Search

Background: Continuity of care has been shown to improve health outcomes and increase patient satisfaction. Goal-oriented care, a person-centered approach to care, has the potential to positively impact continuity of care. This study sought to examine how a goal-oriented approach impacts continuity of care in a long-term care setting.Methods: Using a case study approach, we examined what aspects of goal-oriented care facilitate or inhibit continuity of care from the perspectives of administrators, care providers, and residents in a long-term care centre in Ontario, Canada. Data was collected through documentary evidence and semi-structured interviews.Results: We analyzed six internal documents (e.g., strategic plan, client information package, staff presentations, evaluation framework, program logic model), and conducted 13 interviews. The findings indicated that the care provided through the goal-oriented approach program had elements that both facilitated and inhibited continuity of care. These factors are outlined according to the three types of continuity, including aspects of the program that influence informational, relational, and management continuity.Conclusions: Aspects of the goal-oriented care approach that facilitate continuity can be targeted when designing person-centered care approaches. More research is needed on goal-oriented care approaches that have been implemented in other long-term care settings to determine if the factors identified here as influencing continuity are confirmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Audit and feedback (A&F) that shows how health professionals compare to those of their peers, can be an effective intervention to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing among family physicians. However, the most impactful design approach to A&F to achieve this aim is uncertain. We will test three design modifications of antibiotic A&F that could be readily scaled and sustained if shown to be effective: (1) inclusion of case-mix-adjusted peer comparator versus a crude comparator, (2) emphasizing harms, rather than lack of benefits, and (3) providing a viral prescription pad.Methods: We will conduct two interrelated pragmatic randomized trials in January 2021. One trial will include family physicians in Ontario who have signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report from Ontario Health ("OH Trial"). These physicians will be cluster-randomized by practice, 1:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will also receive a Viral Prescription Pad mailed to their office as well as added emphasis in their report on use of the pad. Ontario family physicians who have not signed up to receive their MyPractice: Primary Care report will be included in the other trial administered by Public Health Ontario ("PHO Trial"). These physicians will be allocated 4:1 to intervention or control. The intervention group will be further randomized by two factors: case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparator and emphasis or not on harms of antibiotics. Physicians in the intervention arm of this trial will receive one of four versions of a personalized antibiotic A&F letter from PHO. For both trials, the primary outcome is the antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits, measured at 6 months post-randomization, the primary analysis will use Poisson regression and we will follow the intention to treat principle. A mixed-methods process evaluation will use surveys and interviews with family physicians to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization.Discussion: This protocol describes the rationale and methodology of two interrelated pragmatic trials testing variations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to optimize A&F interventions for antibiotic prescribing in primary care.Trial Registration: NCT04594200, NCT05044052. CIHR Grant ID: 398514. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about use of goal setting and tracking tools within online programs to support nutrition and physical activity behaviour change. In 2011, Dietitians of Canada added "My Goals," a nutrition and physical activity behaviour goal setting and tracking tool to their free publicly available self-monitoring website (eaTracker® ( http://www.eaTracker.ca/ )). My Goals allows users to: a) set "ready-made" SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-related) goals (choice of n = 87 goals from n = 13 categories) or "write your own" goals, and b) track progress using the "My Goals Tracker." The purpose of this study was to characterize: a) My Goals user demographics, b) types of goals set, and c) My Goals Tracker use.Methods: Anonymous data on all goals set using the My Goals feature from December 6/2012-April 28/2014 by users ≥19y from Ontario and Alberta, Canada were obtained. This dataset contained: anonymous self-reported user demographic data, user set goals, and My Goals Tracker use data. Write your own goals were categorized by topic and specificity. