Search

We present an economic evaluation of a recently completed cohort study in which 2054 seniors were screened for atrial fibrillation (AF) in 22 Canadian family practices. Using a Markov model, trial and literature data were used to project long-term outcomes and costs associated with 4 AF screening strategies for individuals aged 65 years or older: no screening, screen with 30-second radial manual pulse check (pulse check), screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection (BP-AF), and screen with a single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% and the model used a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. Compared with no screening, screening for AF in Canadian family practice offices using pulse check or screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection is the dominant strategy whereas screening with SL-ECG is a highly cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of CAD$4788. When different screening strategies were compared, screening with pulse check had the lowest expected costs ($202) and screening with SL-ECG had the highest expected costs ($222). The no-screening arm resulted in the lowest number of QALYs (8.74195) whereas pulse check and SL-ECG resulted in the highest expected QALYs (8.74362). Probabilistic analysis confirmed that pulse check had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%) assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Screening for AF in seniors during routine appointments with Canadian family physicians is a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening. Screening with a pulse check is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Quality improvement in primary care can be facilitated by the ability to measure indicators in practice. This paper reports on the process and impacts of data collection on indicators of a quality assessment tool in seven interprofessional group family practices in Ontario, Canada., Methods: The programme addressed indicators and collected data across multiple domains of practice including clinical quality, physical factors, and patient and staff perceptions. A system audit of the practice, a patient survey, a staff satisfaction survey and chart audits (on hypothyroidism and hyperlipidaemia) were designed to measure selected indicators across the domains. Practices were trained and collected their own data. Practices provided feedback on the process and impacts during a postprogramme workshop and on a survey 1 year later., Results: Four-hundred charts audits were completed for each of hyperlipidaemia and hypothyroidism, 319 patient satisfaction surveys were administered in four practices, and the staff satisfaction survey was completed by 77 staff in six practices. Most practices demonstrated indicators of privacy, access and safety. There was more variability in indicators relating to staff professional development and team involvement in meetings. Patient satisfaction with providers was rated highly, whereas some aspects of practice access were rated lower. Practices approached the challenge of participation by engaging multidisciplinary team members and dividing tasks. Most practices reported continued participation in various quality improvement initiatives 1 year later., Conclusions: Using a set of indicators, structured processes and training, family practices find the process of gathering and reviewing their data useful for quality improvement.

Problem Addressed: The new family health teams (FHTs) in Ontario were designed to enable interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care; however, many health professionals have not been trained in an interprofessional environment., Objective of Program: To provide health professional learners with an interprofessional practice experience in primary care that models teamwork and collaborative practice skills., Program Description: The 2 academic teaching units of the FHT at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont, employ 6 types of health professionals and provide learning environments for family medicine residents and students in a variety of health care professions. Learners engage in formal interprofessional education activities and mixed professional and learner clinical consultations. They are immersed in an established interprofessional practice environment, where all team members are valued and contribute collaboratively to patient care and clinic administration. Other contributors to the success of the program include the physical layout of the clinics, the electronic medical record communications system, and support from leadership for the additional clinical time commitment of delivering interprofessional education., Conclusion: This academic FHT has developed a program of interprofessional education based partly on planned activities and logistic enablers, and largely on immersing learners in a culture of long-standing interprofessional collaboration.

Objective: To explore family physicians' perspectives on collaborative practice 12 months after pharmacists were integrated into their family practices., Design: Qualitative design using focus groups followed by semistructured interviews., Setting: Seven physician-led group family practices in urban, suburban, and semirural Ontario communities., Participants: Twelve purposively selected family physicians participating in the IMPACT (Integrating family Medicine and Pharmacy to Advance primary Care Therapeutics) project., Methods: We conducted 4 exploratory focus groups to gather information on collaborative practice issues in order to construct our interview guide. We later interviewed 12 physicians 1 year into the integration process. Focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Four researchers used immersion and crystallization techniques to identify codes for the data and thematic editing to distil participants' perspectives on physician-pharmacist collaborative practice. FINDINGS The focus groups revealed concerns relating to operational efficiencies, medicolegal implications, effects on patient-physician relationships, and work satisfaction. The follow-up semistructured interviews revealed ongoing operational challenges, but several issues had resolved and clinical and practice-level benefits surfaced. Clinical benefits included having colleagues to provide reliable drug information, gaining fresh perspectives, and having increased security in prescribing. Practice-level benefits included group education, liaison with community pharmacies, and an enhanced sense of team. Persistent operational challenges included finding time to learn about pharmacists' role and skills and insufficient space in practices to accommodate both professionals., Conclusion: Physicians' perspectives on collaborative practice 12 months after pharmacists were integrated into their family practices were positive overall. Some ongoing operational challenges remained. Several of the early concerns about collaborative practice had been resolved as physicians discovered the benefits of working with pharmacists, such as increased security in prescribing.

