Search

Background: This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care were included in the systematic review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to May 2024. Trial, participant, and intervention characteristics were extracted independently by 2 researchers. Random effects meta-analyses of trials that compared interventions with and without A&F were conducted for 4 outcomes: (1) total antibiotic prescribing volume; (2) unnecessary antibiotic initiation; (3) excessive prescription duration, and (4) broad-spectrum antibiotic selection. A stratified analysis was also performed based on study characteristics and A&F intervention design features for total antibiotic volume., Results: A total of 56 RCTs fit the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A&F was associated with an 11% relative reduction in antibiotic prescribing volume (N = 21 studies, rate ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .84, .95; I2 = 97); 23% relative reduction in unnecessary antibiotic initiation (N = 16 studies, RR = 0.77; 95% CI: .68, .87; I2 = 72); 13% relative reduction in prolonged duration of antibiotic course (N = 4 studies, RR = 0.87 95% CI: .81, .94; I2 = 86); and 17% relative reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic selection (N = 17 studies, RR = 0.83 95% CI: .75, .93; I2 = 96)., Conclusions: A&F interventions reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, heterogeneity was substantial, outcome definitions were not standardized across the trials, and intervention fidelity was not consistently assessed. Clinical Trials Registration. Prospero (CRD42022298297)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Opioids, prescribed to manage pain, are associated with safety risks. Quality improvement strategies such as audit and feedback and academic detailing may improve prescribing in primary care., Methods: We used a matched-cohort design with claims databases. Participants were family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada. The interventions were a voluntary audit and feedback report with or without academic detailing sessions. Physicians in the control group received neither intervention. The primary outcome was mean rate of high-risk opioid prescriptions per 100 patients per month. Data were analyzed comparing monthly percentage change in slope over 12 months before and 18 months after the intervention. Additional analyses considered only the subgroup of higher-prescribing physicians., Results: There were 1469 (25%) physicians in the audit and feedback group, 245 (4%) in the audit and feedback + academic detailing group, and 4211 (71%) matched controls. All groups showed a significant preintervention decline in opioid prescribing. There were no significant between-group differences in opioid prescribing postintervention. Among high-prescribing physicians, there was a significant reduction in the audit and feedback group (% change in slope = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.65 to -0.09, P < .01), but not in the academic detailing group (% change in slope = 0.19, 95% CI = -0.52 to 0.91, P = .59)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated declining secular trends in prescribing and suggests that two large-scale initiatives had limited additional benefits. We found some additional reductions after audit and feedback among the highest-volume opioid prescribers. Future interventions should focus on these physicians for the greatest benefit., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sample size calculations for longitudinal cluster randomised trials, such as crossover and stepped-wedge trials, require estimates of the assumed correlation structure. This includes both within-period intra-cluster correlations, which importantly differ from conventional intra-cluster correlations by their dependence on period, and also cluster autocorrelation coefficients to model correlation decay. There are limited resources to inform these estimates. In this article, we provide a repository of correlation estimates from a bank of real-world clustered datasets. These are provided under several assumed correlation structures, namely exchangeable, block-exchangeable and discrete-time decay correlation structures., Methods: Longitudinal studies with clustered outcomes were collected to form the CLustered OUtcome Dataset bank. Forty-four available continuous outcomes from 29 datasets were obtained and analysed using each correlation structure. Patterns of within-period intra-cluster correlation coefficient and cluster autocorrelation coefficients were explored by study characteristics., Results: The median within-period intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the discrete-time decay model was 0.05 (interquartile range: 0.02-0.09) with a median cluster autocorrelation of 0.73 (interquartile range: 0.19-0.91). The within-period intra-cluster correlation coefficients were similar for the exchangeable, block-exchangeable and discrete-time decay correlation structures. Within-period intra-cluster correlation coefficients and cluster autocorrelations were found to vary with the number of participants per cluster-period, the period-length, type of cluster (primary care, secondary care, community or school) and country income status (high-income country or low- and middle-income country). The within-period intra-cluster correlation coefficients tended to decrease with increasing period-length and slightly decrease with increasing cluster-period sizes, while the cluster autocorrelations tended to move closer to 1 with increasing cluster-period size. Using the CLustered OUtcome Dataset bank, an RShiny app has been developed for determining plausible values of correlation coefficients for use in sample size calculations., Discussion: This study provides a repository of intra-cluster correlations and cluster autocorrelations for longitudinal cluster trials. This can help inform sample size calculations for future longitudinal cluster randomised trials.

