Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

The Impact of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Program to Diagnose and Manage Ascites in Home-based Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) program among people with ascites receiving home-based palliative care by measuring the association of POCUS with ascites-related days spent out of the home, compared with outcomes before POCUS implementation. DESIGN: Open cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults who had an ascites-related procedure (ARP) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015 (ie, pre-POCUS) and January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020 (ie, POCUS). An ARP was defined as using ultrasound to diagnose suspected ascites or a paracentesis with or without ultrasound guidance to manage ascites. METHODS: The main outcome was the rate of ascites-related days spent out of the home, defined as days out of the home for either ARPs or because of ascites-related hospital admissions, relative to the time patients were at risk for spending ascites-related days out of the home. RESULTS: Among the 103 pre-POCUS patients (mean age 68.0; 50.4% female), there were 161 ARPs with 12.4% occurring at home. Among the 127 POCUS patients (mean age 74.0; 52.0% female) there were 193 ARPs with 82.4% occurring at home. POCUS was associated with a significantly lower rate of ascites-related days spent outside the home (pre-POCUS rate of 33 days per 1000 patient days vs POCUS rate of 9 days; unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR), 3.86; 95% CI, 2.95-5.12; P < .001; adjusted IRR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.27-11.54; P = .02). POCUS was also associated with a higher likelihood of ARPs occurring in the home [unadjusted odds ratio (OR), 32.44; 95% CI, 18.15-59.90; P < .001; adjusted OR, 48.99; 95% CI, 21.04-114.10; P < .001]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The use of POCUS may contribute to maximizing time spent at home for palliative care patients with ascites. These findings support the use of POCUS for home-based palliative care programs.

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40-65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. RESULTS: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

HeartFull: Feasibility of an Integrated Program of Care for Patients with Advanced Stage of Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Patients at an advanced stage of heart failure (AHF), specifically chronic severe symptomatic heart failure defined as New York Heart Association III/IV with hospitalization in the year prior, have high mortality, healthcare utilization, and low palliative care involvement. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to determine the feasibility of recruiting patients and engaging cardiology and palliative healthcare providers in a program of integrated care for AHF (HeartFull); the proportion of patients who died in non-acute care settings. Secondary objectives were to describe patient-reported outcomes and pre-post comparison of healthcare utilization. METHODS: Patients were recruited from an urban academic hospital with expert heart failure care and a 24/7 inpatient and home palliative service. Utilization, disposition, and surveys were collected monthly for up to 20 months. RESULTS: Of 46 patients referred, 30 (65%) agreed to participate, 27 died during the study period, 19 (70%) died in non-acute care settings, while 8 (30%) died in hospital. We found no significant difference in pre- and post-intervention rates of hospitalization (RR .715; CI .360, 1.388; P = .3180), nor emergency visits (RR .678; CI .333, 1.338; P = .2590), but both trended downward. No significant changes were observed in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: In an urban academic hospital with palliative care, it was feasible to implement an integrated program for AHF. Patients died at home or in a palliative care unit at rates similar to palliative oncology patients and at higher rates than the general AHF population. HeartFull is now part of clinical practice.

The association between varying levels of palliative care involvement on costs during terminal hospitalizations in Canada from 2012 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient palliative care is associated with lower inpatient costs; however, this has yet to be studied using a more nuanced, multi-tiered measure of inpatient palliative care and a national population-representative dataset. Using a population-based cohort of Canadians who died in hospital, our objectives were to: describe patients' receipt of palliative care and active interventions in their terminal hospitalization; and examine the relationship between inpatient palliative care and hospitalization costs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Discharge Abstract Database in Canada between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. The cohort were Canadian adults (age ≥ 18 years) who died in hospital between April 1st, 2012 and March 31st, 2015 (N = 250,640). The exposure was level of palliative care involvement defined as: medium-high, low, or no palliative care. The main measure was acute care costs calculated using resource intensity weights multiplied by the cost of standard hospital stay, represented in 2014 Canadian dollars (CAD). Descriptive statistics were represented as median (IQR), and n(%). We modelled cost as a function of palliative care using a gamma generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, accounting for clustering by hospital. RESULTS: There were 250,640 adults who died in hospital. Mean age was 76 (SD 14), 47% were female. The most common comorbidities were: metastatic cancer (21%), heart failure (21%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16%). Of the decedents, 95,450 (38%) had no palliative care involvement, 98,849 (38%) received low involvement, and 60,341 (24%) received medium to high involvement. Controlling for age, sex, province and predicted hospital mortality risk at admission, the cost per day of a terminal hospitalization was: $1359 (95% CI 1323: 1397) (no involvement), $1175 (95% CI 1146: 1206) (low involvement), and $744 (95% CI 728: 760) (medium-high involvement). CONCLUSIONS: Increased involvement of palliative care was associated with lower costs. Future research should explore whether this relationship holds for non-terminal hospitalizations, and whether palliative care in other settings impacts inpatient costs.

