Enhancing screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients: study protocol for a knowledge exchange intervention involving patients and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) is an effective approach for managing alcohol and other drug misuse in primary care; however, uptake into routine care has been limited. Uptake of SBIRT by healthcare providers may be particularly problematic for disadvantaged populations exhibiting alcohol and other drug problems, and requires creative approaches to enhance patient engagement. This knowledge translation project developed and evaluated a group of patient and health care provider resources designed to enhance the capacity of health care providers to use SBIRT and improve patient engagement with health care. METHODS/DESIGN: A nonrandomized, two-group, pre-post, quasi-experimental intervention design was used, with baseline, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Low income patients using alcohol and other drugs and who sought care in family medicine and emergency medicine settings in Edmonton, Canada, along with physicians providing care in these settings, were recruited. Patients and physicians were allocated to the intervention or control condition by geographic location of care. Intervention patients received a health care navigation booklet developed by inner city community members and also had access to an experienced community member for consultation on health service navigation. Intervention physicians had access to online educational modules, accompanying presentations, point of care resources, addiction medicine champions, and orientations to the inner city. Resource development was informed by a literature review, needs assessment, and iterative consultation with an advisory board and other content experts. Participants completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (6 months for patients, 6 and 12 months for physicians) and administrative health service data were also retrieved for consenting patients. Control participants were provided access to all resources after follow-up data collection was completed. The primary outcome measure was patient satisfaction with care; secondary outcome measures included alcohol and drug use, health care and addiction treatment use, uptake of SBIRT strategies, and physician attitudes about addiction. DISCUSSION: Effective knowledge translation requires careful consideration of the intended knowledge recipient's context and needs. Knowledge translation in disadvantaged settings may be optimized by using a community-based participatory approach to resource development that takes into account relevant patient engagement issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Northern Alberta Clinical Trials and Research Centre #30094.

Should registrars be reporting after-hours CT scans? A calculation of error rate and the influencing factors in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There is a heavy reliance on registrars for after-hours CT reporting with a resultant unavoidable error rate. PURPOSE: To determine the after-hours CT reporting error rate by radiology registrars and influencing factors on this error rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 2-month prospective study was undertaken at two tertiary, level 1 trauma centers in Johannesburg, South Africa. Provisional CT reports issued by the registrar on call were reviewed by a qualified radiologist the following morning and information relating to the number, time and type of reporting errors made as well as the body region scanned, indication for the scan, year of training of the registrar, and workload during the call were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1477 CT scans were performed with an overall error rate of 17.1% and a major error rate of 7.7%. The error rate for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year registrars was 19.4%, 15.1%, and 14.5%, respectively. A significant difference was found between the error rate in reporting trauma scans (15.8%) compared to non-trauma scans (19.2%) although the difference between emergency scans (16.9%) and elective scans (22.6%) was found to be not significant, a finding likely due to the low number of elective scans performed. Abdominopelvic scans elicited the highest number of errors (33.9%) compared to the other body regions such as head (16.5%) and cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine (11.7%). Increasing workload resulted in a significant increase in error rate when analyzed with a generalized linear model. There was also a significant difference noted in the time of scan groups which we attributed to a workload effect. Missed findings were the most frequent errors seen (57.3%). CONCLUSION: We found an increasing error rate associated with increasing workload and marked increase in errors with the reporting of abdominopelvic scans. There was a decrease in the error rate when looking an increasing year of training although this there was only found to be significant difference between the 2nd and 3rd year registrars.