Importance: Antibiotic overuse contributes to adverse drug effects, increased costs, and antimicrobial resistance., Objective: To evaluate peer-comparison audit and feedback to high-prescribing primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the effect of targeted messaging on avoiding unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and avoiding long-duration prescribing., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this 3-arm randomized clinical trial, administrative data collected from IQVIA's Xponent database were used to recruit the highest quartile of antibiotic-prescribing PCPs (n = 3500) in Ontario, Canada., Interventions: Physicians were randomized 3:3:1 to receive a mailed letter sent in December 2018 addressing antibiotic treatment initiation (n = 1500), a letter addressing prescribing duration (n = 1500), or no letter (control; n = 500). Outliers at the 99th percentile at baseline for each arm were excluded from analysis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total number of antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were number of prolonged-duration prescriptions (>7 days) and antibiotic drug costs (in Canadian dollars). Robust Poisson regression controlling for baseline prescriptions was used for analysis., Results: Of the 3465 PCPs included in analysis, 2405 (69.4%) were male, and 2116 (61.1%) were 25 or more years from their medical graduation. At baseline, PCPs receiving the antibiotic initiation letter and duration letter prescribed an average of 988 and 1000 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively; at 12 months postintervention, these PCPs prescribed an average of 849 and 851 antibiotic prescriptions, respectively. For the primary outcome of total antibiotic prescriptions 12 months postintervention, there was no statistically significant difference in total antibiotic use between PCPs who received the initiation letter compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.92-1.01; P = .06) and a small statistically significant difference for the duration letter compared with controls (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.91-1.00; P = .01). For PCPs receiving the duration letter, this corresponds to an average of 42 fewer antibiotic prescriptions over 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the letter arms. For the initiation letter, compared with controls there was an RR of 0.98 (97.5% CI, 0.93-1.03; P = .42) and 0.97 (97.5% CI, 0.92-1.02; P = .19) for the outcomes of prolonged-duration prescriptions and antibiotic drug costs, respectively. At baseline, PCPs who received the duration letter prescribed an average of 332 prolonged-duration prescriptions with $14 470 in drug costs. There was an 8.1% relative reduction (RR, 0.92; 97.5% CI, 0.87-0.97; P < .001) in prolonged-duration prescriptions, and a 6.1% relative reduction in antibiotic drug costs (RR, 0.94; 97.5% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = .01). This corresponds to an average of 24 fewer prolonged-duration prescriptions and $771 in drug cost savings per PCP over 12 months., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a single mailed letter to the highest-prescribing PCPs in Ontario, Canada providing peer-comparison feedback, including messaging on limiting antibiotic-prescribing durations, led to statistically significant reductions in total and prolonged-duration antibiotic prescriptions, as well as drug costs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03776383.

