Search

Introduction: More than half of older adults (age ≥ 65 yr) have 2 or more high-burden multimorbidity conditions (i.e., highly prevalent chronic diseases, which are associated with increased health care utilization; these include diabetes [DM], dementia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], cardiovascular disease [CVD], arthritis, and heart failure [HF]), yet most existing interventions for managing chronic disease focus on a single disease or do not respond to the specialized needs of older adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective multimorbidity interventions compared with a control or usual care strategy for older adults., Methods: We searched bibliometric databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for managing multiple chronic diseases in any language from 1990 to December 2017. The primary outcome was any outcome specific to managing multiple chronic diseases as reported by studies. Reviewer pairs independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of RCTs with similar interventions and components., Results: We included 25 studies (including 15 RCTs and 6 cluster RCTs) (12 579 older adults; mean age 67.3 yr). In patients with [depression + COPD] or [CVD + DM], care-coordination strategies significantly improved depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to -0.22; I 2 = 0%) and reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) levels (mean difference -0.51; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.11; I 2 = 0%), but not mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; I 2 = 0%). Among secondary outcomes, care-coordination strategies reduced functional impairment in patients with [arthritis + depression] (between-group difference -0.82; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.47) or [DM + depression] (between-group difference 3.21; 95% CI 1.78 to 4.63); improved cognitive functioning in patients with [DM + depression] (between-group difference 2.44; 95% CI 0.79 to 4.09) or [HF + COPD] ( p = 0.006); and increased use of mental health services in those with [DM + (CVD or depression)] (RR 2.57; 95% CI 1.90 to 3.49; I 2 = 0%)., Interpretation: Subgroup analyses showed that older adults with diabetes and either depression or cardiovascular disease, or with coexistence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, can benefit from care-coordination strategies with or without education to lower HbA 1c , reduce depressive symptoms, improve health-related functional status, and increase the use of mental health services., Protocol Registration: PROSPERO-CRD42014014489., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Noah Ivers reports receiving personal fees and grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Government of Ontario during the conduct of the study; he also reports receiving personal fees from Diabetes Canada, outside the submitted work. Noah Ivers held a volunteer position as Chair of the Ontario Vascular Coalition, which envisioned a multicondition approach to management of chronic diseases and risk factors in primary care. Sharon Marr reports a patent issued for the trademark for the Geriatric Certificate program (February 2013). Geoff Wong reports that his salary is partly supported by The Evidence Synthesis Working Group of the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (Project Number 390). He is Deputy Chair of the UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Out-of-Hospital Panel. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2018 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Noah Ivers reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Government of Ontario, outside the submitted work. Irfan Dhalla reports that his affiliation, Health Quality Ontario, has an institutional interest in advancing some of the ideas discussed in this article. No other competing interests were declared.

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication. Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Muhammad Mamdani has received personal fees for serving as an advisory board member to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman–La Roche, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Pfizer. Noah Ivers and Muhammad Mamdani have received research grants from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, unrelated to the current study. Chaim Bell has received consultant fees from the Policy and Innovation Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2017 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common and preventable cause of stroke. Barriers to reducing stroke risk through appropriate prescribing have been identified at the system, provider, and patient levels. To ensure a multifaceted initiative to address these barriers is effective, it is essential to incorporate user-centered design to ensure all intervention components are optimized for users., Objective: To test the usability of an electronic medical record (EMR) toolkit for AF in primary care with the goal of further refining the intervention to meet the needs of primary care clinicians., Methods: An EMR-based toolkit for AF was created and optimized through usability testing and iterative redesign incorporating a human factors approach. A mixed-methods pilot study consisting of observations, semi-structured interviews, and surveys was conducted to examine usability and perceived impact on patient care and workflow., Results: A total of 14 clinicians (13 family physicians and 1 nurse practitioner) participated in the study. Nine iterations of the toolkit were created in response to feedback from clinicians and the research team; interface-related changes were made, additional AF-related resources were added, and functionality issues were fixed to make the toolkit more effective. After improvements were made, clinicians expressed that the toolkit improved accessibility to AF-related information and resources, served as a reminder for guideline-concordant AF management, and was easy to use. Most clinicians intended to continue using the toolkit for patient care. With respect to impact on care, clinicians believed the toolkit increased the thoroughness of their assessments for patients with AF and improved the quality of AF-related care received by their patients., Conclusions: The positive feedback surrounding the EMR toolkit for AF and its perceived impact on patient care can be attributed to the adoption of a user-centered design that merged clinically important information about AF management with user needs. This study demonstrates the utility of a human factors approach to piloting and refining an intervention prior to wide-scale implementation.

Background: This paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized trials of audit and feedback compared to usual care, with objectively measured outcomes assessing compliance with intended professional practice. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted variables related to the intervention, the context, and trial methodology. The median absolute risk difference in compliance with intended professional practice was determined for each study, and adjusted for baseline performance. The effect size across studies was recalculated as studies were added to the cumulative analysis. Meta-regressions were conducted for studies published up to 2002, 2006, and 2010 in which characteristics of the intervention, the recipients, and trial risk of bias were tested as predictors of effect size., Results: Of the 140 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane review, 98 comparisons from 62 studies met the criteria for inclusion. The cumulative analysis indicated that the effect size became stable in 2003 after 51 comparisons from 30 trials. Cumulative meta-regressions suggested new trials are contributing little further information regarding the impact of common effect modifiers. Feedback appears most effective when: delivered by a supervisor or respected colleague; presented frequently; featuring both specific goals and action-plans; aiming to decrease the targeted behavior; baseline performance is lower; and recipients are non-physicians., Discussion: There is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field. There are opportunity costs for patients, providers, and health care systems when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.

Background: Primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) represent a potentially rich source of information for research and evaluation., Objective: To assess the completeness of primary care EMR data compared with administrative data., Study Design: Retrospective comparison of provincial health-related administrative databases and patient records for more than 50,000 patients of 54 physicians in 15 geographically distinct clinics in Ontario, Canada, contained in the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD)., Methods: Physician billings, laboratory tests, medications, specialist consultation letters, and hospital discharges captured in EMRALD were compared with health-related administrative data in a universal access healthcare system., Results: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) percentage of clinic primary care outpatient visits captured in EMRALD compared with administrative data was 94.4% (4.88%). Consultation letters from specialists for first consultations and for hospital discharges were captured at a mean (SD) rate of 72.7% (7.98%) and 58.5% (15.24%), respectively, within 30 days of the occurrence. The mean (SD) capture within EMRALD of the most common laboratory tests billed and the most common drugs dispensed was 67.3% (21.46%) and 68.2% (8.32%), respectively, for all clinics., Conclusions: We found reasonable capture of information within the EMR compared with administrative data, with the advantage in the EMR of having actual laboratory results, prescriptions for patients of all ages, and detailed clinical information. However, the combination of complete EMR records and administrative data is needed to provide a full comprehensive picture of patient health histories and processes, and outcomes of care.