Search

BackgroundIn Canada, 30%-60% of patients presenting to emergency departments are ambulatory. This category has been labeled as a source of emergency department overuse. Acting on the presumption that primary care practices and walk-in clinics offer equivalent care at a lower cost, governments have invested massively in improving access to these alternative settings in the hope that patients would present there instead when possible, thereby reducing the load on emergency departments. Data in support of this approach remain scarce and equivocal. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the value of care received in emergency departments, walk-in clinics, and primary care practices by ambulatory patients with upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, influenza-like illness, pneumonia, acute asthma, or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. MethodsA multicenter prospective cohort study will be performed in Ontario and Québec. In phase 1, a time-driven activity-based costing method will be applied at each of the 15 study sites. This method uses time as a cost driver to allocate direct costs (eg, medication), consumable expenditures (eg, needles), overhead costs (eg, building maintenance), and physician charges to patient care. Thus, the cost of a care episode will be proportional to the time spent receiving the care. At the end of this phase, a list of care process costs will be generated and used to calculate the cost of each consultation during phase 2, in which a prospective cohort of patients will be monitored to compare the care received in each setting. Patients aged 18 years and older, ambulatory throughout the care episode, and discharged to home with one of the aforementioned targeted diagnoses will be considered. The estimated sample size is 1485 patients. The 3 types of care settings will be compared on the basis of primary outcomes in terms of the proportion of return visits to any site 3 and 7 days after the initial visit and the mean cost of care. The secondary outcomes measured will include scores on patient-reported outcome and experience measures and mean costs borne wholly by patients. We will use multilevel generalized linear models to compare the care settings and an overlap weights approach to adjust for confounding factors related to age, sex, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, registration with a family physician, socioeconomic status, and severity of illness. ResultsPhase 1 will begin in 2021 and phase 2, in 2023. The results will be available in 2025. ConclusionsThe end point of our program will be for deciders, patients, and care providers to be able to determine the most appropriate care setting for the management of ambulatory emergency respiratory conditions, based on the quality and cost of care associated with each alternative. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/25619

IntroductionUnderuse of high-value clinical practices and overuse of low-value practices are major sources of inefficiencies in modern healthcare systems. Injuries are second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of acute care costs but data on the economic impact of clinical practices for injury admissions are lacking. This study aims to summarise evidence on the economic value of intrahospital clinical practices for injury care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to identify research articles in economic evaluation of intrahospital clinical practices in acute injury care. We will search MEDLINE and databases such as Embase, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS and CINAHL for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary. We will consider the following outcomes relative to economic evaluations: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net health benefit, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) and incremental cost-benefit ratio. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies that meet eligibility criteria and extract data from included articles using an electronic data extraction form. All outcomes will be converted into iNMB. We will report iNMB for practices classified by type of practice (hospitalisation, consultation, diagnostic, therapeutic-surgical, therapeutic-drugs, therapeutic-other). Results obtained with a ceiling ratio of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for identified clinical practices will be summarised by charting forest plots. In line with Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, meta-analyses will not be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. This study will summarise existing evidence on the economic value of clinical practices in injury care. Results will be used to advance knowledge on value-based care for injury admissions and will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed article, international scientific meetings and clinical and healthcare quality associations.

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]

