Showing papers by "Lee A. Green published in 2020"

Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study.

Abstract: PURPOSE Hearing loss, the second most common disability in the United States, is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Identifying it in early stages could prevent its known substantial adverse outcomes. METHODS A multiple baseline design was implemented to assess a screening paradigm for identifying and referring patients aged ≥55 years with hearing loss at 10 family medicine clinics in 2 health systems. Patients completed a consent form and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI). An electronic alert prompted clinicians to screen for hearing loss during visits. RESULTS The 14,877 eligible patients during the study period had 36,701 encounters. Referral rates in the family medicine clinics increased from a baseline rate of 3.2% to 14.4% in 1 health system and from a baseline rate of 0.7% to 4.7% in the other. A general medicine comparison group showed referral rate increase from the 3.0% baseline rate to 3.3%. Of the 5,883 study patients who completed the HHI 25.2% (n=1,484) had HHI scores suggestive of hearing loss; those patients had higher referral rates, 28% vs 9.2% (P <.001). Of 1,660 patients referred for hearing testing, 717 had audiology data available for analysis: 669 (93.3%) were rated appropriately referred and 421 (58.7%) were considered hearing aid candidates. Overall, 71.5% of patients contacted felt their referral was appropriate. CONCLUSION An electronic alert used to remind clinicians to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals for at-risk patients. Audiologic and audiogram data support the effectiveness of the prompt. Clinicians should consider adopting this method to identify patients with hearing loss to reduce its known and adverse sequelae.

Co-Design in the Development of a Mobile Health App for the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis by Patients and Physicians: Qualitative Study.

Abstract: Background: Despite a doubling of osteoarthritis-targeted mobile health (mHealth) apps and high user interest and demand for health apps, their impact on patients, patient outcomes, and providers has not met expectations. Most health and medical apps fail to retain users longer than 90 days, and their potential for facilitating disease management, data sharing, and patient-provider communication is untapped. An important, recurrent criticism of app technology development is low user integration design. User integration ensures user needs, desires, functional requirements, and app aesthetics are responsive and reflect target user preferences. Objective: This study aims to describe the co-design process for developing a knee osteoarthritis minimum viable product (MVP) mHealth app with patients, family physicians, and researchers that facilitates guided, evidence-based self-management and patient-physician communication. Methods: Our qualitative co-design approach involved focus groups, prioritization activities, and a pre-post quality and satisfaction Kano survey. Study participants included family physicians, patient researchers and patients with knee osteoarthritis (including previous participants of related collaborative research), researchers, key stakeholders, and industry partners. The study setting was an academic health center in Southern Alberta. Results: Distinct differences exist between what patients, physicians, and researchers perceive are the most important, convenient, desirable, and actionable app functional requirements. Despite differences, study participants agreed that the MVP should be electronic, should track patient symptoms and activities, and include features customized for patient- and physician-identified factors and international guideline-based self-management strategies. Through the research process, participants negotiated consensus on their respective priority functional requirements. The highest priorities were a visual symptom graph, setting goals, exercise planning and daily tracking, and self-management strategies. The structured co-design with patients, physicians, and researchers established multiple collaborative processes, grounded in shared concepts, language, power, rationale, mutual learning, and respect for diversity and differing opinions. These shared team principles fostered an open and inclusive environment that allowed for effective conceptualization, negotiation, and group reflection, aided by the provision of tangible and ongoing support throughout the research process, which encouraged team members to question conventional thinking. Group-, subgroup-, and individual-level data helped the team reveal how and for whom perspectives about individual functional requirements changed or remained stable over the course of the study. This provided valuable insight into how and why consensus emerged, despite the presence of multiple and differing underlying rationales for functional requirement prioritization. Conclusions: It is feasible to preserve the diversity of perspectives while negotiating a consensus on the core functional requirements of an mHealth prototype app for knee osteoarthritis management. Our study sample was purposely constructed to facilitate high co-design interactivity. This study revealed important differences between the patient, physician, and researcher preferences for functional requirements of an mHealth app that did not preclude the development of consensus.

