Kris Aubrey-Bassler

Implementation of the BETTER 2 program: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators of a novel way to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care.

BackgroundBETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.MethodsWe collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation.ResultsThe following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics—complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting—perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients’ needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners—interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting—the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process—planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork.ConclusionsThe implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: A mixed methods program evaluation

BackgroundThe objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care.Methods/designThe BETTER 2 program aims to expand the implementation of the intervention used in the original BETTER trial into communities across Canada (Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia). This proactive approach provides at-risk patients with an intervention from the prevention practitioner, a health-care professional. Using the BETTER toolkit, the prevention practitioner determines which CDPS actions the patient is eligible to receive, and through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, develops a unique and individualized `prevention prescription’ with the patient. This intervention is 1) personalized; 2) addressing multiple conditions; 3) integrated through linkages to local, regional, or national resources; and 4) longitudinal by assessing patients over time. The BETTER 2 program brings together primary care providers, policy/decision makers and researchers to work towards improving CDPS in primary care. The target patient population is adults aged 40-65. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintain (RE-AIM) framework will inform the evaluation of the program through qualitative and quantitative methods. A composite index will be used to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the prevention practitioner intervention. The CDPS actions comprising the composite index include the following: process measures, referral/treatment measures, and target/change outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and associated lifestyle factors.DiscussionThe BETTER 2 program is a collaborative approach grounded in practice and built from existing work (i.e., integration not creation). The program evaluation is designed to provide an understanding of issues impacting the implementation of an effective approach for CDPS within primary care that may be adapted to become sustainable in the non-research setting.

Outcomes of deliveries by family physicians or obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using an instrumental variable

Background: Previous research has suggested that obstetric outcomes are similar for deliveries by family physicians and obstetricians, but many of these studies were small, and none of them adjusted for unmeasured selection bias. We compared obstetric outcomes between these provider types using an econometric method designed to adjust for unobserved confounding. Methods: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study of all Canadian (except Quebec) hospital births with delivery by family physicians and obstetricians at more than 20 weeks gestational age, with birth weight greater than 500 g, between Apr. 1, 2006, and Mar. 31, 2009. The primary outcomes were the relative risks of in-hospital perinatal death and a composite of maternal mortality and major morbidity assessed with multivariable logistic regression and instrumental variable–adjusted multivariable regression. Results: After exclusions, there were 3600 perinatal deaths and 14 394 cases of maternal morbidity among 799 823 infants and 793 053 mothers at 390 hospitals. For deliveries by family physicians v. obstetricians, the relative risk of perinatal mortality was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.14) and of maternal morbidity was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70–0.94) according to logistic regression. The respective relative risks were 0.97 (95% CI 0.58–1.64) and 1.13 (95% CI 0.65–1.95) according to instrumental variable methods. Interpretation: After adjusting for both observed and unobserved confounders, we found a similar risk of perinatal mortality and adverse maternal outcome for obstetric deliveries by family physicians and obstetricians. Whether there are differences between these groups for other outcomes remains to be seen.

Alignment of Canadian Primary Care With the Patient Medical Home Model: A QUALICO-PC Study

PURPOSE The patient medical home (PMH) model aims to improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes in Canada, but since its introduction in 2009, there has been no evaluation of the extent to which primary care conforms with PMH attributes. Our objective was to compare current primary care across Canada with the 10 goals of the PMH model. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of primary care organization and delivery was conducted in Canadian provinces to evaluate the PMH-based attributes of primary care practices. Family physician and patient responses were mapped to the 10 goals of the PMH model. We used regression models to describe the provinces’ success in meeting the goals, taking specific practice characteristics into account. We created a PMH composite score by weighting each goal equally for each practice and aggregating these by province. The PMH score is the sum of the values for each goal, which were scored from 0 to 1; a score of 10 indicates that all 10 goals of the PMH model were achieved. RESULTS Seven hundred seventy-two primary care practices and 7,172 patients participated in the survey. The average national PMH score was 5.36 (range 4.75–6.23) of 10. Ontario was the only province to score significantly higher than Canada as a whole, whereas Québec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island scored below the national average. There was little variation, however, among provinces in achieving the 10 PMH goals. CONCLUSIONS Provincial PMH scores indicate considerable room for improvement if the PMH goals are to be fully implemented in Canada.

The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients – a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design

BackgroundThere is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake.Methods/designThe BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40–65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach.DiscussionThis project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings.Trial registrationISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016

Cesarean delivery rates among family physicians versus obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using instrumental variable methods

BACKGROUND Previous research suggests that family physicians have rates of cesarean delivery that are lower than or equivalent to those for obstetricians, but adjustments for risk differences in these analyses may have been inadequate. We used an econometric method to adjust for observed and unobserved factors affecting the risk of cesarean delivery among women attended by family physicians versus obstetricians. METHODS This retrospective population-based cohort study included all Canadian (except Quebec) hospital deliveries by family physicians and obstetricians between Apr. 1, 2006, and Mar. 31, 2009. We excluded women with multiple gestations, and newborns with a birth weight less than 500 g or gestational age less than 20 weeks. We estimated the relative risk of cesarean delivery using instrumental-variable-adjusted and logistic regression. RESULTS The final cohort included 776 299 women who gave birth in 390 hospitals. The risk of cesarean delivery was 27.3%, and the mean proportion of deliveries by family physicians was 26.9% (standard deviation 23.8%). The relative risk of cesarean delivery for family physicians versus obstetricians was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.56) with logistic regression and 1.27 (95% CI 1.02-1.57) with instrumental-variable-adjusted regression. INTERPRETATION Our conventional analyses suggest that family physicians have a lower rate of cesarean delivery than obstetricians, but instrumental variable analyses suggest the opposite. Because instrumental variable methods adjust for unmeasured factors and traditional methods do not, the large discrepancy between these estimates of risk suggests that clinical and/or sociocultural factors affecting the decision to perform cesarean delivery may not be accounted for in our database.

Case management in primary care among frequent users of healthcare services with chronic conditions: protocol of a realist synthesis

Introduction A common reason for frequent use of healthcare services is the complex healthcare needs of individuals suffering from multiple chronic conditions, especially in combination with mental health comorbidities and/or social vulnerability. Frequent users (FUs) of healthcare services are more at risk for disability, loss of quality of life and mortality. Case management (CM) is a promising intervention to improve care integration for FU and to reduce healthcare costs. This review aims to develop a middle-range theory explaining how CM in primary care improves outcomes among FU with chronic conditions, for what types of FU and in what circumstances. Methods and analysis A realist synthesis (RS) will be conducted between March 2017 and March 2018 to explore the causal mechanisms that underlie CM and how contextual factors influence the link between these causal mechanisms and outcomes. According to RS methodology, five steps will be followed: (1) focusing the scope of the RS; (2) searching for the evidence; (3) appraising the quality of evidence; (4) extracting the data; and (5) synthesising the evidence. Patterns in context–mechanism–outcomes (CMOs) configurations will be identified, within and across identified studies. Analysis of CMO configurations will help confirm, refute, modify or add to the components of our initial rough theory and ultimately produce a refined theory explaining how and why CM interventions in primary care works, in which contexts and for which FU with chronic conditions. Ethics and dissemination Research ethics is not required for this review, but publication guidelines on RS will be followed. Based on the review findings, we will develop and disseminate messages tailored to various relevant stakeholder groups. These messages will allow the development of material that provides guidance on the design and the implementation of CM in health organisations. Trial registration number Prospero CRD42017057753.