Search

BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

BackgroundTrauma is the most common cause of mortality among people between the ages of 1 and 45 years, costing Canadians 19.8 billion dollars a year (2004 data), yet half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive evidence-based care, and significant regional variation in the quality of care across Canada exists. Accordingly, our goal is to lead a research project in which stakeholders themselves will adapt evidence-based trauma care knowledge tools to their own varied institutional contexts and cultures. We will do this by developing and assessing the combined impact of WikiTrauma, a free collaborative database of clinical decision support tools, and Wiki101, a training course teaching participants how to use WikiTrauma. WikiTrauma has the potential to ensure that all stakeholders (eg, patients, clinicians, and decision makers) can all contribute to, and benefit from, evidence-based clinical knowledge about trauma care that is tailored to their own needs and clinical setting. ObjectiveOur main objective will be to study the combined effect of WikiTrauma and Wiki101 on the quality of care in four trauma centers in Quebec. MethodsFirst, we will pilot-test the wiki with potential users to create a version ready to test in practice. A rapid, iterative prototyping process with 15 health professionals from nonparticipating centers will allow us to identify and resolve usability issues prior to finalizing the definitive version for the interrupted time series. Second, we will conduct an interrupted time series to measure the impact of our combined intervention on the quality of care in four trauma centers that will be selected—one level I, one level II, and two level III centers. Participants will be health care professionals working in the selected trauma centers. Also, five patient representatives will be recruited to participate in the creation of knowledge tools destined for their use (eg, handouts). All participants will be invited to complete the Wiki101 training and then use, and contribute to, WikiTrauma for 12 months. The primary outcome will be the change over time of a validated, composite, performance indicator score based on 15 process performance indicators found in the Quebec Trauma Registry. ResultsThis project was funded in November 2014 by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. We expect to start this trial in early 2015 and preliminary results should be available in June 2016. Two trauma centers have already agreed to participate and two more will be recruited in the next months. ConclusionsWe expect that this study will add important and unique evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and cost savings of using collaborative platforms to adapt knowledge implementation tools across jurisdictions.

Background: Multifaceted interventions that address barriers and facilitators have been shown to be most effective for increasing the adoption of high-value care, but there is a knowledge gap on this type of intervention for the de-implementation of low-value care. Trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care, such as unnecessary diagnostic imaging and the use of specialized resources. The aim of our study was to develop and assess the usability of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care. Methods: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change tool as theoretical foundations to identify barriers and facilitators, and strategies for the reduction of low-value practices. We designed an initial prototype of the intervention using the items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The prototype's usability was iteratively tested through four focus groups and four think-aloud sessions with trauma decision-makers (n = 18) from seven Level I to Level III trauma centers. We conducted an inductive analysis of the audio-recorded sessions to identify usability issues and other barriers and facilitators to refine the intervention. Results: We identified barriers and facilitators related to individual characteristics, including knowledge and beliefs about low-value practices and the de-implementation process, such as the complexity of changing practices and difficulty accessing performance feedback. Accordingly, the following intervention strategies were selected: involving governing structures and leaders, distributing audit & feedback reports on performance, and providing educational materials, de-implementation support tools and educational/facilitation visits. A total of 61 issues were identified during the usability testing, of which eight were critical, 33 were moderately important, and 18 were minor. These issues led to numerous improvements, including the addition of information on the drivers and benefits of reducing low-value practices, changes in the definition of these practices, the addition of proposed strategies to facilitate de-implementation, and the tailoring of educational/facilitation visits. Conclusions: We designed and refined a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care using a process that increases the likelihood of its acceptability and sustainability. The next step will be to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this intervention using a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Trial registration: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24th 2023, #NCT05744154, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05744154). