Search

Background: Canada lags behind other countries with respect to wait times for specialist physician and allied health professional consultations. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of a single-entry model on waiting time, referral volume and the satisfaction of patients and health care providers. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL databases from inception to December 2019. We included studies from countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that reported on the effects of a single-entry model on the time between referral to first assessment by a specialist physician or allied health professional, termed wait time 1 (WT1). Patient volume and the satisfaction of providers and patients were secondary outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 4637 citations identified, 17 met the eligibility criteria, and we included 10 of these in the final analysis. All of the included studies reported an absolute reduction in WT1 after implementation of the single-entry model. The average percent reduction in WT1 across specialties was greatest for surgical referrals (57%) and urgent internal medicine referrals (40%). Higher initial WT1 was associated with a greater absolute reduction in WT1 after implementation of the single-entry model (p = 0.002). Patient and provider satisfaction with the single-entry model was high in all studies. The effect estimates from all included studies were at high risk of bias. Interpretation: Single-entry models were associated with an absolute reduction in time from referral from primary care to consultation. These models represent a promising option to improve access to a range of health services, but there is a need for rigorous prospective evaluations to inform policy. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42018100395 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation frequently seek emergency care. Rates of guideline-concordant oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention are suboptimal in the community. We assessed the association between prescribing of oral anticoagulants in the emergency department (relative to referral to a longitudinal care provider for treatment initiation) and long-term use of oral anticoagulants.Methods: This retrospective cohort study performed at 15 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, involved patients aged 65 years or older who visited the emergency department between 2009 and 2014, who had a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, were discharged home, and were eligible for and willing to take stroke-prevention therapy. We used inverse probability-of-treatment weighting based on the propensity score to compare patients who were and were not given a prescription for an oral anticoagulant. The primary outcome was a prescription fill for an oral anticoagulant 6 months later. Secondary outcomes included a prescription fill at 1 year, all-cause mortality, and strokes or bleeding events leading to hospital admission.Results: Of 2132 eligible patients, 402 (18.9%) were given a prescription for an oral anticoagulant in the emergency department. After weighting, 67.8% of these patients had filled a prescription for an oral anticoagulant at 6 months versus 37.2% of those who did not receive a prescription in the emergency department (absolute risk increase [ARI] 30.6%, number needed to treat [NNT] 3). At 1 year, the ARI was 23.2% and the NNT was 4. Rates of death, stroke and bleeding events did not differ significantly.Interpretation: In patients with atrial fibrillation who were eligible for stroke prevention, prescribing an oral anticoagulant in the emergency department was associated with substantially higher long-term use of oral anticoagulants compared with deferring to the longitudinal care provider to initiate this therapy. Physicians working in the emergency department should consider initiating oral anticoagulation in eligible patients who are being discharged to home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Detection of undiagnosed or undertreated ("actionable") atrial fibrillation could increase the use of appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of stroke. We sought to compare newer screening technologies with a pulse-check for the detection of atrial fibrillation and to determine whether the detection of actionable atrial fibrillation increases the use of oral anticoagulant agents. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study involved 22 primary care clinics. We recruited participants aged 65 years and older who were attending routine appointments. Each participant underwent 3 methods of screening: a 30-second radial pulse-check; single-lead electrocardiogram; and screening by blood pressure machine with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms. Participants who received a positive result on 1 or more test underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram with or withour 24-hour Holter. Screening tests were compared using the McNemar test. Participants with confirmed atrial fibrillation received follow-up at 90 days. Results: The mean age of participants was 73.7 (± 6.9) years, and 53.4% of participants were female. Of 2171 patients, we had data from all 3 screening tests for 2054 patients. Both single-lead electrocardiogram and the blood pressure device showed superior specificity compared with pulse-check (p < 0.001 for each). Fifty-six patients (2.7%) had confirmed atrial fibrillation: 12 patients had newly detected atrial fibrillation (none of the patients were using anticoagulation agents), and 44 patients had previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation (42 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, 2 were not). Thus, 14 patients had actionable atrial fibrillation (0.7%). By 90 days, 77% of patients with actionable atrial fibrillation had started anticoagulant therapy. Interpretation: Newer screening technologies showed superior specificity compared with a pulse-check. Screening detected undiagnosed or undertreated atrial fibrillation in 0.7% of participants, and 77% started appropriate anticoagulant therapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02262351. