Search

Background: Current quality improvement tools for endoscopy services, such as the Global Rating Scale (GRS), emphasize the need for patient-centred care. However, there are no studies that have investigated patient expectations and/or perceptions of quality indicators in endoscopy services., Objectives: To identify quality indicators for colonoscopy services from the patient perspective; to rate indicators of importance; to determine factors that influence indicator ratings; and to compare the identified indicators with those of the GRS., Methods: A two-phase mixed methods study was undertaken in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Hamilton (Ontario) among patients ≥18 years of age who spoke and read English or French. In phase 1, focus group participants identified quality indicators that were then used to construct a survey questionnaire. In phase 2, survey questionnaires, which were completed immediately after colonoscopy, prompted respondents to rate the 20 focus group-derived indicators according to their level of importance (low, medium, high) and to list up to nine additional items. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that influenced focus group-derived indicator ratings. Patient-identified indicators were compared with those used in the GRS to identify novel indicators., Results: Three quality indicator themes were identified by 66 participants in 12 focus groups: communication, comfort and service environment. Of the 828 surveys distributed, 402 (48.6%) were returned and 65% of focus group-derived indicators were rated highly important by at least 55% of survey respondents. Indicator ratings differed according to age, sex, site and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Of the 29 patient-identified indicators, 17 (58.6%) were novel., Conclusions: Patients identified 17 novel quality indicators, suggesting that patients and health professionals differ in their perspectives with respect to quality in colonoscopy services.

Neighborhood-level analyses of influenza vaccination can identify the characteristics of vulnerable neighborhoods, which can inform public health strategy for future pandemics. In this study, the authors analyzed rates of 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 influenza vaccination in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, using individual-level vaccination records from a vaccination registry with census, survey, and administrative data to estimate the population at risk. The neighborhood socioeconomic and demographic determinants of vaccination were identified using Bayesian ecologic logistic regression, with random effects to account for spatial autocorrelation. A total of 918,773 (49.9%) Montreal residents were vaccinated against pandemic A/H1N1 influenza from October 22, 2009, through April 8, 2010. Coverage was greatest among females, children under age 5 years, and health-care workers. Neighborhood vaccine coverage ranged from 33.6% to 71.0%. Neighborhoods with high percentages of immigrants (per 5% increase, odds ratio = 0.90, 95% credible interval: 0.86, 0.95) and material deprivation (per 1-unit increase in deprivation score, odds ratio = 0.93, 95% credible interval: 0.88, 0.98) had lower vaccine coverage. Half of the Montreal population was vaccinated; however, considerable heterogeneity in coverage was observed between neighborhoods and subgroups. In future vaccination campaigns, neighborhoods that are materially deprived or have high percentages of immigrants may benefit from focused interventions.

Background: There is little empirical evidence in support of a relationship between rates of influenza infection and level of material deprivation (i.e., lack of access to goods and services) and social deprivation (i.e. lack of social cohesion and support)., Method: Using validated population-level indices of material and social deprivation and medical billing claims for outpatient clinic and emergency department visits for influenza from 1996 to 2006, we assessed the relationship between neighbourhood rates of influenza and neighbourhood levels of deprivation using Bayesian ecological regression models. Then, by pooling data from neighbourhoods in the top decile (i.e., most deprived) and the bottom decile, we compared rates in the most deprived populations to the least deprived populations using age- and sex-standardized rate ratios., Results: Deprivation scores ranged from one to five with five representing the highest level of deprivation. We found a 21% reduction in rates for every 1 unit increase in social deprivation score (rate ratio [RR] 0.79, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.66, 0.97). There was little evidence of a meaningful linear relationship with material deprivation (RR 1.06, 95% CrI 0.93, 1.24). However, relative to neighbourhoods with deprivation scores in the bottom decile, those in the top decile (i.e., most materially deprived) had substantially higher rates (RR 2.02, 95% Confidence Interval 1.99, 2.05)., Conclusion: Though it is hypothesized that social and material deprivation increase risk of acute respiratory infection, we found decreasing healthcare utilization rates for influenza with increasing social deprivation. This finding may be explained by the fewer social contacts and, thus, fewer influenza exposure opportunities of the socially deprived. Though there was no evidence of a linear relationship with material deprivation, when comparing the least to the most materially deprived populations, we observed higher rates in the most materially deprived populations.