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Many patients experience acute pain, which has been associated with numerous negative consequences. Pain education has been proposed as a strategy to improve acute pain management. However, studies report limited effects with educational interventions for acute pain in adults, which can be explained by the underuse of the person-centered approach. Thus, we aimed to systematically review and synthetize current evidence from quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies describing patients' needs and preferences for acute pain education in adults. We searched original studies and gray literature in 7 databases, from January 1990 to October 2023. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A total of 32 studies were included (n = 1847 patients), two-thirds of which were qualitative studies of high methodological quality. Most of the studies were conducted over the last 15 years in patients with postsurgical and posttraumatic pain, identified as White, with a low level of education. Patients expressed the greatest need for education when it came to what to expect in pain intensity and duration, as well how to take the medication and its associated adverse effects. The most frequently reported educational preferences were for in-person education while involving caregivers and to obtain information first from physicians, then by other professionals. This review has highlighted the needs and preferences to be considered in pain education interventions, which should be embedded in an approach cultivating communication and partnership with patients and their caregivers. The results still need to be confirmed with different patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Most patients presenting with a hip fracture regardless of their comorbidities are surgically treated. A growing body of research states that a certain type of elderly patient could benefit more from a palliative approach. Objective: Identify the patient who would benefit most from a palliative care approach instead of a surgery. Design: Exploratory-matched retrospective cohort study between 2015 and 2021. Setting: Single Level 1 Trauma Center. Participants: There were 2240 hip fracture patients admitted to our institution between 2015 and 2021. Patients over 65 years old with intertrochanteric or femoral neck fractures could be included. A total of 129 patients opted for palliative care (Palliative Group = PG). This cohort was compared to a matched cohort (for age, sex and fracture type) who underwent surgery but died within three months of the procedure (Surgery Deceased Group = SDG) and another matched cohort who survived more than three months (Surgery Alive Group = SAG) following surgery. Main outcomes and measures: Medical charts were reviewed for patient demographics, autonomy level, level of care, neurocognitive disorders (NCD), fracture type, in-hospital data and outpatient death within three months of admission. Analysis was performed through univariate and multivariate models with SAS OnDemand for Academics (alpha 0.05). Results: Patients in the PG (n = 129) were 88.2 ± 7.2 years old, 71.3% were females, and 61.2% had a femoral neck fracture. Patients in the SDG (n = 95) and SAG (n = 107) were well matched. The PG differed from the SDG (n = 95) and SAG (n = 107) regarding NCD (85.3% vs. 57.9% vs. 36.4%, p < 0.01) and the presence of Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) (19.4% vs. 5.3% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.01). There were more known heart failure (24.2% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.01) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in the SDG group than in the PG group (26.6 vs. 14.7%, p = 0.02). Patients in the SAG have a significant lower rate of NCD (OR 2,7 (95%CI 1,5–5,0)), heart failure (OR 5,7 (95%CI 1,9–16,4)) and COPD (OR 2,8 (95%CI 1,2–6,3)) than other groups. Prefracture mobility, autonomy and living situation significantly differed between the groups. Median survival was six days in PG and 17 days in SDG. All groups lost autonomy and mobility. There were more complications in the SDG group than in the PG group. The end-of-care trajectory was death or hospice for most patients in the PG and SDG groups. More than 30% of the SAG group could not return home at discharge. Conclusion: The presence of an NCD and diminished prefracture autonomy strongly support counseling for palliative care. The high rate of complications when surgery is proposed for frail patients with multiple comorbidities suggests that the concept of palliative surgery needs to be revisited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Opioid use disorder often co‐occurs with chronic pain but assessment and treatment of these co‐occurring disorders is complex. This review aims to identify current treatments and delivery models for co‐occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) documented in the scientific literature. Design: Scoping review. Methods: The review was conducted in six databases in June 2022 (no time limit): CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase. The PRISMA‐ScR checklist was used to guide reporting. Results: Forty‐seven publications addressing the issue of co‐occurring chronic pain and OUD management were included. Randomized controlled trials provide evidence for the effectiveness of opioid agonist treatments (OAT) such as methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone, as well as for combining OAT with Mindfulness‐Oriented Recovery Enhancement or cognitive behavioural therapy. A number of other pharmacological treatments (opioid and nonopioid), nonpharmacological treatments (e.g. physiotherapy) and service delivery models (e.g. simultaneous treatment