Background: In Ontario, an online audit and feedback tool that provides primary care physicians with detailed information about patients who are overdue for cancer screening is underused. In the present study, we aimed to examine the effect of messages operationalizing 3 behaviour change techniques on access to the audit and feedback tool and on cancer screening rates., Methods: During May-September 2017, a pragmatic 2×2×2 factorial experiment tested 3 behaviour change techniques: anticipated regret, material incentive, and problem-solving. Outcomes were assessed using routinely collected administrative data. A qualitative process evaluation explored how and why the e-mail messages did or did not support Screening Activity Report access., Results: Of 5449 primary care physicians randomly allocated to 1 of 8 e-mail messages, fewer than half opened the messages and fewer than 1 in 10 clicked through the messages. Messages with problem-solving content were associated with a 12.9% relative reduction in access to the tool (risk ratio: 0.871; 95% confidence interval: 0.791 to 0.958; p = 0.005), but a 0.3% increase in cervical cancer screening (rate ratio: 1.003; 95% confidence interval: 1.001 to 1.006; p = 0.003). If true, that association would represent 7568 more patients being screened. No other significant effects were observed., Conclusions: For audit and feedback to work, recipients must engage with the data; for e-mail messages to prompt activity, recipients must open and review the message content. This large factorial experiment demonstrated that small changes in the content of such e-mail messages might influence clinical behaviour. Future research should focus on strategies to make cancer screening more user-centred., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: During the course of the project, authors CAB, DL, SU, and JT were employed at Cancer Care Ontario. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Background: The referral-consultation process can be difficult to navigate. Electronic consultations (eConsults) can help streamline referrals by facilitating inter-provider communication., Objective: We evaluated the potential effect of eConsult on specialist referral rates in Ontario among family physicians providing comprehensive care., Methods: We conducted a retrospective 1:3 matched cohort study examining total referrals and referrals to all available medical specialties from primary care providers between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015. We used multivariable random effects Poisson regression analysis to compare referral rates between eConsult and non-eConsult users while adjusting for relevant patient and provider characteristics. Referral rates were expressed per physician, per 100 patients and per 100 patient encounters., Results: There were 113197 referrals across all medical specialties made by 119 eConsult physicians and 352 matched controls. Referral rates per physician were significantly lower in the eConsult group for all specialty groupings [unadjusted rate ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.80-0.95; adjusted RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85-1.00]. Referral rates per patient were lower among eConsult physicians (unadjusted RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84-0.98) but this difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (adjusted RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.90-1.02). No statistically significant difference was observed when referrals were expressed per 100 patient encounters., Conclusion: This is the first Canadian study to examine the potential effect of eConsult on overall referrals at a population level. Our findings demonstrate that using eConsult service is associated with fewer referrals from primary to specialist care, with considerable potential for cost savings to our single-payer system.

Background: Primary care has been reformed in recent years in Ontario, Canada, with a move away from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models. It is unclear how new models have affected disparities in cancer screening. We evaluated whether Ontario's enhanced fee-for-service model was associated with a change in the gaps in cancer screening for people living with low income and people who are foreign-born., Methods: We conducted a population-based longitudinal analysis from 2002 to 2013 of Ontario family physicians who transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service. The binary outcomes of interest were adherence to cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Analyses produced annual odds ratios comparing the odds of being up-to-date for screening among patients in enhanced fee-for-service versus patients in traditional fee-for-service for each social stratum separately. We calculated the ratios of stratum-specific odds ratios to assess whether the transition from traditional to enhanced fee-for-service was associated with a change in screening gaps between immigrants and long-term residents, and between people in the lowest and highest neighbourhood income quintiles., Results: Throughout the study period, cancer screening was consistently lower among immigrants and among people in the lowest income quintile. Transition to enhanced fee-for-service was generally associated with increased screening uptake for all, however for most years, ratios of ratios were significantly less than 1 for all three cancer screening types, indicating that there was a widening of the screening gap between immigrants and long-term residents and between people living in the lowest vs. highest income quintile associated with transitions., Conclusion: The transition to enhanced fee-for-service in Ontario was generally associated with a widening of screening inequities for foreign-born and low-income patients.

