Search

Background: Academic detailing, an educational outreach service for family physicians, was funded by the Ontario government to address gaps in opioid prescribing and pain management. We sought to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on opioid prescribing, and to understand how and why academic detailing may have influenced opioid prescribing., Methods: In this mixed-methods study, we collected quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 2017 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed prescribing outcomes descriptively for a sample of participating physicians and compared them with a matched control group. We invited physicians to participate in qualitative interviews to discuss their experiences in academic detailing. Development and analysis of qualitative interviews was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings to understand the mechanisms that drove changes in opioid prescribing., Results: Physicians receiving academic detailing ( n = 238) achieved a greater reduction in opioid prescribing than matched controls ( n = 238). Seventeen physicians completed interviews and reported that academic detailing addressed barriers to pain care, including lack of confidence, difficult interactions with patients and prescribing and tapering decisions. Academic detailing reinforced knowledge about opioid prescribing and pain management. Discussion of complex patients and talking points to use during challenging conversations were described as key drivers of practice change., Interpretation: The findings of this real-world, mixed-methods evaluation explain how an academic detailing service addressed key barriers and enablers to limit high-risk opioid prescribing in primary care. This nuanced understanding will be used to inform, spread and scale academic detailing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Noah Ivers reports funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Challenges in timely access to one's usual primary care physician and the ongoing use of walk-in clinics have been major health policy issues in Ontario for over a decade. We sought to determine the association between patient-reported timely access to their usual primary care physician or clinic and their use of walk-in clinics., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Ontario residents who had a primary care physician by linking population-based administrative data to Ontario's Health Care Experience Survey, collected between 2013 and 2020. We described sociodemographic characteristics and health care use for users of walk-in clinics and nonusers. We measured the adjusted association between self-reported same-day or next-day access and after-hours access to usual primary care physicians or clinics and the use of walk-in clinics in the previous 12 months., Results: Of the 60 935 total responses from people who had a primary care physician, 16 166 (weighted 28.6%, unweighted 26.5%) reported visiting a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months. Compared with nonusers, those who used walk-in clinics were predominantly younger, lived in large and medium-sized urban areas and reported a tight, very tight or poor financial situation. Respondents who reported poor same-day or next-day access to their primary care physician or clinic were more likely to report having attended a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months than those with better access (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.13-1.34). Those who reported being unaware that their primary care physician offered after-hours care had a higher likelihood of going to a walk-in clinic (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% Cl 1.07-1.21)., Interpretation: In this population-based health survey, patient-reported use of walk-in clinics was associated with a reported lack of access to same-day or next-day care and unawareness of after-hours care by respondents' usual primary care physicians. These findings could inform policies to improve access to primary care, while preserving care continuity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Although the current Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline recommends that physicians should inform women aged 40-49 years of the potential benefits and harms of screening mammography to support individualized decisions, previous reports of variation in clinical practice at the physician level suggest a lack of guideline-concordant care. We explored determinants (barriers and facilitators) of guideline-concordant care by family physicians regarding screening mammography in this age group., Methods: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews by phone with family physicians in the Greater Toronto Area from January to November 2020. We structured interviews using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore determinants (barriers and facilitators) of 5 physician screening behaviours, namely risk assessment, discussion regarding benefits and harms, decision or referral for mammography, referral for genetic counselling and referral to high-risk screening programs. Two independent researchers iteratively analyzed interview transcripts and deductively coded for each behaviour by domain to identify key behavioural determinants until saturation was reached., Results: We interviewed 18 physicians (mean age 48 yr, 72% self-identified as women). Risk assessment was influenced by physicians' knowledge of risk factors, skills to synthesize risk and beliefs about utility. Physicians had beliefs in their capabilities to have informed patient-centred discussions, but insufficient knowledge regarding the harms of screening. The decision or referral for mammography was affected by emotions related to past patient outcomes, social influences of patients and radiology departments, and knowledge and beliefs about consequences (benefits and harms of screening). Referrals for genetic counselling and to high-risk screening programs were facilitated by their availability and by the knowledge and skills to complete forms. Lack of knowledge regarding which patients qualify and beliefs about consequences were barriers to referral., Interpretation: Insufficient knowledge and skills for performance of risk assessment, combined with a tendency to overestimate benefits of screening relative to harms affected provision of guideline-concordant care. These may be effective targets for future interventions to improve guideline-concordant care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Alexandra Desnoyers reports consulting fees from Novartis and Pfizer, and payments from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Gilead and Apobiologix. Eitan Amir reports consulting fees from Sandoz, Novartis and Exact Sciences. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Patient engagement is a priority for health care quality improvement and health system design, but many organizations struggle to engage patients meaningfully. We describe patient engagement activities and success factors that influence organizational decision-making in Ontario's patient medical homes., Methods: From March to May 2018, we conducted an online survey focused on practice-level patient engagement that targeted primary care organization leaders at all Ontario family health teams, community health centres, nurse practitioner-led clinics and Aboriginal Health Access Centres. We asked questions from the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Engagement (MORE) and Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) questionnaires. We used factor and mediation analysis to identify organizational conditions and activities that are associated with the outcomes of patient engagement, affecting board decisions, program-level decisions and the formation of collaborative partnerships., Results: We achieved a 53% response rate ( n = 149/283); after removing missing data, our final sample size was 141 respondents. Most respondents perceived that their organization's patient engagement activities and resources were insufficient. Processes that had a direct effect on outcomes (β = 0.7, p < 0.0001) included planning, training and supporting employees; identifying, recruiting and supporting relevant patients; and using leaders. Structures - including an organizational mission and vision for patient engagement, and policies, procedures, job positions, training programs and organizational culture that reflect that mission - indirectly affected outcomes, mediated by the aforementioned processes (β = 0.7, p < 0.0001)., Interpretation: Based on the perceptions of primary care leaders, organizational structures and processes are related to successful patient engagement. Organizations that seek to improve patient engagement should assess their commitment and follow-through with associated resources and activities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: At the time of the study, Jennifer Rayner and Carol Mulder were employees of the Alliance for Healthier Communities and the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario, respectively. They received no additional incentives for this research project beyond the scope of their employment., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Strategic clinical networks, a recent development in the health system in Alberta, have been charged with bringing together front-line clinicians, researchers and policy-makers to identify variation in clinical care, and to propose standards, pathways and innovative solutions to improve access and quality of care. Here, we describe a collaborative workshop held between researchers and the Obesity, Diabetes and Nutrition Strategic Clinical Network to describe barriers to and facilitators of care for people with diabetes and to identify quality improvement interventions that should be prioritized., Methods: Through collaboration between health researchers and the strategic clinical network, and using principles of the knowledge-to-action cycle, we identified barriers to and facilitators of diabetes care using data from a patient survey and a provider focus group (5 primary care physicians and 1 diabetes educator). In addition, we identified best evidence from a systematic review of quality improvement initiatives in diabetes. This information was reviewed at a multistakeholder workshop where potential quality improvement initiatives were considered at various service levels., Results: A pilot survey involving 59 patients with diabetes and a focus group of primary care and allied health care providers identified several important barriers to optimal outcomes in diabetes care, including patient-level financial barriers to care and difficulty navigating the health system. Our collaborative discussion using the knowledge-to-action cycle prioritized feasible, evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes, including enabling care by allied health care providers and creating clear care maps and processes for system navigation., Interpretation: We identified important barriers to achieving optimal outcomes in diabetes that may be overcome through the use of evidence-based quality improvement interventions. As recommended within the knowledge-to-action cycle, future research is required to determine whether program implementation improves outcomes and is cost-effective.