Noah Ivers

Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on diabetes care remains unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of QI strategies on glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), vascular risk management, microvascular complication monitoring, and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes. METHODS We identified studies through Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database (from inception to July 2010), and references of included randomised clinical trials. We included trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, health-care professionals, or patients to improve management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. FINDINGS We reviewed 48 cluster randomised controlled trials, including 2538 clusters and 84,865 patients, and 94 patient randomised controlled trials, including 38,664 patients. In random effects meta-analysis, the QI strategies reduced HbA(1c) by a mean difference of 0·37% (95% CI 0·28-0·45; 120 trials), LDL cholesterol by 0·10 mmol/L (0·05-0.14; 47 trials), systolic blood pressure by 3·13 mm Hg (2·19-4·06, 65 trials), and diastolic blood pressure by 1·55 mm Hg (0·95-2·15, 61 trials) versus usual care. We noted larger effects when baseline concentrations were greater than 8·0% for HbA(1c), 2·59 mmol/L for LDL cholesterol, and 80 mm Hg for diastolic and 140 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure. The effectiveness of QI strategies varied depending on baseline HbA(1c) control. QI strategies increased the likelihood that patients received aspirin (11 trials; relative risk [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·21-1·45), antihypertensive drugs (ten trials; RR 1·17, 1·01-1·37), and screening for retinopathy (23 trials; RR 1·22, 1·13-1·32), renal function (14 trials; RR 128, 1·13-1·44), and foot abnormalities (22 trials; RR 1·27, 1·16-1·39). However, statin use (ten trials; RR 1·12, 0·99-1·28), hypertension control (18 trials; RR 1·01, 0·96-1·07), and smoking cessation (13 trials; RR 1·13, 0·99-1·29) were not significantly increased. INTERPRETATION Many trials of QI strategies showed improvements in diabetes care. Interventions targeting the system of chronic disease management along with patient-mediated QI strategies should be an important component of interventions aimed at improving diabetes management. Interventions solely targeting health-care professionals seem to be beneficial only if baseline HbA(1c) control is poor. FUNDING Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (now Alberta Innovates--Health Solutions).

2014 Focused Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an extremely common clinical problem with an important population morbidity and mortality burden. The management of AF is complex and fraught with many uncertain and contentious issues, which are being addressed by extensive ongoing basic and clinical research. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Guidelines Committee produced an extensive set of evidence-based AF management guidelines in 2010 and updated them in the areas of anticoagulation and rate/rhythm control in 2012. In late 2013, the committee judged that sufficient new information regarding AF management had become available since 2012 to warrant an update to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Guidelines. After extensive evaluation of the new evidence, the committee has updated the guidelines for: (1) stroke prevention principles; (2) anticoagulation of AF patients with chronic kidney disease; (3) detection of AF in patients with stroke; (4) investigation and management of subclinical AF; (5) left atrial appendage closure in stroke prevention; (6) emergency department management of AF; (7) periprocedural anticoagulation management; and (8) rate and rhythm control including catheter ablation. This report presents the details of the updated recommendations, along with their background and rationale. In addition, a complete set of presently applicable recommendations, those that have been updated and those that remain in force from previous guideline versions, is provided in the Supplementary Material.

No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention

BackgroundAudit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key ‘active ingredients.’DiscussionGiven the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the ‘business as usual’ approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature.SummaryWe offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness.

Growing Literature, Stagnant Science? Systematic Review, Meta-Regression and Cumulative Analysis of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Health Care

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThis paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback.METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized trials of audit and feedback compared to usual care, with objectively measured outcomes assessing compliance with intended professional practice. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted variables related to the intervention, the context, and trial methodology. The median absolute risk difference in compliance with intended professional practice was determined for each study, and adjusted for baseline performance. The effect size across studies was recalculated as studies were added to the cumulative analysis. Meta-regressions were conducted for studies published up to 2002, 2006, and 2010 in which characteristics of the intervention, the recipients, and trial risk of bias were tested as predictors of effect size.RESULTSOf the 140 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane review, 98 comparisons from 62 studies met the criteria for inclusion. The cumulative analysis indicated that the effect size became stable in 2003 after 51 comparisons from 30 trials. Cumulative meta-regressions suggested new trials are contributing little further information regarding the impact of common effect modifiers. Feedback appears most effective when: delivered by a supervisor or respected colleague; presented frequently; featuring both specific goals and action-plans; aiming to decrease the targeted behavior; baseline performance is lower; and recipients are non-physicians.DISCUSSIONThere is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field. There are opportunity costs for patients, providers, and health care systems when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

Objective To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. Data sources A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. Results There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. Conclusion The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback

BackgroundAudit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention.MethodsA total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type (e.g., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other).ResultsA total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively).ConclusionsThe explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.

Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review

Reviews have repeatedly noted important methodological issues in the conduct and reporting of cluster randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs). These reviews usually focus on whether the intracluster correlation was explicitly considered in the design and analysis of the C-RCT. However, another important aspect requiring special attention in C-RCTs is the risk for imbalance of covariates at baseline. Imbalance of important covariates at baseline decreases statistical power and precision of the results. Imbalance also reduces face validity and credibility of the trial results. The risk of imbalance is elevated in C-RCTs compared to trials randomizing individuals because of the difficulties in recruiting clusters and the nested nature of correlated patient-level data. A variety of restricted randomization methods have been proposed as way to minimize risk of imbalance. However, there is little guidance regarding how to best restrict randomization for any given C-RCT. The advantages and limitations of different allocation techniques, including stratification, matching, minimization, and covariate-constrained randomization are reviewed as they pertain to C-RCTs to provide investigators with guidance for choosing the best allocation technique for their trial.

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

BackgroundImplementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations.MethodsResearchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide.ResultsWe explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis.ConclusionsWe offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Frequent users of health care services are a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to improve the coordination of care to reduce health care utilization in this patient group. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until May 2014 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing quality improvement strategies for the coordination of care of frequent users of the health care system. Articles were screened, and data abstracted and appraised for quality by 2 reviewers, independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 36 RCTs and 14 companion reports (total 7494 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group were admitted to hospital (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.91). In subgroup analyses, a similar effect was observed among patients with chronic medical conditions other than mental illness, but not among patients with mental illness. In addition, significantly fewer patients 65 years and older in the intervention group than in the control group visited emergency departments (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.89). Interpretation: We found that quality improvement strategies for coordination of care reduced hospital admissions among patients with chronic conditions other than mental illness and reduced emergency department visits among older patients. Our results may help clinicians and policy-makers reduce utilization through the use of strategies that target the system (team changes, case management) and the patient (promotion of self-management).

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients’ goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.Methods/designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013241