Background: Back pain is a leading contributor to disability, healthcare costs, and lost work. Family physicians are the most common first point of contact in the healthcare system for people with back pain, but physiotherapists (PTs) may be able to support the primary care team through evidence-based primary care. A cluster randomized trial is needed to determine the clinical, health system, and societal impact of a primary care model that integrates physiotherapists at the first visit for people with back pain. Prior to conducting a future fully powered cluster randomized trial, we need to demonstrate feasibility of the methods. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study will be to: 1) Determine feasibility of patient recruitment, assessment procedures, and retention. 2) Determine the feasibility of training and implementation of a new PT-led primary care model for low back pain (LBP) 3) Explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) related to their experiences and attitudes towards the new service delivery model, barriers/facilitators to implementation, perceived satisfaction, perceived value, and impact on clinic processes and patient outcomes., Methods: This pilot cluster randomized controlled trial will enroll four sites and randomize them to implement a new PT-led primary care model for back pain or a usual physician-led primary care model. All adults booking a primary care visit for back pain will be invited to participate. Feasibility outcomes will include: recruitment and retention rates, completeness of assessment data, PT training participation and confidence after training, and PT treatment fidelity. Secondary outcomes will include the clinical, health system, cost, and process outcomes planned for the future fully powered cluster trial. Results will be analyzed and reported descriptively and qualitatively. To explore perspectives of both HCPs and patients, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with HCPs from participants in the PT-led primary care sites., Discussion: If this pilot demonstrates feasibility, a fully powered trial will provide evidence that has the potential to transform primary care for back pain. The full trial will inform future service design, whether these models should be more widely implemented, and training agendas., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320148 . Submitted for registration on 17 September 2017.

Background: Practice facilitation (PF), a multifaceted approach in which facilitators (external health care professionals) help family physicians to improve their adoption of best practices, has been highly successful. Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) was an innovative PF trial designed to improve evidence-based care for people who have, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease (CVD). The intervention was found to be ineffective as assessed by a patient-level composite score based on chart reviews from a subsample of patients (N = 5292). Here, we used population-based administrative data to examine IDOCC's effect on CVD-related hospitalizations., Methods: IDOCC used a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled design involving primary care providers recruited across Eastern Ontario, Canada. IDOCC's effect on CVD-related hospitalizations was assessed in the 2 years of active intervention and post-intervention years. Marginal and mixed-effects regression analyses were used to account for the study design and to control for patient, physician, and practice characteristics. Secondary and subgroup analyses investigated robustness., Results: Our sample included 262,996 patient/year observations representing 54,085 unique patients who had, or were at risk of, CVD, from 70 practices. There was a strong decreasing secular trend in CVD-related hospitalizations but no statistically significant effect of IDOCC. Relative to patients in the control condition, patients in the intervention condition were estimated to have 4 % lower odds of CVD-related hospitalizations (adjOR = 0.96, 99 % CI 0.83 to 1.11). The nonsignificant result persisted across robustness analyses., Conclusions: Clinical outcomes from administrative databases were examined to form a more complete picture of the (in)effectiveness of a large-scale quality improvement intervention. IDOCC did not have a significant effect on CVD hospitalizations, suggesting that the results from the primary composite adherence score analysis were neither due to choice of outcome nor relatively short follow-up period., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808 , registered on 14 December 2007.

Objectives: Building on an existing theoretical shared primary care/specialist care framework to (1) develop a unique typology of care for people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Ontario, (2) assess sensitivity of the typology by varying typology definitions, and (3) describe characteristics of typology categories., Study Design and Setting: Retrospective population-based observational study from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2012. A total of 13,480 eligible patients with HIV and receiving publicly funded health care in Ontario. We derived a typology of care by linking patients to usual family physicians and to HIV specialists with five possible patterns of care. Patient and physician characteristics and outpatient visits for HIV-related and non-HIV-related care were used to assess the robustness and characteristics of the typology., Results: Five possible patterns of care were described as low engagement (8.6%), exclusively primary care (52.7%), family physician-dominated comanagement (10.0%), specialist-dominated comanagement (30.5%), and exclusively specialist care (5.2%). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of typology assignments. Visit patterns varied in ways that conform to typology assignments., Conclusion: We anticipate this typology can be used to assess the impact of care patterns on the quality of primary care for people living with HIV., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery., Methods: A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention., Results: Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively., Conclusions: IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808.