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine associations between user demographics and a) goal topic areas and b) My Goals Tracker use.Results: Overall, n = 16,511 goal statements (75.4 % ready-made; 24.6 % write your own) set by n = 8,067 adult users 19-85y (83.3 % female; mean age 41.1 ± 15.0y, mean BMI 28.8 ± 7.6kg/m(2)) were included for analysis. Overall, 33.1 % of ready-made goals were from the "Managing your Weight" category. Of write your own goal entries, 42.3 % were solely distal goals (most related to weight management); 38.6 % addressed nutrition behaviour change (16.6 % had unspecific general eating goals); 18.1 % addressed physical activity behaviour change (47.3 % had goals without information on exercise amount and type). Many write your own goals were poor quality (e.g., non-specific (e.g., missing amounts)), and possibly unrealistic (e.g., no sugar). Few goals were tracked (<10 %). Demographic variables had statistically significant relations with goal topic areas and My Goals Tracker use.Conclusions: eaTracker® users had high interest in goal setting and the My Goals feature, however, self-written goals were often poor quality and goal tracking was rare. Further research is needed to better support users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Promoting health equity is a key goal of many public health systems. However, little is known about how equity is conceptualized in such systems, particularly as standards of public health practice are established. As part of a larger study examining the renewal of public health in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC), we undertook an analysis of relevant public health documents related to equity. The aim of this paper is to discuss how equity is considered within documents that outline standards for public health. Methods: A research team consisting of policymakers and academics identified key documents related to the public health renewal process in each province. The documents were analyzed using constant comparative analysis to identify key themes related to the conceptualization and integration of health equity as part of public health renewal in Ontario and BC. Documents were coded inductively with higher levels of abstraction achieved through multiple readings. Sets of questions were developed to guide the analysis throughout the process. Results: In both sets of provincial documents health inequities were defined in a similar fashion, as the consequence of unfair or unjust structural conditions. Reducing health inequities was an explicit goal of the public health renewal process. In Ontario, addressing "priority populations" was used as a proxy term for health equity and the focus was on existing programs. In BC, the incorporation of an equity lens enhanced the identification of health inequities, with a particular emphasis on the social determinants of health. In both, priority was given to reducing barriers to public health services and to forming partnerships with other sectors to reduce health inequities. Limits to the accountability of public health to reduce health inequities were identified in both provinces. Conclusion: This study contributes to understanding how health equity is conceptualized and incorporated into standards for local public health. As reflected in their policies, both provinces have embraced the importance of reducing health inequities. Both concepualized this process as rooted in structural injustices and the social determinants of health. Differences in the conceptualization of health equity likely reflect contextual influences on the public health renewal processes in each jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients should receive follow-up serum creatinine tests after an initial abnormal result to diagnose chronic kidney disease. However, half of the time this fails to occur in primary care. We interviewed primary care providers to better understand their perceptions of enablers and barriers to following this guideline-recommended care. Methods: We performed a qualitative descriptive study guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a framework for behavioural change. We used purposeful sampling to recruit primary care providers (physicians and nurse practitioners) based on provider and practice characteristics (rural, solo versus team practice, etc.) from Ontario, Canada. We completed one-on-one interviews with providers using a semi-structured and open-ended interview guide based on the 14 TDF domains. We alternated between data collection and analysis, where we used directed content analysis to identify frequent, important, and conflicting enablers and barriers. Results: We completed 13 interviews with nine primary care physicians and four nurse practitioners. Nine themes related to the TDF emerged from the data: 1) environmental context and resources, 2) knowledge, 3) memory, attention, and decision processes, 4) beliefs about consequences, 5) goals, 6) social or professional role, 7) behavioural regulation, 8) skills, and 9) optimism. Within these themes, we identified 16 enablers and five barriers. Some enablers included, providers' knowledge on appropriate testing, their motivation to order these tests, and their use of tools and resources to help order follow-up serum creatinine tests. However, providers perceived some barriers including that ordering confirmatory laboratory tests for chronic kidney disease was not always a priority in regards to other care they wish to provide. Providers also noted that a perceived barrier is patients not going to the laboratory to complete the test. Conclusions: We identified novel enablers and barriers to primary care providers completing guideline recommended repeat testing for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Similar research is needed to understand the views of patients. These research findings can be used to inform strategies to improve the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]