Disparities in access to palliative care facilities for patients with and without cancer: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: To date, little is known about the characteristics of patients who are admitted to a palliative care bed for end-of-life care. Previous data suggest that there are disparities in access to palliative care services based on age, sex, diagnosis, and socioeconomic status, but it is unclear whether these differences impact access to a palliative care bed. AIM: To better identify patient factors associated with the likelihood/rate of admission to a palliative care bed. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of all initiated palliative care bed applications through an electronic referral program was conducted over a 24-month period. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients who apply and are admitted to a palliative care bed in a Canadian metropolitan city. RESULTS: A total of 2743 patients made a total of 5202 bed applications to 9 hospice/palliative care units in 2015-2016. Referred and admitted cancer patients were younger, male, and more functional than compared to non-cancer patients (all p < 0.001). Referred and admitted patients without cancer were more advanced in their illness trajectory, with an anticipated prognosis <1 month and Palliative Performance Status of 10%-20% (all p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a diagnosis of cancer and a prognosis of <3 months were associated with increased likelihood and/or rate of admission to a bed, whereas the presence of care needs, a longer prognosis and a PPS of 30%-40% were associated with decreased rates and/or likelihood of admission. CONCLUSION: Patients without cancer have reduced access to palliative care facilities at end-of-life compared to patients with cancer; at the time of their application and admission, they are "sicker" with very low performance status and poorer prognoses. Further studies investigating disease-specific clinical variables and support requirements may provide more insights into these observed disparities.

Association between high cost user status and end-of-life care in hospitalized patients: A national cohort study of patients who die in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing end-of-life care between patients who are high cost users of the healthcare system compared to those who are not are lacking. AIM: The objective of this study was to describe and measure the association between high cost user status and several health services outcomes for all adults in Canada who died in acute care, compared to non-high cost users and those without prior healthcare use. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We used administrative data for all adults who died in hospital in Canada between 2011 and 2015 to measure the odds of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), receipt of invasive interventions, major surgery, and receipt of palliative care during the hospitalization in which the patient died. High cost users were defined as those in the top 10% of acute healthcare costs in the year prior to a person's hospitalization in which they died. RESULTS: Among 252,648 people who died in hospital, 25,264 were high cost users (10%), 112,506 were non-high cost users (44.5%) and 114,878 had no prior acute care use (45.5%). After adjustment for age and sex, high cost user status was associated with a 14% increased odds of receiving an invasive intervention, a 15% increased odds of having major surgery, and an 8% lower odds of receiving palliative care compared to non-high cost users, but opposite when compared to patients without prior healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients receive aggressive elements of end-of-life care during the hospitalization in which they die and a substantial number do not receive palliative care. Understanding how this care differs between those who were previously high- and non-high cost users may provide an opportunity to improve end of life care for whom better care planning and provision ought to be an equal priority.

Factors predicting the risk of loss of decisional capacity for medical assistance in dying: a retrospective database review.

BACKGROUND: Bill C-14, the legislation that legalized medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada in 2016, outlines eligibility criteria and includes both a mandated 10-day reflection period and a requirement that the patient have capacity to consent at the time MAiD is provided. We examined clinical factors associated with shortened reflection periods or loss of capacity before provision of MAiD. METHODS: This retrospective database review involved patients who requested MAiD at a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Canada, between June 2016 and April 2019. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the association between the combined outcome of unanticipated loss of decisional capacity, shortening of the reflection period or death and the clinical risk factors of interest (age, sex, location of MAiD request [inpatient v. outpatient], score on palliative performance scale [PPS] and diagnosis [cancer v. noncancer]). We generated receiver operating characteristic curves to identify the PPS score (encompassing 5 functional domains: ambulation, activity level, self-care, intake and level of consciousness) that best predicted loss of capacity, shortening of the reflection period or death. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients requested assessment for MAiD, and 136 of these were included in the statistical analyses. For 68 patients, the reflection period was not shortened; the other 68 patients lost capacity, died or required shortening of the reflection period. In contrast to the results for age, sex, location of request and diagnosis, the PPS score was associated with loss of capacity or shortening of the reflection period (odds ratio 4.63, 95% confidence interval 2.87-8.23, per 10-point decrease in PPS score). PPS scores less than or equal to 40% balanced sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value while emphasizing sensitivity to prevent false negative errors. INTERPRETATION: The PPS score at the time of MAiD request was strongly associated with loss of capacity or shortening of the reflection period, with lower scores incrementally increasing the risk of these outcomes. For patients with a PPS score of 40% or below, close monitoring is warranted, potentially with plans made to allow rapid provision of MAiD should their clinical condition deteriorate.