Purpose: Greater physician experience managing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has been associated with better HIV-specific outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the HIV experience of a family physician modifies the association between the model of care delivery and the quality of care for people living with HIV., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from a population-based observational study conducted between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012. A total of 13,417 patients with HIV in Ontario were stratified into 5 possible patterns or models of care. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analyses, adjusted for patient characteristics and pairwise comparisons, to evaluate the modification of the association between care model and indicators of quality of care (receipt of antiretroviral therapy, cancer screening, and health care use) by level of physician HIV experience (≤5, 6-49, ≥50 patients during study period)., Results: The majority of HIV-positive patients (52.8%) saw family physicians exclusively for their care. Among these patients, receipt of antiretroviral therapy was significantly lower for those receiving care from family physicians with 5 or fewer patients and 6-49 patients compared with those with 50 or more patients (mean levels of adherence [95% CIs] were 0.34 [0.30-0.39] and 0.40 [0.34-0.45], respectively, vs 0.77 [0.74-0.80]). Patients' receipt of cancer screenings and health care use were unrelated to family physician HIV experience., Conclusions: Family physician HIV experience was strongly associated with receipt of antiretroviral therapy by HIV-positive patients, especially among those seeing only family physicians for their care. Future work must determine the best models for integrating and delivering comprehensive HIV care among diverse populations and settings., (© 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objectives: Physician specialty is often positively associated with disease-specific outcomes and negatively associated with primary care outcomes for people with chronic conditions. People with HIV have increasing comorbidity arising from antiretroviral therapy (ART) related longevity, making HIV a useful condition to examine shared care models. We used a previously described, theoretically developed shared care framework to assess the impact of care delivery on the quality of care provided., Design: Retrospective population-based observational study from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2012., Participants: 13 480 patients with HIV and receiving publicly funded healthcare in Ontario were assigned to one of five patterns of care., Outcome Measures: Cancer screening, ART prescribing and healthcare utilisation across models using adjusted multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analyses., Results: Models in which patients had an assigned family physician had higher odds of cancer screening than those in exclusively specialist care (colorectal cancer screening, exclusively primary care adjusted OR (AOR)=3.12, 95% CI (1.90 to 5.13), family physician-dominant co-management AOR=3.39, 95% CI (1.94 to 5.93), specialist-dominant co-management AOR=2.01, 95% CI (1.23 to 3.26)). The odds of having one emergency department visit did not differ among models, although the odds of hospitalisation and HIV-specific hospitalisation were lower among patients who saw exclusively family physicians (AOR=0.23, 95% CI (0.14 to 0.35) and AOR=0.15, 95% CI (0.12 to 0.21)). The odds of antiretroviral prescriptions were lower among models in which patients' HIV care was provided predominantly by family physicians (exclusively primary care AOR=0.15, 95% CI (0.12 to 0.21), family physician-dominant co-management AOR=0.45, 95% CI (0.32 to 0.64))., Conclusions: How care is provided had a potentially important influence on the quality of care delivered. Our key limitation is potential confounding due to the absence of HIV stage measures., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Few studies have comprehensively reported intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates for outcomes collected in primary care settings. Using data from a large primary care study, we aimed to: a) report ICCs for process-of-care and clinical outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease management and prevention, and b) investigate the impact of practice structure and rurality on ICC estimates., Methods: We used baseline data from the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) trial to estimate ICC values. Data on 5,140 patients from 84 primary care practices across Eastern Ontario, Canada were collected through chart abstraction. ICC estimates were calculated using an ANOVA approach and were calculated for all patients and separately for patient subgroups defined by condition (i.e., coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking). We compared ICC estimates between practices in which data were collected from a single physician versus those that had multiple participating physicians and between urban versus rural practices., Results: ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.173, with a median of 0.056. The median ICC estimate for dichotomous process outcomes (0.088) was higher than that for continuous clinical outcomes (0.035). ICC estimates calculated for single physician practices were higher than those for practices with multiple physicians for both process (average 3.9-times higher) and clinical measures (average 1.9-times higher). Urban practices tended to have higher process-of-care ICC estimates than rural practices, particularly for measuring lipid profiles and estimated glomerular filtration rates., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive summary of cardiovascular-related ICCs to be reported from Canadian primary care practices. Differences in ICC estimates based on practice structure and location highlight the importance of understanding the context in which external ICC estimates were determined prior to their use in sample size calculations. Failure to choose appropriate ICC estimates can have substantial implications for the design of a cluster randomized trial.