Background: Accurate patient outcome prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU) can potentially lead to more effective and efficient patient care. Deep learning models are capable of learning from data to accurately predict patient outcomes, but they typically require large amounts of data and computational resources. Transfer learning (TL) can help in scenarios where data and computational resources are scarce by leveraging pretrained models. While TL has been widely used in medical imaging and natural language processing, it has been rare in electronic health record (EHR) analysis. Furthermore, domain adaptation (DA) has been the most common TL method in general, whereas inductive transfer learning (ITL) has been rare. To the best of our knowledge, DA and ITL have never been studied in-depth in the context of EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction. Objective: This study investigated DA, as well as rarely researched ITL, in EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction under simulated, varying levels of data scarcity. Methods: Two patient cohorts were used in this study: (1) eCritical, a multicenter ICU data from 55,689 unique admission records from 48,672 unique patients admitted to 15 medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, Canada, between March 2013 and December 2019, and (2) Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III, a single-center, publicly available ICU data set from Boston, Massachusetts, acquired between 2001 and 2012 containing 61,532 admission records from 46,476 patients. We compared DA and ITL models with baseline models (without TL) of fully connected neural networks, logistic regression, and lasso regression in the prediction of 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Random subsets of training data, ranging from 1% to 75%, as well as the full data set, were used to compare the performances of DA and ITL with the baseline models at various levels of data scarcity. Results: Overall, the ITL models outperformed the baseline models in 55 of 56 comparisons (all P values <.001). The DA models outperformed the baseline models in 45 of 56 comparisons (all P values <.001). ITL resulted in better performance than DA in terms of the number of times and the margin with which it outperformed the baseline models. In 11 of 16 cases (8 of 8 for ITL and 3 of 8 for DA), TL models outperformed baseline models when trained using 1% data subset. Conclusions: TL-based ICU patient outcome prediction models are useful in data-scarce scenarios. The results of this study can be used to estimate ICU outcome prediction performance at different levels of data scarcity, with and without TL. The publicly available pretrained models from this study can serve as building blocks in further research for the development and validation of models in other ICU cohorts and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute care injury outcomes vary substantially across Canadian provinces and trauma centres. Our aim was to develop Canadian benchmarks to monitor mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) for [...]

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]

Hospital patients who are put in isolation to prevent their infection from spreading to other patients may experience more adverse events, be less satisfied with their care, and receive fewer visits by doctors. In a study of 450 hospital patients at two large hospitals, those who were isolated were twice as likely to have an adverse event, and most of these adverse events were preventable. They were less likely to receive some types of care, less likely to see a doctor every day, and more likely to complain about their treatment.

Many doctors who write practice guidelines have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Practice guidelines are documents that recommend the best treatments for a particular disease. A survey of 100 doctors who contributed to 37 different practice guidelines found that 59% had ties to the pharmaceutical company that manufactured one of the drugs mentioned in the guideline., Context Increasing contact has been reported between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, although no data exist in the literature regarding potential financial conflicts of interest for authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These interactions may be particularly relevant since CPGs are designed to influence the practice of a large number of physicians. Objective To quantify the extent and nature of interactions between authors of CPGs and the pharmaceutical industry. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional survey of 192 authors of 44 CPGs endorsed by North American and European societies on common adult diseases published between 1991 and July 1999. One hundred authors (52%) provided usable responses representing 37 of 44 different CPGs that we identified. Main Outcome Measures Nature and extent of interactions of authors with drug manufacturers; disclosure of relationships in published guidelines; prior discussion among authors regarding relationships; beliefs regarding whether authors&apos; own relationships or those of their colleagues influenced treatment recommendations in guidelines. Results Eighty-seven percent of authors had some form of interaction with the pharmaceutical industry. Fifty-eight percent had received financial support to perform research and 38% had served as employees or consultants for a pharmaceutical company. On average, CPG authors interacted with 10.5 different companies. Overall, an average of 81% (95% confidence interval, 70%-92%) of authors per CPG had interactions. Similarly, all of the CPGs for 7 of the 10 diseases included in our study had at least 1 author who had some interaction. Fifty-nine percent had relationships with companies whose drugs were considered in the guideline they authored, and of these authors, 96% had relationships that predated the guideline creation process. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the guideline process with which they were involved had no formal process for declaring these relationships. In published versions of the CPGs, specific declarations regarding the personal financial interactions of individual authors w ith the pharmaceutical industry were made in only 2 cases. Seven percent thought that their own relationships with the pharmaceutical industry influenced the recommendations and 19% thought that their coauthors&apos; recommendations were influenced by their relationships. Conclusions Although the response rate for this survey was low, there appears to be considerable interaction between CPG authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Our study highlights the need for appropriate disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for authors of CPGs and a formal process for discussing these conflicts prior to CPG development.