The effectiveness of a proven chronic disease prevention and screening intervention in diverse and remote primary care settings: an implementation study on the BETTER 2 Program.

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) randomised control trial (RCT) showed that the BETTER Program improved chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) by 32.5% in urban team-based primary care clinics. AIM: To evaluate outcomes from implementation of BETTER in diverse clinical settings. DESIGN & SETTING: An implementation study was undertaken to apply the CDPS intervention from the BETTER trial to diverse settings in BETTER 2. Patients aged 40-65 years were invited to enrol in the study from three clinics in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. METHOD: At baseline, eligibility for 27 CDPS actions (for example, cancer, diabetes and hypertension screening, lifestyle) was determined. Patients then met with a trained provider and prioritised goals to address their eligible CDPS actions. Providers received training in behaviour change theory and practice. Descriptive analysis of clinical outcomes and success factors were reported. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (119 female and 35 male) had a baseline visit; 106 had complete outcome assessments, and the remainder had partial outcome assessments. At baseline, patients were eligible for a mean of 12.3 CDPS actions and achieved a mean of 6.0 (49%, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 24% to 74%) at 6-month follow-up, including reduced hypertension (86% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 67% to 96%), weight control (51% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 42% to 60%), and smoking cessation (36% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 17% to 59%). Male, highly educated, and lower income individuals achieved a higher proportion of CDPS manoeuvers than their counterparts. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes from this implementation study were comparable with those of the prior BETTER RCT, providing support for the BETTER Program as an effective approach to CDPS in more diverse general practice settings.

The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients - a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. METHODS/DESIGN: The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40-65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. DISCUSSION: This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761 . Registered on December 19, 2016.

Emergency department boarding: a descriptive analysis and measurement of impact on outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Delays in transfer of admitted patients boarded in the emergency department (ED) to an inpatient bed is a major driver of ED overcrowding. We sought to identify explanatory factors behind ED boarding as well as the impact of boarding on total inpatient length of stay (IP LOS) and inpatient mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre observational study during the period between January 1 and December 31, 2015 at a very high volume community hospital. All patients admitted from the ED to Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery, and Critical Care were identified. The mean ED LOS and boarding time as well as patient-specific and institutional factors that were independently associated with prolonged ED LOS (≥24 hours) and prolonged boarding time (≥12 hours) were identified. Mean inpatient length of stay (IP LOS) and the odds of inpatient mortality were calculated for those patients with prolonged ED wait times. RESULTS: There were 13,872 unique admissions during the study period. Patients admitted to the Medicine service exhibited significantly higher ED wait times than other services. Within Medicine patients, there was a statistically significant greater odds of prolonged ED wait times for patients who were older, had a greater comorbidity burden, and required more specialized inpatient care. Medicine patients with prolonged boarding times also experienced a mean of 0.9 days longer IP LOS even after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSION: Within our cohort, older, sicker patients and those patients requiring more resource-intensive inpatient care had the longest ED wait times. These prolonged wait times are associated with significantly increased IP LOS.

