Joshua Tepper

Preoperative Laboratory Investigations: Rates and Variability Prior to Low-risk Surgical Procedures.

Background:Increasing attention has been focused on low-value healthcare services. Through Choosing Wisely campaigns, routine laboratory testing before low-risk surgery has been discouraged in the absence of clinical indications. The authors investigated rates, determinants, and institutional variation in laboratory testing before low-risk procedures. Methods:Patients who underwent ophthalmologic surgeries or predefined low-risk surgeries in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2013, were identified from population-based administrative databases. Preoperative blood work was defined as a complete blood count, prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin, or basic metabolic panel within 60 days before an index procedure. Adjusted associations between patient and institutional factors and preoperative testing were assessed with hierarchical multivariable logistic regression. Institutional variation was characterized using the median odds ratio. Results:The cohort included 906,902 patients who underwent 1,330,466 procedures (57.1% ophthalmologic and 42.9% low-risk surgery) at 119 institutions. Preoperative blood work preceded 400,058 (30.1%) procedures. The unadjusted institutional rate of preoperative blood work varied widely (0.0 to 98.1%). In regression modeling, significant predictors of preoperative testing included atrial fibrillation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 2.51 to 2.66), preoperative medical consultation (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.71), previous mitral valve replacement (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.58), and liver disease (AOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.55 to 1.84). The median odds ratio for interinstitutional variation was 2.43. Conclusions:Results of this study suggest that testing is associated with a range of clinical covariates. However, an association was similarly identified with preoperative consultation, and significant variation between institutions exists across the jurisdiction.

Electrocardiograms in Low-Risk Patients Undergoing an Annual Health Examination

Importance Clinical guidelines advise against routine electrocardiograms (ECG) in low-risk, asymptomatic patients, but the frequency and impact of such ECGs are unknown. Objective To assess the frequency of ECGs following an annual health examination (AHE) with a primary care physician among patients with no known cardiac conditions or risk factors, to explore factors predictive of receiving an ECG in this clinical scenario, and to compare downstream cardiac testing and clinical outcomes in low-risk patients who did and did not receive an ECG after their AHE. Design, Setting, and Participants A population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada, between 2010/2011 and 2014/2015 to identify low-risk primary care patients and to assess the subsequent outcomes of interest in this time frame. All patients 18 years or older who had no prior cardiac medical history or risk factors who received an AHE. Exposures Receipt of an ECG within 30 days of an AHE. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was receipt of downstream cardiac testing or consultation with a cardiologist. Secondary outcomes were death, hospitalization, and revascularization at 12 months. Results A total of 3 629 859 adult patients had at least 1 AHE between fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2014/2015. Of these patients, 21.5% had an ECG within 30 days after an AHE. The proportion of patients receiving an ECG after an AHE varied from 1.8% to 76.1% among 679 primary care practices (coefficient of quartile dispersion [CQD], 0.50) and from 1.1% to 94.9% among 8036 primary care physicians (CQD, 0.54). Patients who had an ECG were significantly more likely to receive additional cardiac tests, visits, or procedures than those who did not (odds ratio [OR], 5.14; 95% CI, 5.07-5.21; P < .001). The rates of death (0.19% vs 0.16%), cardiac-related hospitalizations (0.46% vs 0.12%), and coronary revascularizations (0.20% vs 0.04%) were low in both the ECG and non-ECG cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance Despite recommendations to the contrary, ECG testing after an AHE is relatively common, with significant variation among primary care physicians. Routine ECG testing seems to increase risk for a subsequent cardiology testing and consultation cascade, even though the overall cardiac event rate in both groups was very low.

Promoting continuity of care for homeless adults with unmet health needs: The role of brief interventions

Promoting timely and continuous care for people experiencing homelessness has been a challenge in many jurisdictions, plagued by access barriers and service fragmentation. As part of a larger programme evaluation, this study used qualitative methods to examine the role of a brief interdisciplinary intervention in supporting continuity of care for this population in a large Canadian urban centre. The intervention provides time-limited case management, primary and psychiatric care, and peer accompaniment to homeless adults with unmet health needs discharged from hospital. Data were collected from 52 study participants between July 2013 and December 2014. Three focus groups were conducted with service providers and people with lived experience of homelessness, and 29 individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users and other key informants. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis was informed by existing frameworks for continuity of care, while remaining open to additional or unexpected findings. Findings suggest that brief interdisciplinary interventions can promote continuity of care by offering low-barrier access, timely and responsive service provision, including timely connection to long-term services and supports, appropriate individualised services and effective co-ordination of services. Although brief interdisciplinary interventions were perceived to promote access, timeliness and co-ordination of care for this population with complex health and social needs, gaps in the local service delivery context can present persisting barriers to care comprehensiveness and continuity.