An Implementation History of Primary Health Care Transformation: Alberta’s Primary Care Networks and the People, Time and Culture of change

Abstract: Primary care, and its transformation into Primary Health Care (PHC), has become an area of intense policy interest around the world. As part of this trend Alberta, Canada, has implemented Primary Care Networks (PCNs). These are decentralized organizations, mandated with supporting the delivery of PHC, funded through capitation, and operating as partnerships between the province’s healthcare administration system and family physicians. This paper provides an implementation history of the PCNs, giving a detailed account of how people, time, and culture have interacted to implement bottom up, incremental change in a predominantly Fee-For-Service (FFS) environment. Our implementation history is built out of an analysis of policy documents and qualitative interviews. We conducted an interpretive analysis of relevant policy documents (n = 20) published since the first PCN was established. We then grounded 12 semi-structured interviews in that initial policy analysis. These interviews explored 11 key stakeholders’ perceptions of PHC transformation in Alberta generally, and the formation and evolution of the PCNs specifically. The data from the policy review and the interviews were coded inductively, with participants checking our emerging analyses. Over time, the PCNs have shifted from an initial Frontier Era that emphasized local solutions to local problems and featured few rules, to a present Era of Accountability that features central demands for standardized measures, governance, and co-planning with other elements of the health system. Across both eras, the PCNs have been first and foremost instruments and supporters of family physician authority and autonomy. A core group of people emerged to create the PCNs and, over time, to develop a long-term Quality Improvement (QI) vision and governance plan for them as organizations. The continuing willingness of both these groups to work at understanding and aligning one another’s cultures to achieve the transformation towards PHC has been central to the PCNs’ survival and success. Generalizable lessons from the implementation history of this emerging policy experiment include: The need for flexibility within a broad commitment to improving quality. The importance of time for individuals and organizations to learn about: quality improvement; one another’s cultures; and how best to support the transformation of a system while delivering care locally.

Integrating the social sciences into the COVID-19 response in Alberta, Canada.

Abstract: This paper outlines the rapid integration of social scientists into a Canadian province's COVID-19 response. We describe the motivating theory, deployment and initial outcomes of our team of Organisational Sociologist ethnographers, Human Factors experts and Infection Prevention and Control clinicians focused on understanding and improving Alberta's responsiveness to the pandemic. Specifically, that interdisciplinary team is working alongside acute and primary care personnel, as well as public health leaders to deliver 'situated interventions' that flow from studying communications, interpretations and implementations across responding organisations. Acting in real time, the team is providing critical insights on policy communication and implementation to targeted members of the health system. Using our rapid and ongoing deployment as a case study of social science techniques applied to a pandemic, we describe how other health systems might leverage social science to improve their preparations and communications.

The cirrhosis care Alberta (CCAB) protocol: implementing an evidence-based best practice order set for the management of liver cirrhosis - a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial

Abstract: Liver cirrhosis is a leading cause of morbidity, premature mortality and acute care utilization in patients with digestive disease In the province of Alberta, hospital readmission rates for patients with cirrhosis are estimated at 44% at 90 days For hospitalized patients, multiple care gaps exist, the most notable stemming from i) the lack of a structured approach to best practice care for cirrhosis complications, ii) the lack of a structured approach to broader health needs and iii) suboptimal preparation for transition of care into the community Cirrhosis Care Alberta (CCAB) is a 4-year multi-component pragmatic trial which aims to address these gaps The proposed intervention is initiated at the time of hospitalization through implementation of a clinical information system embedded electronic order set for delivering evidence-based best practices under real-world conditions The overarching objective of the CCAB trial is to demonstrate effectiveness and implementation feasibility for use of the order set in routine patient care within eight hospital sites in Alberta A mixed methods hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation design will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the order set intervention The primary outcome is a reduction in 90-day cumulative length of stay Implementation outcomes such as reach, adoption, fidelity and maintenance will also be evaluated alongside other patient and service outcomes such as readmission rates, quality of care and cost-effectiveness This theory-based trial will be guided by Normalization Process Theory, Consolidated Framework on Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework The CCAB project is unique in its breadth, both in the comprehensiveness of the multi-component order set and also for the breadth of its roll-out Lessons learned will ultimately inform the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach in “real-world” conditions as well as adoption and adaptation of these best practices within the rest of Alberta, other provinces in Canada, and beyond ClinicalTrialsgov : NCT04149223 , November 4, 2019

The Status of Specialized Ambulatory Heart Failure Care in Canada: A Joint Canadian Heart Failure Society and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure Guidelines Survey.