Background: Women are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular disease, often experiencing poorer outcomes following a cardiovascular event. Evidence points to inequities in processes of care as a potential contributing factor. This study sought to determine whether any sex differences exist in adherence to process of care guidelines for cardiovascular disease within primary care practices in Ontario, Canada., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of pooled cross-sectional baseline data collected through a larger quality improvement initiative known as the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC). Chart abstraction was performed for 4,931 patients from 84 primary care practices in Eastern Ontario who had, or were at high risk of, cardiovascular disease. Measures examining adherence to guidelines associated with nine areas of cardiovascular care (coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), stroke/transient ischemic attack, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking cessation, and weight management) were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate sex differences, adjusting for age, physician remuneration, and rurality., Results: Women were significantly less likely to have their lipid profiles taken (OR=1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33), be prescribed lipid lowering medication for dyslipidemia (OR=1.54, 95% CI 1.20-1.97), and to be prescribed ASA following stroke (OR=1.56, 95% CI 1.39-1.75). Women with PVD were significantly less likely to be prescribed ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (OR=1.74, 95% CI 1.25-2.41) and lipid lowering medications (OR=1.95, 95% CI 1.46-2.62) or ASA (OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.43-1.78). However, women were more likely to have two blood pressure measurements taken and to be referred to a dietician or weight loss program. Male patients with diabetes were less likely to be prescribed glycemic control medication (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.86)., Conclusions: Sex disparities exist in the quality of cardiovascular care in Canadian primary care practices, which tend to favour men. Women with PVD have a particularly high risk of not receiving appropriate medications. Our findings indicate that improvements in care delivery should be made to address these issues, particularly with regard to the prescribing of recommended medications for women, and preventive measures for men.

Background: Several new primary care models have been implemented in Ontario, Canada over the past two decades. These practice models differ in team structure, physician remuneration, and group size. Few studies have examined the impact of these models on specialist referrals. We compared specialist referral rates amongst three primary care models: 1) Enhanced Fee-for-service, 2) Capitation- Non-Interdisciplinary (CAP-NI), 3) Capitation - Interdisciplinary (CAP-I)., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using health administrative data from primary care practices in Ontario from April 1st, 2008 to March 31st, 2010. The analysis included all family physicians providing comprehensive care in one of the three models, had at least 100 patients, and did not have a prolonged absence (eight consecutive weeks). The primary outcome was referral rate (# of referrals to all medical specialties/1000 patients/year). A multivariable clustered Poisson regression analysis was used to compare referral rates between models while adjusting for provider (sex, years since graduation, foreign trained, time in current model) and patient (age, sex, income, rurality, health status) characteristics., Results: Fee-for-service had a significantly lower adjusted referral rate (676, 95% CI: 666-687) than the CAP-NI (719, 95% confidence interval (CI): 705-734) and CAP-I (694, 95% CI: 681-707) models and the interdisciplinary CAP-I group had a 3.5% lower referral rate than the CAP-NI group (RR = 0.965, 95% CI: 0.943-0.987, p = 0.002). Female and Canadian-trained physicians referred more often, while female, older, sicker and urban patients were more likely to be referred., Conclusions: Primary care model is significantly associated with referral rate. On a study population level, these differences equate to 111,059 and 37,391 fewer referrals by fee-for-service versus CAP-NI and CAP-I, respectively - a difference of $22.3 million in initial referral appointment costs. Whether a lower rate of referral is more appropriate or not is not known and requires further investigation. Physician remuneration and team structure likely account for the differences; however, further investigation is also required to better understand whether other organizational factors associated with primary care model also impact referral.