Advancing Primary Care Through Alternative Payment Models: Lessons from the United States & Canada

The United States and Canada share high costs, poor health system performance, and challenges to the transformation of primary care, in part due to the limitations of their fee-for-service payment models. Rapidly advancing alternative payment models (APMs) in both countries promise better support for the essential tasks of primary care. These include interdisciplinary teams, care coordination, self-management support, and ongoing communication. This article reviews learnings from a 2017 binational symposium of 150 experts in policy and research that included a discussion of ongoing APM experiments in the United States and Canada. Discussions ranged from APM challenges and successes to their real and potential impact on primary care. The gathering yielded many lessons for policy makers, payors, researchers, and providers. Experts lauded recent APM experimentation on both sides of the border, while cautioning against the risk of “pilotitis,” or developing, implementing, and evaluating new payment models without plan or ability scale them into broader practice. Discussants highlighted the power of “learning at scale,” highlighting large-scale primary care payment innovations launched by the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation since 2011, and called for a similar national center to drive innovation across provincial health systems in Canada. There was general consensus that altering payment models alone, absent incentives for innovation and continuous learning as well as increased proportional spending on primary care overall, would not correct health system deficiencies. Participants lamented the absence of more robust evaluation of APM successes and shortcomings, as well as more rapid release of results to accelerate further innovation. They also highlighted the importance of APMs that include flexible and upfront payments for primary care innovations, and which reward measuring and achieving global rather than intermediate outcomes, to achieve utilization goals and patient and provider satisfaction.

Routine use of chest x-ray for low-risk patients undergoing a periodic health examination: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Many evidence-based recommendations advocate against the use of routine chest x-rays for asymptomatic, low-risk outpatients; however, it is unclear how regularly chest x-rays are ordered in primary care. Our study aims to describe the frequency of, and variation in, routine chest x-ray use in low-risk outpatients among primary care physicians. METHODS In this retrospective cohort study, Ontario residents aged 18 years and older with a periodic health examination (PHE) between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015, were identified via administrative claims data. Patients with a recent history (last 3 years) of any of the following were excluded: cardiac or pulmonary disease, high-risk comorbidity (e.g., diabetes), consultations/visits or procedures involving cardiac or pulmonary specialists, cancer and severe chest trauma. The primary outcome, a routine chest x-ray, was defined as at least 1 chest x-ray claim within 7 days after a PHE. RESULTS While a routine chest x-ray followed only 2.42% of 2 847 508 PHEs, one-quarter of family physicians (499/2031) ordered chest x-rays for more than 5.0% of their PHEs (interquartile range 1.5%-5.0%) and accounted for 62.9% of all tests observed. Routine chest x-ray use declined by 2.0% per quarter (adjusted rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.98). Older age (45-64 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.78-1.86; ≥ 65 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted OR 2.48, 95% CI 2.39-2.58) and male sex of the patient (OR 2.19, 95% CI 2.14-2.24) and male sex of the provider (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.59) were significantly associated with increased odds of a routine chest x-ray being ordered. INTERPRETATION It is relatively uncommon for a chest x-ray to be ordered as part of a PHE in Ontario; however, the substantial variation observed among physicians suggests potential for interventions targeted at the most frequent users.