Background: Evidence suggests that insulin is under-prescribed in older people. Some reasons for this include physician's concerns about potential side-effects or patients' resistance to insulin. In general, however, little is known about how GPs make decisions related to insulin prescribing in older people., Aim: To explore the process and rationale for prescribing decisions of GPs when treating older patients with type 2 diabetes., Design of Study: Qualitative individual interviews using a grounded theory approach., Setting: Primary care., Method: A thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes that reflected factors that influence the prescribing of insulin., Results: Twenty-one GPs in active practice in Ontario completed interviews. Seven factors influencing the prescribing of insulin for older patients were identified: GPs' beliefs about older people; GPs' beliefs about diabetes and its management; gauging the intensity of therapy required; need for preparation for insulin therapy; presence of support from informal or formal healthcare provider; frustration with management complexity; and GPs' experience with insulin administration. Although GPs indicated that they would prescribe insulin allowing for the above factors, there was a mismatch in intended approach to prescribing and self-reported prescribing., Conclusion: GPs' rationale for prescribing (or not prescribing) insulin is mediated by both practitioner-related and patient-related factors. GPs intended and actual prescribing varied depending on their assessment of each patient's situation. In order to improve prescribing for increasing numbers of older people with type 2 diabetes, more education for GPs, specialist support, and use of allied health professionals is needed.

The prevalence of suboptimal prescribing of medications is well documented. Patients are often undertreated or not offered therapeutic treatments that are likely to confer benefit. As a result, drug-related hospital admissions are common and often preventable. Improvements to the health-care system are clearly needed in order to maximize the benefits that can be derived from medications. Many countries are changing their primary health-care systems to improve the quality of health-care delivery. One main transformation is the use of multidisciplinary care teams to provide care in a coordinated manner often from the same location or by using the common medical record of the patients. It has been demonstrated that pharmacists can improve prescribing, reduce health-care utilization and medication costs, and contribute to clinical improvements in many chronic medical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and psychiatric illness. However, the effect of integrating a pharmacist providing general services into a primary care group has not been extensively studied. The Integrating Family Medicine and Pharmacy to Advance Primary Care Therapeutics (IMPACT) project was designed to provide a real-world demonstration of the feasibility of integrating the pharmacist into primary care office practice. This article provides a description of the IMPACT project participants; the IMPACT practice model and the concepts incorporated in its development; some initial results from the program evaluation; sustainability of the model; and some reflections on the implementation of the practice model.

Successful team care requires a shared understanding of roles and expertise. This paper describes the development and preliminary exploration of the psychometric properties of a tool designed to measure contributions to family practice medication-related processes. Our team identified medication-related processes commonly occurring in family practice. We assessed clinical appropriateness using a sensibility questionnaire and pilot-tested with 11 pharmacists, nurses and physicians. We performed a simulated exercise to group the processes and assessed the internal consistency of the groupings using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. We examined test-retest reliability using intra-class coefficient (ICC). Following three revisions, the final Medication Use Processes Matrix (MUPM) included 22 medication-related processes and scale descriptors reflecting contribution to each process. Mean sensibility ratings were high for each component. We developed five theoretical groupings (diagnosis & prescribing, monitoring, administrative/documentation, education, medication review) and found their overall internal consistency was good (alpha > 0.80). The test-retest reliability was strong (ICC > 0.80). Preliminary validation showed significant differences in how health professionals view interprofessional contributions toward medication-related processes. Interprofessional care requires a negotiated understanding of processes and contributions. The MUPM provides an explicit description of medication-related processes in primary care, measures perceived contributions and emerges as a new tool to measure collaborative care in family practices.