Abstract: This joint Canadian Heart Failure Society and the CCS Heart Failure guidelines report has been developed to provide a pan-Canadian snapshot of the current state of clinic-based ambulatory heart failure (HF) care in Canada with specific reference to elements and processes of care associated with quality and high performing health systems. It includes the viewpoints of persons with lived experience, patient care providers, and administrators. It is imperative to build on the themes identified in this survey, through engaging all health care professionals, to develop integrated and shared care models that will allow better patient outcomes. Several patient and organizational barriers to care were identified in this survey, which must inform the development of regional care models and pragmatic solutions to improve transitions for this patient population. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in incorporating the perspectives of primary care providers and internal medicine specialists who provide the majority of HF care in Canada, which in turn limits our ability to comment on strategies for capacity building outside the HF clinic setting. These considerations must be taken into account when interpreting our findings. Engaging all HF care providers, to build on the themes identified in this survey, will be an important next step in developing integrated and shared care models known to improve patient outcomes.

The Effect of Warfarin Administration Time on Anticoagulation Stability (INRange): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract: PURPOSE Without supporting evidence, clinicians commonly recommend that warfarin be taken in the evening. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of administration time (morning vs evening) on the stability of warfarin’s anticoagulant effect. METHODS A total of 236 primary care physicians serving 54 western Canadian communities mailed letters of invitation to all their warfarin-using patients. Eligible patients were community-dwelling warfarin users (any indication) with at least 3 months of evening warfarin use and no plans for discontinuation. Participants were randomized (by web-based allocation) to morning vs continued evening warfarin ingestion. We used the Rosendaal method to determine the proportion of time within therapeutic range (TTR) of the international normalized ratio (INR) blood test month 2 to 7 postrandomization vs the 6 months prerandomization. The primary outcome was the percent change in proportion of time outside target INR range (with an a priori minimum clinically important difference of ±20%). All analyses were intention to treat. RESULTS Between March 8, 2015 and September 30, 2016, we randomized 109 participants to morning and 108 to evening warfarin use. TTR rose from 71.8% to 74.7% in the morning group, and from 72.6% to 75.6% in the evening group, for a change in TTR of 2.9% in the former vs 3.0% in the latter (difference, –0.1%; P = .97; 95% CI for the difference, –6.1% to 5.9%). The difference in percent change in proportion of time outside the therapeutic INR range (obtained via Hodges-Lehmann estimation of the difference in medians) was 4.4% (P = .62; 95% CI for the difference, –17.6% to 27.3%). CONCLUSIONS Administration time has no statistically significant nor clinically important impact on the stability of warfarin’s anticoagulant effect. Patients should take warfarin whenever regular compliance would be easiest.

Calculating physician supply using a service day method and the income percentiles method: a descriptive analysis.

Abstract: Background It is important to have an accurate count of physicians and a measurable understanding of their service provision for physician resource planning. Our objective was to compare 2 methods (income percentiles [IP] and service day activities [SVD]) for calculating the supply of full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) primary care physicians (PCPs) as measures of both physician supply counts and level of provider continuity. Methods Using an observational study design, we compared 2 methods of calculating the supply of PT and FT PCPs for 2011-2015. For the IP approach, the Canadian Institute for Health Information's method was applied to Alberta Health billing data. The SVD method calculated annual service days for fee-for-service PCPs. A simple descriptive analysis was conducted of the supply of PT and FT PCPs. Results The 2 methods agreed on the FT versus PT status of 85.2% of PCPs in 2015 but disagreed on the status of 490 PCPs. A total of 239 PCPs were classified as working FT by the IP method but PT by the SVD method. Two hundred and fifty-one PCPs were classified as working PT according by the IP method but FT by the SVD method. The former group of 239 PCPs worked fewer days per week (3.22 v. 4.1) and fewer weekend days per year (8.6 v. 24.1), billed more per year ($300 327 v. $201 834) and saw more patients per day (26.8 v. 17.8) with less continuity of care (38.0% v. 72.0%) than the latter group of 251 PCPs. Interpretation The SVD method provides a valid alternative to calculating GP supply that distinguishes groups of physicians that the standard IP methodology does not. Those groups provide very different service; policy-makers may benefit from distinguishing them.