Bridging Hospital and Community Care for Homeless Adults with Mental Health Needs: Outcomes of a Brief Interdisciplinary Intervention:

Objective: This study examines health and service use outcomes and associated factors among homeless adults participating in a brief interdisciplinary intervention following discharge from hospital. Method: Using a pre-post cohort design, 223 homeless adults with mental health needs were enrolled in the Coordinated Access to Care for the Homeless (CATCH) program, a 4- to 6-month interdisciplinary intervention offering case management, peer support, access to primary psychiatric care, and supplementary community services. Study participants were interviewed at program entry and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits and assessed for health status, acute care service use, housing outcomes, mental health, substance use, quality of life, and their working alliance with service providers. Linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations were performed to examine outcomes longitudinally. Additional post hoc analyses evaluated differences between CATCH participants and a comparison group of homeless adults experiencing mental illness who received usual services over the same period. Results: In the pre-post analyses, CATCH participants had statistically significant improvements in mental and physical health status and reductions in mental health symptoms, substance misuse, and the number of hospital admissions. The strength of the working alliance between participants and their case manager was associated with reduced health care use and mental health symptoms. Post hoc analyses suggest that CATCH may be associated with statistically significant improvements in mental health symptoms in the study population. Conclusions: A brief interdisciplinary intervention may be a promising approach to improving health outcomes among homeless adults with unmet health needs. Further rigorous research is needed into the effectiveness of brief interventions following discharge from hospital.

Physician Characteristics Associated With Ordering 4 Low-Value Screening Tests in Primary Care

Key Points Question Do physicians who order a high frequency of 1 low-value screening test also order a high frequency of other low-value screening tests? Findings In this cohort study of 2394 primary care physicians, 18.4% of the physicians were in the top ordering quintile of at least 2 of 4 low-value screening tests. These physicians ordered 39.2% of all low-value screening tests. Meaning The study findings suggest that efforts to reduce low-value care should consider strategies that focus on physicians who order a high frequency of low-value care.

Frequency and Associations of Prescription Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use Among Patients With a Musculoskeletal Disorder and Hypertension, Heart Failure, or Chronic Kidney Disease

Importance International nephrology societies advise against nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in patients with hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, recent studies have not investigated the frequency or associations of use in these patients. Objectives To estimate the frequency of and variation in prescription NSAID use among high-risk patients, to identify characteristics associated with prescription NSAID use, and to investigate whether use is associated with short-term, safety-related outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants In this retrospective cohort study, administrative claims databases were linked to create a cohort of primary care visits for a musculoskeletal disorder involving patients 65 years and older with a history of hypertension, heart failure, or CKD between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2016, in Ontario, Canada. Exposure Prescription NSAID use was defined as at least 1 patient-level Ontario Drug Benefit claim for a prescription NSAID dispensing within 7 days after a visit. Main Outcomes and Measures Multiple cardiovascular and renal safety-related outcomes were observed between 8 and 37 days after each visit, including cardiac complications (any emergency department visit or hospitalization for cardiovascular disease), renal complications (any hospitalization for hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, or dialysis), and death. Results The study identified 2 415 291 musculoskeletal-related primary care visits by 814 049 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [4.0] years; 61.1% female) with hypertension, heart failure, or CKD, of which 224 825 (9.3%) were followed by prescription NSAID use. The median physician-level prescribing rate was 11.0% (interquartile range, 6.7%-16.7%) among 7365 primary care physicians. Within a sample of 35 552 matched patient pairs, each consisting of an exposed and nonexposed patient matched on the logit of their propensity score for prescription NSAID use (exposure), the study found similar rates of cardiac complications (288 [0.8%] vs 279 [0.8%]), renal complications (34 [0.1%] vs 33 [0.1%]), and death (27 [0.1%] vs 30 [0.1%]). For cardiovascular and renal-safety related outcomes, there was no difference between exposed patients (308 [0.9%]) and nonexposed patients (300 [0.8%]) (absolute risk reduction, 0.0003; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.002; P = .74). Conclusions and Relevance While prescription NSAID use in primary care was frequent among high-risk patients, with widespread physician-level variation, use was not associated with increased risk of short-term, safety-related outcomes.

From pilot project to system solution: innovation, spread and scale for health system leaders

Promoting the scale and spread of effective health innovations requires dedicated action from health system leaders. In order to maximise the effects of leadership strategies to promote the spread and scale of health innovations, conceptual clarity and well-defined strategies are essential. In this commentary, we propose definitions of the concepts of ‘innovation’, ‘spread’ and ‘scale’, and explain how these concepts can be used by health system leaders to generate interest, excitement and commitment for specific innovations from a broad community of stakeholders. We then outline two strategies from the community organising literature that leaders can use to promote spread and scale.