Would you like to add a weight after this blood pressure, doctor? Discovery of potentially actionable associations between the provision of multiple screens in primary care.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend screening for risk factors associated with chronic diseases but current electronic prompts have limited effects. Our objective was to discover and rank associations between the presence of screens to plan more efficient prompts in primary care. METHODS: Risk factors with the greatest impact on chronic diseases are associated with blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, glycaemic and lipid levels, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and exercise. We looked for associations between the presence of screens for these in electronic medical records. We used association rule mining to describe relationships among items, factor analysis to find latent categories, and Cronbach α to quantify consistency within latent categories. RESULTS: Data from 92 140 patients in or around Toronto, Ontario, were included. We found positive correlations (lift >1) between the presence of all screens. The presence of any screen was associated with confidence greater than 80% that other data on items with high prevalence (blood pressure, glycaemic and lipid levels, or smoking) would also be present. A cluster of rules predicting the presence of blood pressure were ranked highest using measures of interestingness such as standardized lift. We found 3 latent categories using factor analysis; these were laboratory tests, vital signs, and lifestyle factors; Cronbach α ranged between .58 for lifestyle factors and .88 for laboratory tests. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between the provision of important screens can be discovered and ranked. Rules with promising combinations of associated screens could be used to implement data driven alerts.

Use of thyroid-stimulating hormone tests for identifying primary hypothyroidism in family medicine patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) tests for identifying primary hypothyroidism in 2 academic family medicine settings. DESIGN: Descriptive study involving a retrospective electronic chart review of family medicine patients who underwent TSH testing. SETTING: Two academic family practice sites: one site is within a tertiary hospital in Toronto, Ont, and the other is within a community hospital in Newmarket, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 205 adult family medicine patients who had 1 or more TSH tests for identifying potential primary hypothyroidism between July 1, 2009, and September 15, 2013. Exclusion criteria included a previous diagnosis of any thyroid condition or abnormality, as well as pregnancy or recent pregnancy within the year preceding the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of normal TSH test results and the proportion of TSH tests that did not conform to test-ordering guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 205 TSH test results, 200 (97.6%, 95% CI 94.4% to 99.2%) showed TSH levels within the normal range. All 5 patients with abnormal TSH test results had TSH levels above the upper reference limits. Nearly one-quarter (22.4%, 95% CI 16.9% to 28.8%) of tests did not conform to test-ordering guidelines. All TSH tests classified as not conforming to test-ordering guidelines showed TSH levels within normal limits. There was a significant difference (P < .001) between the proportions of nonconforming TSH tests at the tertiary site (14.3%, 95% CI 8.2% to 22.5%) and the community site (31.0%, 95% CI 22.1% to 41.0%). Preliminary analyses examining which variables might be associated with abnormal TSH levels showed that only muscle cramps or myalgia (P = .0286) and a history of an autoimmune disorder (P = .0623) met or approached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this study, the proportion of normal TSH test results in the context of primary hypothyroidism case finding and screening was high, and the overall proportion of TSH tests that did not conform to test-ordering guidelines was relatively high as well. These results highlight a need for more consistent TSH test-ordering guidelines for primary hypothyroidism and perhaps some educational interventions to help curtail the overuse of TSH tests in the family medicine setting.

Moderate mental illness as a predictor of chronic disease prevention and screening.

BACKGROUND: Primary care plays a pivotal role in the provision of both mental health care and chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS). Unfortunately, moderate mental illness (MMI) is associated with poorer general health outcomes. Part of this burden of illness may be due to reduced CDPS uptake. The Building on the Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention in Primary Care (BETTER) trial recruited 777 participants ages 40-65 from 32 family practice panels, of whom 135 (18.2%) had elevated GAD scores, 118 (16.4%) had elevated PHQ scores, and 264 (34.0%) had electronic medical record (EMR)-documented MMI. We hypothesized that patients with screen-positive or chart-documented MMI are 1) eligible for more CDPS actions, and 2) able to complete a lower proportion of CDPS actions than patients unaffected by MMI. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data from the BETTER trial. Participants were stratified by both EMR-documented MMI and screen-positive evidence of MMI (using the General Anxiety Disorders (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) instruments for anxiety and depression screening, respectively). The primary outcome was the proportion of CDPS actions for which the patient was eligible completed at follow-up, using a composite index. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, gender, and social support, patients with evidence of MMI had a lower composite index than patients without evidence of MMI (p < 0.05). The lower composite index is primarily due to higher eligibility for CDPS at baseline; ability to complete CDPS was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Patients affected by MMI are eligible for more CDPS actions than their unaffected counterparts. Although they are able to complete a similar number of CDPS actions, they are not able to eliminate their baseline CDPS gap. Primary care teams need to be aware of this increased CDPS eligibility for patients with MMI and ensure best practices in CDPS supports are available to this patient population. Further study is needed to determine the ideal suite of targeted supports.

