Search

ObjectivesPeople with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are living longer lives and like many other patients, need a health system better adapted for the management of complex chronic conditions. A key element of system transformation is measuring and reporting on system performance indicators relevant to the different stakeholders. Our objective was to produce a performance measurement framework for assessing the quality of comprehensive community-based primary healthcare for people with HIV.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were performed with HIV providers, advocates, and policy-makers to obtain input on a draft performance framework, constructed using existing HIV-specific indicators, as well as the use of performance data in improving care for people with HIV.ResultsStakeholders were overwhelmingly supportive of the framework’s comprehensiveness. Many noted the absence of indicators addressing social determinants of health and had mixed opinions on the importance of indicators addressing access to after-hours care and the frequency of routine screening for behavioural risk factors. The draft framework was modified to reflect stakeholder input, triangulated against expert opinion and recently released HIV care guidelines, and finalized at 79 indicators. The resources and infrastructure to collect and use performance data will have to be improved for performance measurement to contribute to improving care for people with HIV.ConclusionsThis framework presents a comprehensive though not exhaustive tool to support performance measurement and improvement in the care for people with HIV. However, advances in data collection and use across the system will be needed to support performance measurement driving quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to specialist care is a point of concern for patients, primary care providers, and specialists in Canada. Innovative e-health platforms such as electronic consultation (eConsultation) and referral (eReferral) can improve access to specialist care. These systems allow physicians to communicate asynchronously and could reduce the number of unnecessary referrals that clog wait lists, provide a record of the patient's journey through the referral system, and lead to more efficient visits. Little is known about the current state of eConsultation and eReferral in Canada. The purpose of this work was to identify current systems and gain insight into the design and implementation process of existing systems. An environmental scan approach was used, consisting of a systematic and grey literature review, and targeted semi-structured key informant interviews. Only three eConsultation/eReferral systems are currently in operation in Canada. Four themes emerged from the interviews: eReferral is an end goal for those provinces without an active eReferral system, re-organization of the referral process is a necessity prior to automation, engaging the end-user is essential, and technological incompatibilities are major impediments to progress. Despite the acknowledged need to improve the referral system and increase government spending on health information technology, eConsultation and eReferral systems remain scarce as Canada lags behind the rest of the developed world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper and stop antipsychotics; to focus on the highest level of evidence available and seek input from primary care professionals in the guideline development, review, and endorsement processes., Methods: The overall team comprised 9 clinicians (1 family physician, 1 family physician specializing in long-term care, 1 geriatric psychiatrist, 2 geriatricians, 4 pharmacists) and a methodologist; members disclosed conflicts of interest. For guideline development, a systematic process was used, including the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence was generated from a Cochrane systematic review of antipsychotic deprescribing trials for the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, and a systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence behind the benefits of using antipsychotics for insomnia. A review of reviews of the harms of continued antipsychotic use was performed, as well as narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource implications. This evidence and GRADE quality-of-evidence ratings were used to generate recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendation wording through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address common front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was distributed to clinicians and stakeholders for review and revisions were made at each stage., Recommendations: We recommend deprescribing antipsychotics for adults with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia treated for at least 3 months (symptoms stabilized or no response to an adequate trial) and for adults with primary insomnia treated for any duration or secondary insomnia in which underlying comorbidities are managed. A decision-support algorithm was developed to accompany the guideline., Conclusion: Antipsychotics are associated with harms and can be safely tapered. Patients and caregivers might be more amenable to deprescribing if they understand the rationale (potential for harm), are involved in developing the tapering plan, and are offered behavioural advice or management. This guideline provides recommendations for making decisions about when and how to reduce the dose of or stop antipsychotics. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients and families., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

In 2004, Canada's First Ministers committed to reforms that would shape the future of the Canadian healthcare landscape. These agreements included commitments to improved performance reporting within the primary healthcare system. The aim of this paper was to review the state of primary healthcare performance reporting after the public reporting mandate agreed to a decade ago in the Action Plan for Health System Renewal of 2003 expired. A grey literature search was performed to identify reports released by the governmental and independent reporting bodies across Canada. No province, or the federal government, met their performance reporting obligations from the 2004 accords. Although the indicators required to report on in the 2004 Accord no longer reflect the priorities of patients, policy makers and physicians, provinces are also failing to report on these priorities. Canada needs better primary healthcare performance reporting to enable accountability and improvement within and across provinces. Despite the national mandate to improve public health system reporting, an opportunity to learn from the diverse primary healthcare reforms, underway across Canada for the past decade, has already been lost., (Copyright © 2016 Longwoods Publishing.)

Objective: To identify family medicine residents’ barriers to conducting high-quality research for the mandatory family medicine resident scholarly project, as well as to determine possible strategies to encourage research activity among family medicine residents., Design: Descriptive study using an online survey., Setting: Department of Family Medicine at the University of Ottawa in Ontario., Participants: A total of 54 first- and second-year residents., Main Outcome Measures: Family medicine residents’ involvement in research activities, perceived quality of their mandatory scholarly project, intentions for publication and presentation, and attitudes toward potential barriers to and facilitators of conducting high-quality research., Results: Of the 54 residents, 20 (37%) reported that their project was of high quality, 6 (11%) intended to publish their findings, and 2 (4%) intended to present their findings. Respondents indicated that the main barriers to conducting high-quality research were lack of time, interest, and scholarly skills. The proposed solutions to increase participation in scholarly work were to allow full research days to be used in half-day increments and to offer a journal club where residents could learn scholarly activities., Conclusion: Family medicine residents found several factors to be considerable barriers to completing the required family medicine resident scholarly project. This indicates that there is a need to change the current approach to developing scholarly skills in family medicine. Greater allotment of and flexibility in protected research time and more sessions focused on developing scholarly skills might facilitate scholarly activity among family medicine residents.