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many evidence-based recommendations advocate against the use of routine chest x-rays for asymptomatic, low-risk outpatients; however, it is unclear how regularly chest x-rays are ordered in primary care. Our study aims to describe the frequency of, and variation in, routine chest x-ray use in low-risk outpatients among primary care physicians. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, Ontario residents aged 18 years and older with a periodic health examination (PHE) between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015, were identified via administrative claims data. Patients with a recent history (last 3 years) of any of the following were excluded: cardiac or pulmonary disease, high-risk comorbidity (e.g., diabetes), consultations/visits or procedures involving cardiac or pulmonary specialists, cancer and severe chest trauma. The primary outcome, a routine chest x-ray, was defined as at least 1 chest x-ray claim within 7 days after a PHE. Results: While a routine chest x-ray followed only 2.42% of 2 847 508 PHEs, one-quarter of family physicians (499/2031) ordered chest x-rays for more than 5.0% of their PHEs (interquartile range 1.5%-5.0%) and accounted for 62.9% of all tests observed. Routine chest x-ray use declined by 2.0% per quarter (adjusted rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.98). Older age (45-64 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.78-1.86; = 65 yr v. 18-44 yr, adjusted OR 2.48, 95% CI 2.39-2.58) and male sex of the patient (OR 2.19, 95% CI 2.14-2.24) and male sex of the provider (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.59) were significantly associated with increased odds of a routine chest x-ray being ordered. Interpretation: It is relatively uncommon for a chest x-ray to be ordered as part of a PHE in Ontario; however, the substantial variation observed among physicians suggests potential for interventions targeted at the most frequent users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More than 25% of the population has hypertension. The number of patients seeking care for hypertension in emergency departments has increased by more than 60% in the last decade, with less than 10% of these patients subsequently admitted to hospital. Managing physicians recommend early follow-up to patients who are discharged from the emergency department, but there is a paucity of literature assessing the impact or timing of follow-up on patient outcomes. Methods: Using a population-based cohort design, we included patients more than 65 years of age who were discharged from an Ontario emergency department with a primary diagnosis of hypertension between 2007 and 2014. We identified 2 cohorts: an incident cohort, and a cohort in which patients were on no more than 1 class of evidence-based antihypertensive medication at the time of presentation. Using logistic regression, we assessed the association of early follow-up care (within 7 d) and basic care (8-30 d), compared with no care within 30 days, on patient use of a new evidence-based antihypertensive medication 1 year later. Results: Our study included 2088 patients with a new diagnosis of hypertension (the first cohort), and 6420 patients in the second cohort. Of patients with new diagnoses, 48.2% and 30.2% obtained early and basic follow-up care, respectively, compared with 50.0% and 30.9% of patients in the second cohort. Compared with patients without follow-up care within 30 days, the adjusted odds of filling an evidence-based antihypertensive medication prescription 1 year later in the incident group were 2.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.86-2.99) for those who received early care, and 2.00 (95% CI 1.55-2.58) for those who received basic care. The adjusted odds in the second cohort were 2.12 (95% CI 1.84-2.43) and 1.96 (95% CI 1.69-2.27), respectively. Interpretation: Early follow-up care after leaving an emergency department with a diagnosis of hypertension was associated with improved long-term use of evidence-based antihypertensive medication. As patients increasingly present to the emergency department for hypertension, a formal, timely follow-up care system could improve patient use of evidence-based antihypertensive medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely follow-up after hospital discharge may decrease readmission to hospital. Financial incentives to improve follow-up have been introduced in the United States and Canada, but it is unknown whether they are effective. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of an incentive program on timely physician follow-up after hospital discharge.Methods: We conducted an interventional time series analysis of all medical and surgical patients who were discharged home from hospital between Apr. 1, 2002, and Jan. 30, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a supplemental billing code for physician follow-up within 14 days of discharge from hospital, introduced in 2006. The primary outcome was an outpatient visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 7-day follow-up and a composite of emergency department visits, nonelective hospital readmission and death within 14 days.Results: We included 8 008 934 patient discharge records. The incentive code was claimed in 31% of eligible visits by 51% of eligible physicians, and cost $17.5 million over the study period. There was no change in the average monthly rate of outcomes in the year before the incentive was introduced compared with the year following introduction: 14-day follow-up (66.5% v. 67.0%, overall p = 0.5), 7-day follow-up (44.9% v. 44.9%, overall p = 0.5) and composite outcome (16.7% v. 16.9%, overall p = 0.2).Interpretation: Despite uptake by physicians, a financial incentive did not alter follow-up after hospital discharge. This lack of effect may be explained by features of the incentive or by extra-physician barriers to follow-up. These barriers should be considered by policymakers before introducing similar initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) is the property of CMA Impact Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 metaanalysis 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 [Cl] 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% Cl 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "The Enhancing Secondary Prevention in Coronary Artery Disease trial" by F. A. McAlister and colleagues in the 2009 issue.