Search

Objective: To understand the usefulness of audit and feedback among family physicians and examine the barriers to using it to improve quality of care., Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews., Setting: Family physicians across Ontario participating in audit and feedback initiatives describing the proportion of patients meeting quality targets for chronic disease., Participants: Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure variation in sex, years of experience, and baseline performance for quality metrics. All participants used electronic medical records and worked in multidisciplinary primary care practices., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with family physicians. The interview guide and initial coding framework were adjusted iteratively in keeping with the constant comparative method. Sampling continued until saturation was reached. Interviews were analyzed using the framework approach., Main Findings: Participants reported that the feedback increased their awareness of gaps between ideal and actual performance. This resulted mainly in efforts to "try harder" patient by patient. Key barriers to acting upon feedback in a systematic manner included a perceived discordance between population-level quality targets and patient-centred care, as well as competing priorities at both the patient and organizational levels. Although all participants had electronic medical records, participants reported a lack of quality improvement infrastructure in their practices., Conclusion: Family physicians were not highly motivated to achieve evidence-based population-level quality targets for diabetes; many competing organizational and clinical goals took priority. Additional human resources might be needed to translate data in feedback reports into systematic changes that could lead to sustained improvements in quality of care.

Objective: To determine the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care achieving guideline-concordant stroke prevention treatment based on both the previous (2010) and the updated (2012) Canadian guideline recommendations., Design: Retrospective chart review., Participants: Primary care patients (N = 204) with AF. The mean age was 71.3 years and 53.4% were women., Setting: Large urban community family practice in Toronto, Ont., Main Outcome Measures: Patient demographic characteristics such as sex and age; a list of current cardiac medications including anticoagulants and antiplatelets; the total number of medications; relevant current and past medical history including presence of diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, hypertension, and vascular disease; number of visits to the family physician and cardiologist in the past year and past 5 years, and how many of these were for AF; the number of visits to the emergency department or hospitalizations for AF, congestive heart failure, or stroke; if patients were taking warfarin, how often their international normalized ratios were recorded, and how many times they were in the reference range; CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, and stroke or transient ischemic attack) score, if recorded; and reason for not taking oral anticoagulants when they should have been, if recorded., Results: Among those who had CHADS2 scores of 0, 64 patients (97.0%) were receiving appropriate stroke prevention in AF (SPAF) treatment according to the 2010 guidelines. When the 2012 guidelines were applied, 39 patients (59.1%) were receiving appropriate SPAF treatment (P < .001). For those with CHADS2 scores of 1, 88.4% of patients had appropriate SPAF treatment according to the 2010 guidelines, but only 55.1% were adequately treated according to the 2012 guidelines (P < .001). Of the patients at the highest risk (CHADS2 score > 1), 68.1% were adequately treated with anticoagulation and an additional 8.7% (6 of 69) had documented reasons why they were not taking anticoagulants., Conclusion: When assessed using the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines, the proportion of patients receiving appropriate SPAF therapy in this primary care setting decreased substantially. All patients with CHADS2 scores of 0 or 1 should be reassessed to ensure that they are receiving optimal stroke prevention treatment.