Search

Background: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. Results: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. Interpretation: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement. CONCLUSIONS Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: One way to build vaccine confidence is through advice from a trusted health professional, like a family physician. We implemented and evaluated a practice facilitation intervention in partnership with Ontario Health, a provincial government agency, to support the family physicians in Ontario known to have the largest number of unvaccinated patients. Objective: To understand how and why this intervention offered to family physicians most in need was used and to identify opportunities to adapt this targeted approach for other aspects of primary care. Study Design and Analysis: This was a qualitative process evaluation embedded within a randomized trial. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive techniques informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Setting or Dataset: Data was collected through interviews with participating and non-participating family physicians, as well as from practice facilitator field notes. Population Studied: Family physicians with the largest number of unvaccinated patients in the province. Intervention/Instrument: Practice facilitators offered physicians support to identify, reach out, and counsel their unvaccinated patients. Outcome Measures: N/A Results: Of the 300 physicians randomized to the intervention, 29% accepted support. Among those who received facilitation, 58% used technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% were linked with medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 31% used automated calling to reach patients. The main barriers encountered were: a) gatekeeping from the front-office staff, which prevented the practice facilitator from contacting the physician, b) inability to dedicate extra time, c) technical issues with identifying patients requiring vaccines, and d) belief that outreach to patients would not result in more vaccinations. Facilitators were: a) clinics that had support staff, especially a tech-savvy workforce, b) physician, or the team passionate about COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and therefore willing to prioritize time or resources to outreach, and c) the belief that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was part of their role as a family physician. Conclusion: Strategies to help family physicians regarding vaccine rollout or other primary care areas of public health import must acknowledge the scarcity of time and resources of these physicians, and seek to build trust and relationships over time, including the front-office staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Competing health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/design: A two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.Discussion: An individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Person-centered care is critical for delivering high-quality diabetes care. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to person-centered care, and in diabetes care, it can improve decision quality, patient knowledge, and patient risk perception. Delivery of person-centered care can be facilitated with the use of patient decision aids (PtDAs). We developed MyDiabetesPlan, an interactive SDM and goal-setting PtDA designed to help individualize care priorities and support an interprofessional approach to SDM.Objective: This study aims to assess the impact of MyDiabetesPlan on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life, and patient assessment of chronic illness care at the individual patient level.Methods: A two-step, parallel, 10-site cluster randomized controlled trial (first step: provider-directed implementation only; second step: both provider- and patient-directed implementation 6 months later) was conducted. Participants were adults 18 years and older with diabetes and 2 other comorbidities at 10 family health teams (FHTs) in Southwestern Ontario. FHTs were randomly assigned to MyDiabetesPlan (n=5) or control (n=5) through a computer-generated algorithm. MyDiabetesPlan was integrated into intervention practices, and clinicians (first step) followed by patients (second step) were trained on its use. Control participants received static generic Diabetes Canada resources. Patients were not blinded. Participants completed validated questionnaires at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome at the individual patient level was decisional conflict; secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, health-related quality of life, chronic illness care, and clinician intention to practice interprofessional SDM. Multilevel hierarchical regression models were used.Results: At the end of the study, the intervention group (5 clusters, n=111) had a modest reduction in total decisional conflicts compared with the control group (5 clusters, n=102; -3.5, 95% CI -7.4 to 0.42). Although there was no difference in diabetes distress or health-related quality of life, there was an increase in patient assessment of chronic illness care (0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.0).Conclusions: Use of goal-setting decision aids modestly improved decision quality and chronic illness care but not quality of life. Our findings may be due to a gap between goal setting and attainment, suggesting a role for optimizing patient engagement and behavioral support. The next steps include clarifying the mechanisms by which decision aids impact outcomes and revising MyDiabetesPlan and its delivery.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02379078; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02379078. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2., Methods: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences., Results: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients ( n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes., Interpretation: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices., Competing Interests: Competing interests:: Michael Green reports research support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). He is president and board chair of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and sits on the board of AMS Healthcare. Tara Kiran reports honoraria from the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian College of Family Physicians, and the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario. Mina Tadrous reports consulting fees from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and Health Canada. Dominik Nowak reports consulting fees from the Alliance for Healthier Communities, the Centre for Effective Practice, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Ontario Medical Association, TELUS, and Women’s College Hospital. He is president-elect of the Ontario Medical Association. Holly Witteman is supported by a Canada Research Chair and reports an honorarium from Stanford University. Isaac Bogoch reports research funding from CIHR and consulting fees from the Weapons Threat Reduction Program. David Kaplan reports travel support from the Public Health Agency of Canada; he is chair of the Post–COVID-19 Condition guideline advisory committee and sits on the board of directors with the Musical Stage Company. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2024 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Objective: To identify hospital and primary care health service use among people with mental health conditions or addictions in an integrated primary-secondary care database in Toronto, Ontario., Method: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with mental health diagnoses using data from the Health Databank Collaborative (HDC), a primary care-hospital linked database in Toronto. Data were included up to March 31st 2019. Negative binomial and logistic regression were used to evaluate associations between health care utilization and various patient characteristics and mental health diagnoses., Results: 28,482 patients age 18 or older were included. The adjusted odds of at least one mental health diagnosis were higher among younger patients (18-30 years vs. 81+years aOR = 1.87; 95% CI:1.68-2.08) and among female patients (aOR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.27-1.42). Patients with one or more mental health diagnoses had higher adjusted rates of hospital visits compared to those without any mental health diagnosis including addiction (aRR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.58-1.91) and anxiety (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.23-1.32). 14.5% of patients with a psychiatric diagnosis were referred to the hospital for specialized psychiatric services, and 38% of patients referred were eventually seen in consultation. The median wait time from the date of referral to the date of consultation was 133 days., Conclusions: In this community, individuals with mental health diagnoses accessed primary and hospital-based health care at greater rates than those without mental health diagnoses. Wait times for specialized psychiatric care were long and most patients who were referred did not have a consultation. Information about services for patients with mental health conditions can be used to plan and monitor more integrated care across sectors, and ultimately improve outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.