Background: Family physicians can play an important role in encouraging patients to participate in community-based health promotion initiatives designed to supplement and enhance their in-office care. Our objectives were to determine effective approaches to invite older family practice patients to attend cardiovascular health awareness sessions in community pharmacies, and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a program incorporating invitation by physicians and feedback to physicians., Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized trial with 1 family physician practice and 5 community pharmacies in Dundas, Ontario. Regular patients 65 years or older (n = 235) were randomly allocated to invitation by mail or telephone to attend pharmacy cardiovascular health awareness sessions led by volunteer peer health educators. A health record review captured blood pressure status, monitoring and control. At the sessions, volunteers helped patients to measure blood pressure using in-store machines and a validated portable device (BPM-100), and recorded blood pressure readings and self-reported cardiovascular risk factors. We compared attendance rates in the mail and telephone invitation groups and explored factors potentially associated with attendance., Results: The 119 patients invited by mail and 116 patients contacted by telephone had a mean age of 75.7 (SD, 6.4) years and 46.8% were male. Overall, 58.3% (137/235) of invitees attended a pharmacy cardiovascular health awareness session. Patients invited by telephone were more likely to attend than those invited by mail (72.3% vs. 44.0%, OR 3.3; 95%CI 1.9-5.7; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: While the attendance in response to a telephone invitation was higher, response to a single letter was substantial. Attendance rates indicated considerable interest in community-based cardiovascular health promotion activities. A large-scale trial of a pharmacy cardiovascular health awareness program for older primary care patients is feasible.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence and predictors of medications deemed potentially inappropriate for the elderly among family physicians' patients aged 65 and older (seniors) taking multiple prescribed medications., Methods: Forty-eight randomly selected family practices in 16 towns and cities in Southern Ontario, Canada and 889 of their senior patients were recruited into a randomized trial. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of prescription insurance data from the provincial universal prescription insurance database over 12 months, from the 777 seniors who completed the trial and agreed to have their data released. The prevalence and patient and physician predictors of use of a potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), as defined by published widely accepted criteria, were examined., Results: The median number of prescriptions filled was 24. Nearly one-fifth (16.3%) of the seniors received at least one prescription for a PIM, with short-acting benzodiazepine prescriptions for longer than 30 days (6.4%) and oxybutynin (3.7%) being the types prescribed most frequently. In univariate and multiple variable analyses, women were found to be statistically significantly more likely to be prescribed a PIM (adjusted OR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.4). Age, education, self-rated health, number of health conditions, and number of prescriptions were not associated with PIM use. Physician gender, family medicine certification status, and time since graduation were not significantly associated with PIM prescribing., Conclusions: Prescribing of PIMs, especially of short-acting benzodiazepines was common in seniors taking multiple medications. Interventions to reduce use of PIM, especially long-term benzodiazepines, are important in primary care.

Background: A common and often integral method of delivering patient information is the use of patient guides. However, the acceptability, utility and impact of evidence-based therapeutic guides on physicians, pharmacists and patients have not been well evaluated., Methods: This study was a prospective evaluation of 53 general practitioners' offices and 30 community pharmacies from three locations in Canada. Evidence-based guides were provided to 1176 patients who presented to either a general practitioner or a community pharmacist and were interested in receiving information about sore throat, heartburn, or osteoporosis (http://www.ti.ubc.ca/canadadrugguide). The acceptability, utility and impact of the guides were assessed via structured patient telephone interviews, structured health professional interviews, and patient chart audits., Results: Eighty to 90% of patients reported that the guides were 'very easy' to understand. Fifty six per cent/47%/38% (sore throat/heartburn/osteoporosis) of patients rated the guides as 'very' or 'extremely' useful. Seventy-two per cent/67%/58% of respondents reported that the information helped them make decisions about their treatment. Ninety eight per cent of physicians and 92% of pharmacists reported that the guides helped their patients understand the issues involved in their treatment. None of the analyses showed any significant differences in prescribing of medications between the intervention and control groups., Interpretations: Patients found these evidence-based guides to be useful, easy to understand, and that they helped them in their understanding of treatment options and the decision-making process. Physicians and pharmacists reported that the guides helped their patients understand the issues involved in their treatment. Further research is required to determine the degree to which providing evidence-based guides to patients can impact on prescribing and patient outcomes.

Objectives: To learn about the experiences of specially trained expanded role pharmacists (ERPs) and family physicians in a program in which they worked together to optimize drug therapy for elderly patients (aged 65 and older) and to identify shortcomings of the program, obstacles to its implementation, and strategies to overcome these obstacles., Design: Qualitative opinion analysis., Participants: Six family physicians and six community-based ERPs who had participated in a randomized controlled trial (Seniors Medication Assessment Research Trial [SMART])., Intervention: In-depth interviews., Main Outcome Measures: Themes that emerged from the interviews regarding the strengths and weaknesses of and ways to improve the program., Results: ERPs and physicians differed in their perceptions of appropriate roles for ERPs. ERPs saw the program as an opportunity to take on new professional roles. Physicians appreciated the information they received from ERPs about their patients' adherence and use of nonprescription medications, but they did not want ERPs to directly counsel their patients. Some physicians questioned the value of the program for some patients, since the inclusion criteria for patients were broad and not all patients meeting the criteria needed intense interventions by ERPs. Both ERPs and physicians identified the need to refine the referral process and to work out professional role relationships and ongoing collaboration more fully. If the program were to be implemented as a routine service, physicians were concerned about the demands on their staff and office space and the need for an external compensation mechanism., Conclusion: Issues to be addressed for future programs include clarification of the roles of pharmacist and physician when the professionals work together, targeting of appropriate patients for the program, identification of a more efficient way to deliver recommendations, and development of an appropriate compensation mechanism.