Objective: To determine whether models of primary care service delivery differ in their provision of family-centred care (FCC) and to identify practice characteristics associated with FCC., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Primary care practices in Ontario (ie, 35 salaried community health centres, 35 fee-for-service practices, 32 capitation-based health service organizations, and 35 blended remuneration family health networks) that belong to 4 models of primary care service delivery., Participants: A total of 137 practices, 363 providers, and 5144 patients., Main Outcome Measures: Measures of FCC in patient and provider surveys were based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool. Statistical analyses were conducted using linear mixed regression models and generalized estimating equations., Results: Patient-reported FCC scores were high and did not vary significantly by primary care model. Larger panel size in a practice was associated with lower odds of patients reporting FCC. Provider-reported FCC scores were significantly higher in community health centres than in family health networks (P = .035). A larger number of nurse practitioners and clinical services on-site were both associated with higher FCC scores, while scores decreased as the number of family physicians in a practice increased and if practices were more rural., Conclusion: Based on provider and patient reports, primary care reform strategies that encourage larger practices and more patients per family physician might compromise the provision of FCC, while strategies that encourage multidisciplinary practices and a range of services might increase FCC.

The epidemic of diabetes has increased pressure on the whole spectrum of the healthcare system including specialist centres. The authors' own specialist centre at The Ottawa Hospital has 20,000 annual visits for diabetes, 80% of which are follow-up visits. Since it is a tertiary facility, managers, administrators and clinicians would like to increase their ability to see newly referred patients and decrease the number of follow-up visits. In order to discharge appropriate diabetes patients, the authors decided it was essential to strengthen the transition process to decrease both the pressure on the centre and the risk for discontinuity of diabetes care after discharge.

Background: Primary care providers play an important role in preventing and managing cardiovascular disease. This study compared the quality of preventive cardiovascular care delivery amongst different primary care models., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a larger randomized control trial, known as the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) through Outreach Facilitation. Using baseline data collected through IDOCC, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 82 primary care practices from three delivery models in Eastern Ontario, Canada: 43 fee-for-service, 27 blended-capitation and 12 community health centres with salary-based physicians. Medical chart audits from 4,808 patients with or at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease were used to examine each practice's adherence to ten evidence-based processes of care for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, weight management, and smoking cessation care. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for age, sex, rurality, number of cardiovascular-related comorbidities, and year of data collection were used to compare guideline adherence amongst the three models., Results: The percentage of patients with diabetes that received two hemoglobin A1c tests during the study year was significantly higher in community health centres (69%) than in fee-for-service (45%) practices (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.4 [95% CI 1.4-4.2], p = 0.001). Blended capitation practices had a significantly higher percentage of patients who had their waistlines monitored than in fee-for-service practices (19% vs. 5%, AOR = 3.7 [1.8-7.8], p = 0.0006), and who were recommended a smoking cessation drug when compared to community health centres (33% vs. 16%, AOR = 2.4 [1.3-4.6], p = 0.007). Overall, quality of diabetes care was higher in community health centres, while smoking cessation care and weight management was higher in the blended-capitation models. Fee-for-service practices had the greatest gaps in care, most noticeably in diabetes care and weight management., Conclusions: This study adds to the evidence suggesting that primary care delivery model impacts quality of care. These findings support current Ontario reforms to move away from the traditional fee-for-service practice., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.

Background: There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation., Methods: The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation., Discussion: This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.