded scope of practice of community pharmacists may allow them to play a pivotal role in providing information, discussing barriers to pain treatment, and monitoring pain disability, and by appropriately managing pharmacotherapy to optimize effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects.

Priorities for action to improve cardiovascular preventive care of patients with multimorbid conditions in primary care--a participatory action research project.

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in patients with multimorbid conditions is not always optimal in primary care (PC). Interactive collaborative processes involving PC community are recommended to develop new models of care and to successfully reshape clinical practices. OBJECTIVE To identify challenges and priorities for action in PC to improve CVD prevention among patients with multimorbid conditions. METHODS Physicians (n = 6), nurses (n = 6), community pharmacists (n = 6), other health professionals (n = 6), patients (n = 6) and family members (n = 6), decision makers (n = 6) and researchers (n = 6) took part in a 1-day workshop. Using the Chronic Care Model (CCM) as a framework, participants in focus groups and nominal groups identified the challenges and priorities for action. RESULTS Providing appropriate support to lifestyle change in patients and implementing collaborative practices are challenging. Priorities for action relate to three CCM domains: (i) improve the clinical information system by providing computerized tools for interprofessional and interinstitutional communication, (ii) improve the organization of health care and delivery system design by enhancing interprofessional collaboration, especially with nurses and pharmacists, and creating care teams that include a case manager and (iii) improve self-management support by giving patients access to nutritionists, to personalized health care plans including lifestyle recommendations and to other resources (community resources, websites). CONCLUSIONS To optimize CVD prevention, PC actors recommend focussing mainly on three CCM domains. Electronic medical records, collaborative practices and self-management support are perceived as pivotal aspects of successful PC prevention programme. Developing and implementing such models are challenging and will require the mobilization of the whole PC community.

Priority interventions to improve the management of chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a participatory research of the accORD program

Purpose There is evidence that the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in primary care is far from being optimal. A 1-day workshop was held to explore the perceptions of key actors regarding the challenges and priority interventions to improve CNCP management in primary care. Methods Using the Chronic Care Model as a conceptual framework, physicians (n=6), pharmacists (n=6), nurses (n=6), physiotherapists (n=6), psychologists (n=6), pain specialists (n=6), patients (n=3), family members (n=3), decision makers and managers (n=4), and pain researchers (n=7) took part in seven focus groups and five nominal groups. Results Challenges identified in focus group discussions were related to five dimensions: knowledge gap, “work in silos”, lack of awareness that CNCP represents an important clinical problem, difficulties in access to health professionals and services, and patient empowerment needs. Based on the nominal group discussions, the following priority interventions were identified: interdisciplinary continuing education, interdisciplinary treatment approach, regional expert leadership, creation and definition of care paths, and patient education programs. Conclusion Barriers to optimal management of CNCP in primary care are numerous. Improving its management cannot be envisioned without considering multifaceted interventions targeting several dimensions of the Chronic Care Model and focusing on both clinicians and patients.

Facilitating Implementation of Interprofessional Collaborative Practices Into Primary Care: A Trilogy of Driving Forces.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Implementing interprofessional collaborative practices in primary care is challenging, and research about its facilitating factors remains scarce. The goal of this participatory action research study was to better understand the driving forces during the early stage of the implementation process of a community‐driven and patient‐focused program in primary care titled “TRANSforming InTerprofessional cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care” (TRANSIT). Eight primary care clinics in Quebec, Canada, agreed to participate by creating and implementing an interprofessional facilitation team (IFT). Sixty‐three participants volunteered to be part of an IFT, and 759 patients agreed to participate. We randomized six clinics into a supported facilitation (“supported”) group, with an external facilitator (EF) and financial incentives for participants. We assigned two clinics to an unsupported facilitation (“unsupported”) group, with no EF or financial incentives. After 3 months, we held one interview for the two EFs. After 6 months, we held eight focus groups with IFT members and another interview with each EF. The analyses revealed three key forces: (1) opportunity for dialogue through the IFT, (2) active role of the EF, and (3) change implementation budgets. Decisionmakers designing implementation plans for interprofessional programs should ensure that these driving forces are activated. Further research should examine how these forces affect interprofessional practices and patient outcomes.

External facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams: a qualitative study of their roles in supporting practice change

BackgroundFacilitation is a powerful approach to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to better understand the facilitation roles exercised by both external facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams to foster the implementation of change. Building on Dogherty et al.’s taxonomy of facilitation activities, this study uses an organizational development lens to identify and analyze facilitation roles. It includes a concise definition of what interprofessional facilitation teams actually do, thus expanding our limited knowledge of teams that act as change agents. We also investigate the facilitation dynamics between change actors.MethodsWe carried out a qualitative analysis of a 1-year process of practice change implementation. We studied four family medicine groups, in which we constituted interprofessional facilitation teams. Each team was supported by one external facilitator and included at least one family physician, one case manager nurse, and health professionals located on or off the family medicine group’s site (one pharmacist, plus at least one nutritionist, kinesiologist, or psychologist). We collected our data through focus group interviews with the four teams, individual interviews with the two external facilitators, and case audit documentation. We analyzed both predetermined (as per Dogherty et al., 2012) and emerging facilitation roles, as well as facilitation dynamics.ResultsA non-linear framework of facilitation roles emerged from our data, based on four fields of expertise: change management, project management, meeting management, and group/interpersonal dynamics. We identified 72 facilitation roles, grouped into two categories: “implementation-oriented” and “support-oriented.” Each category was subdivided into themes (n = 6; n = 5) for clearer understanding (e.g., legitimation of change/project, management of effective meetings). Finally, an examination of facilitation dynamics revealed eight relational ties occurring within and/or between groups of actors.ConclusionsFacilitation is an approach used by appointed individuals, which teams can also foster, to build capacity and support practice change. Increased understanding of facilitation roles constitutes an asset in training practitioners such as organizational development experts, consultants, facilitators, and facilitation teams. It also helps decision makers become aware of the multiple roles and dynamics involved and the key competencies needed to recruit facilitators and members of interprofessional facilitation teams.

Development of an interprofessional program for cardiovascular prevention in primary care: A participatory research approach:

Background: The chronic care model provides a framework for improving the management of chronic diseases. Participatory research could be useful in developing a chronic care model–based program of interventions, but no one has as yet offered a description of precisely how to apply the approach. Objectives: An innovative, structured, multi-step participatory process was applied to select and develop (1) chronic care model–based interventions program to improve cardiovascular disease prevention that can be adapted to a particular regional context and (2) a set of indicators to monitor its implementation. Methods: Primary care clinicians (n = 16), administrative staff (n = 2), patients and family members (n = 4), decision makers (n = 5), researchers, and a research coordinator (n = 7) took part in the process. Additional primary care actors (n = 26) validated the program. Results: The program targets multimorbid patients at high or moderate risk of cardiovascular disease with uncontrolled hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes. It comprises interprofessional follow-up coordinated by case-management nurses, in which motivated patients are referred in a timely fashion to appropriate clinical and community resources. The program is supported by clinical tools and includes training in motivational interviewing. A set of 89 process and clinical indicators were defined. Conclusion: Through a participatory process, a contextualized interventions program to optimize cardiovascular disease prevention and a set of quality indicators to monitor its implementation were developed. Similar approach might be used to develop other health programs in primary care if program developers are open to building on community strengths and priorities.