Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing.

Background: Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work. Method: We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers (n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized. Results: Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption (feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]). Conclusions: The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.

What is already known about the topic?: The causal assumptions and key components of implementation interventions are often not well described, which limits the influence of implementation science on implementation practice. What does this paper add?: This work provides an approach for surfacing the causal assumptions from intervention developers (through interviews with eight participants) and active ingredients from intervention materials, focusing on two real-world interventions already delivered at scale and designed to promote safer opioid prescribing. The analysis provides a comprehensive intervention description and reveals the extent to which final interventions align with developers' intentions. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy?: The findings provide a foundation for future work which will describe the effectiveness of these interventions (alone and in combination) and explore whether they achieve change in the intended ways, thereby providing an example of a more fulsome intervention evaluation. More broadly, our methods can be used by implementation practitioners to review and reflect on their intervention development process and support comprehensive intervention descriptions.

Engagement is a necessary condition to test audit and feedback design features: results of a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial with an embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: While audit & feedback (A&F) is an effective implementation intervention, the design elements which maximize effectiveness are unclear. Partnering with a healthcare quality advisory organization already delivering feedback, we conducted a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial to test the impact of variations in two factors: (A) the benchmark used for comparison and (B) information framing. An embedded process evaluation explored hypothesized mechanisms of effect. METHODS: Eligible physicians worked in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada, and had voluntarily signed up to receive the report. Groups of nursing homes sharing physicians were randomized to (A) physicians' individual prescribing rates compared to top-performing peers (the top quartile) or the provincial median and (B) risk-framed information (reporting the number of patients prescribed high-risk medication) or benefit-framed information (reporting the number of patients not prescribed). We hypothesized that the top quartile comparator and risk-framing would lead to greater practice improvements. The primary outcome was the mean number of central nervous system-active medications per resident per month. Primary analyses compared the four arms at 6 months post-intervention. Factorial analyses were secondary. The process evaluation comprised a follow-up questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven physicians (152 clusters) were randomized: 67 to arm 1 (median benchmark, benefit framing), 65 to arm 2 (top quartile benchmark, benefit framing), 75 to arm 3 (median benchmark, risk framing), and 60 to arm 4 (top quartile benchmark, risk framing). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across arms or for each factor. However, engagement was low (27-31% of physicians across arms downloaded the report). The process evaluation indicated that both factors minimally impacted the proposed mechanisms. However, risk-framed feedback was perceived as more actionable and more compatible with current workflows, whilst a higher target might encourage behaviour change when physicians identified with the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Risk framing and a top quartile comparator have the potential to achieve change. Further work to establish the strategies most likely to enhance A&F engagement, particularly with physicians who may be most likely to benefit from feedback, is required to support meaningfully addressing intricate research questions concerning the design of A&F. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02979964 . Registered 29 November 2016.

Nurse practitioner/physician collaborative models of care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many long-term care (LTC) homes experienced difficulties in providing residents with access to primary care, typically delivered by community-based family physicians or nurse practitioners (NPs). During the pandemic, legislative changes in Ontario, Canada enabled NPs to act in the role of Medical Directors thereby empowering NPs to work to their full scope of practice. Emerging from this new context, it remains unclear how NPs and physicians will best work together as primary care providers. NP/physician collaborative models appear key to achieving optimal resident outcomes. This scoping review aims to map available evidence on existing collaborative models of care between NPs and physicians within LTC homes. METHODS: The review will be guided by the research question, "What are the structures, processes and outcomes of collaborative models of care involving NPs and Physicians in LTC homes?" This scoping review will be conducted according to the methods framework for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac et al., Colquhoun et al., and Daudt et al., as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, Ageline, and Scopus), grey literature, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. English language studies that describe NP and physician collaborative models within the LTC setting will be included. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will consolidate what is known about existing NP/physician collaborative models of care in LTC homes. Results will be used to inform the development of a collaborative practice framework for long-term care clinical leadership.

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions. Results: The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10-2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24-2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06-2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33-3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.43], P < .001). Conclusions: Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04187742.

Audit feedback interventions to address high-risk prescriptions in long-term care homes: a costing study and return on investment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is a common implementation strategy, but few studies describe its costs. 'MyPractice' is a province-wide audit and feedback initiative to improve prescribing in nursing homes. This study sought to estimate the costs of 'MyPractice' and assess whether the financial benefit of 'MyPractice' offsets those costs. METHODS: We conducted a costing study from the perspective of the Ontario government. Total cost of 'MyPractice' was calculated as the sum of the costs of producing and disseminating the reports (covering three report releases) which were obtained from Ontario Health staff interviews and document reviews. Return on investment (ROI) was calculated as the ratio of net cost-savings and the intervention cost. Cost savings were based on the effectiveness of 'MyPractice' derived from a published cohort study. Cost-savings attributable to 'MyPractice' were estimated from the changes in the rates of antipsychotics over time between physicians who signed up and viewed the reports and those who did not sign up to the reports. RESULTS: Total intervention costs were C$223,691 (C$838 per physician and C$74,564 per release). Costs incurred during the development phase accounted for 74% of the total cost (C$166,117), while implementation costs for three report releases were responsible for 26% of the total costs (C$57,575). The ROI for every C$1 spent on the 'MyPractice' intervention was 1.02 (95% CI 0.51, 1.93) for three report releases. CONCLUSION: 'MyPractice' report offers a good return on investment and the value for money could improve with greater number of report releases.

Population-Wide Peer Comparison Audit and Feedback to Reduce Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long-Term Care Facilities with Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents. METHODS: We employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter. RESULTS: Among all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference -2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.93 to -.28%, P = .026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports. CONCLUSIONS: Peer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466.

Prioritizing and Implementing Primary Care Performance Measures for Ontario.

In the fall of 2014, Health Quality Ontario released A Primary Care Performance Measurement Framework for Ontario. Recognizing the large number of recommended measures and the limited availability of data related to those measures, the Steering Committee for the Primary Care Performance Measurement (PCPM) initiative established a prioritization process to select two subsets of high-value performance measures - one at the system level and one at the practice level. This article describes the prioritization process and its results and outlines the initiatives that have been undertaken to date to implement the PCPM framework and to advance primary care performance measurement and reporting in Ontario. Establishing a framework for primary care measurement and prioritizing system- and practice-level measures are essential steps toward system improvement. Our experience suggests that the process of implementing a performance measurement system is inevitably non-linear and incremental.

Primary Care Practice Reports: Administrative Data Profiles for Identifying and Prioritizing Areas for Quality Improvement.

Information to help guide quality improvement activities in primary care should be readily available, routinely updated and include comparisons across groups, regions and jurisdictions. Primary care practice reports, developed jointly by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Health Quality Ontario, is one such effort. These data include practice demographics, the prevalence of common chronic conditions, the use of health services and measures of chronic disease prevention and management. All Ontario primary care physicians can register for the profiles online using a secure logon; the profiles are available only to them. Enhancements under development include new formats, targets and tools to support quality improvement.