of comorbidities, interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration) are also underlined. In most cases, authors recommend a combination of strategies to meet patient needs. Conclusions: The scoping review reveals gaps in evidence‐based knowledge to effectively care for co‐occurring chronic pain and OUD, but several experts recommend the uptake of known 'best' practices such as integrated treatment of the multiple biopsychosocial dimensions of the co‐occurring disorders as well as collaborative interdisciplinary work. Clinical Relevance: Improving services is dependent on alleviating barriers such as working in silos, the costs associated with nonpharmacological treatments, and the double stigma associated with pain in people with a substance use disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although surgery is the gold standard following a hip fracture, the potential for rehabilitation and survival rates are low in frail older patients. Some patients may derive more benefit from palliative care. The objectives of this review were to identify the available strategies to improve end-of-life decision-making and palliative care for frail patients with hip fractures and to synthetise their level of support. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the scientific and grey literature, searching seven databases and websites of associations. We included all study designs, expert opinion articles and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Data were synthetised according to the Approach to Patient with Limited Life Expectancy and Hip Fracture framework. The number of research items and their level of evidence were tabulated for each of the recommended strategies. Results Of the 10 591 items identified, 34 were eligible. The majority of included articles were original research studies (n = 15). Half of the articles and CPGs focused on intervention categories (55%) such as goals of care discussion and comfort care, followed by factors to consider in the end-of-life decision-making process (25%) and prognosis assessments (20%), mainly through the estimation of life expectancy. The level of evidence for these strategies remains low, given the limited number of prospective studies supporting them. Conclusions This scoping review highlighted that end-of-life care in frail older patients with a hip fracture remains understudied. The strategies identified could be prioritised for future research to improve the well-being of the target population while promoting sustainable resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common in moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) patients and can have serious consequences. Delaying feeding in these patients can also be detrimental. Nonetheless, the psychometric properties of screening tools that can promptly identify dysphagia have never been tested in these neurotrauma populations. This study aimed to: (1) adapt, translate, and validate the content of the French-Canadian version of the the Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) tool to meet the needs of moderate-severe TBI and cervical SCI patients, (2) examine its inter-rater reliability and criterion-concurrent validation, and (3) evaluate its clinical utility from the perspectives of critical care nurses. The SSA tool was adapted and translated using an integrated method for the cultural adaptation and translation of tools. Eleven experts participated in the adaptation of the SSA tool, which led to the clarification of one item, as well as a new step and instructions for the screening procedure. Content validation (i.e., item and scale relevance) was evaluated by multidisciplinary team members (n = 17). The mean content validity index (CVI) score was 0.97 for the entire scale, while the mean CVI scores for individual items ranged from 0.82 to 1.0. A total of 60 neurotrauma patients were enrolled for inter-rater reliability and criterion-concurrent validation. Interrater reliability was determined by comparing two scores: one score from nurses responsible for the care of enrolled patients and one score from the research nurse. The weighted kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability were 0.86 for moderate-severe TBI patients (n = 30) and 0.73 for cervical SCI patients (n = 30). A speech language therapist (SLT) also assessed dysphagia and results were used as the standard clinical reference criterion to determine concurrent validity (sensibility and specificity) of the adapted SSA tool. The sensitivity and specificity were 92% and 50% for moderate-severe TBI, and 77% and 75% for cervical SCI, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 65% and 87% in TBI patients, and 75% and 76% in SCI patients. Test accuracy was 71% and 77% for these same groups. The clinical utility of the tool was evaluated according to the following domains: appropriateness, accessibility of the required material, applicability, perceived effectiveness, and acceptability. Acceptability was the only domain with a level of agreement <80% (74%) among trauma critical care nurses (n = 49). Findings support the content validation and inter-rater reliability of the adapted French-Canadian version of the SSA tool in moderate-severe TBI and cervical SCI patients. Sensitivity was acceptable in both groups, but the specificity was lower, especially in moderate-severe TBI patients. Further validation of the adapted French-Canadian version of the SSA tool is needed in neurotrauma patients to confirm these results and to ensure safe dysphagia screening while avoiding oral feeding deferrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]