Search

Background: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. Methods: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I–III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Discussion: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. Trial registration: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, #NCT05744154). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Utility scores are an important tool for evaluating health-related quality of life. Utility score norms have been published for Canadian adults, but no nationally representative utility score norms are available for children and youth. Data and methods Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) data from two recent cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (i.e., 2016 and 2017, and 2018 and 2019) were used to provide utility score norms for children aged 6 to 11 years and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. Children younger than 14 years answered the HUI3 under the supervision of an adult, while older children answered without supervision. Utility scores were reported as a weighted average (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) and median values (interquartile range). Utility scores were stratified by sociodemographic and medical characteristics of the child or adolescent. Regression analyses were used to identify predictors of utility scores. All results were weighted using sampling weights provided by Statistics Canada. Results Among the 2,297,136 children aged 6 to 11 years and the 2,329,185 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in the weighted sample, the average utility scores were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.90), respectively. Approximately 60% of the children and 34% of the adolescents had a utility score of 1.00. Analyses identified several factors associated with utility scores (e.g., age, chronic condition and income levels), although differences were observed between children and adolescents. Interpretation This study provides utility score estimates based on a nationally representative sample of Canadian children and youth. Further research examining the determinants of utility scores of children and adolescents is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]