Assessing family history of chronic disease in primary care: Prevalence, documentation, and appropriate screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of primary care patients who report a family history (FH) of type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC); assess concordance of FH information derived from the electronic medical record (EMR) compared with patient-completed health questionnaires; and assess whether appropriate screening was informed by risk based solely on FH. DESIGN: Data from the BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) trial were used. Patients were mailed questionnaires. Baseline FH and screening data were obtained for enrolled patients from the EMR and health questionnaires. SETTING: Ontario and Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected patients from 8 family practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement on FH between the EMR and questionnaire was determined; logistic regression was used to assess significant predictors of screening. RESULTS: In total, 775 of 789 (98%) patients completed the health questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 52.5 years and 72% were female. A minimum of 12% of patients (range 12% to 36%) had a reported FH of 1 of 4 chronic diseases. Among patients with positive FH, the following proportions of patients had that FH recorded in the EMR compared with the questionnaire: diabetes, 24% in the EMR versus 36% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.466; coronary artery disease, 35% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.225; breast cancer, 21% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.241; and CRC, 12% in the EMR versus 14% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.510. There was moderate agreement for diabetes and CRC. The presence of FH was a significant predictor of CRC screening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.1). CONCLUSION: A moderate prevalence of FH was found for 4 conditions for which screening recommendations vary with risk based on FH. Having patients self-complete an FH was thought to be feasible; however, questions about FH accuracy and completeness from both self-report and EMR remain. Work is needed to determine how to facilitate the adoption of FH tools into practice as well as strategies linking familial risk to appropriate screening.Trial registration number ISRCTN07170460 (ISRCTN Registry).

Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening After CARES: A Community Program for Immigrant and Marginalized Women.

INTRODUCTION: Marginalized populations such as immigrants and refugees are less likely to receive cancer screening. Cancer Awareness: Ready for Education and Screening (CARES), a multifaceted community-based program in Toronto, Canada, aimed to improve breast and cervical screening among marginalized women. This matched cohort study assessed the impact of CARES on cervical and mammography screening among under-screened/never screened (UNS) attendees. METHODS: Provincial administrative data collected from 1998 to 2014 and provided in 2015 were used to match CARES participants who were age eligible for screening to three controls matched for age, geography, and pre-education screening status. Dates of post-education Pap and mammography screening up to June 30, 2014 were determined. Analysis in 2016 compared screening uptake and time to screening for UNS participants and controls. RESULTS: From May 15, 2012 to October 31, 2013, a total of 1,993 women attended 145 educational sessions provided in 20 languages. Thirty-five percent (118/331) and 48% (99/206) of CARES participants who were age eligible for Pap and mammography, respectively, were UNS on the education date. Subsequently, 26% and 36% had Pap and mammography, respectively, versus 9% and 14% of UNS controls. ORs for screening within 8 months of follow-up among UNS CARES participants versus their matched controls were 5.1 (95% CI=2.4, 10.9) for Pap and 4.2 (95%=CI 2.3, 7.8) for mammography. Hazard ratios for Pap and mammography were 3.6 (95% CI=2.1, 6.1) and 3.2 (95% CI=2.0, 5.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CARES' multifaceted intervention was successful in increasing Pap and mammography screening in this multiethnic under-screened population.

Prospective study of psychiatric illness as a predictor of weight loss and health related quality of life one year after bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Despite a lack of evidence, there is an assumption that patients with more complex psychiatric histories (CPH) prior to bariatric surgery have poor post-surgical weight loss and worsening psychiatric symptoms following surgery. Consequently, those with CPH are excluded from bariatric surgery in many bariatric clinics. This study examines whether psychiatric illness affects post-surgical weight loss and HRQOL, focusing on patients with CPH. METHOD: This prospective cohort study investigated 341 patients from a tertiary care centre bariatric surgery program who had surgery between September 2010 and October 2013. Patients were divided into CPH, other psychiatric disorder (OPD), or no psychiatric disorder (NPD) groups based on lifetime psychiatric diagnoses. Groups were compared one year post-surgery in regards to percent total weight loss (%TWL), mental and physical health related quality of life (HRQOL) using a Kruskal-Wallist test. Linear regression analysis was used to determine if mental illness group, gender, age, pre-op BMI, education, employment and relationship status predict change in %TWL and HRQOL. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in %TWL or physical HRQOL across groups. The CPH group experienced a decrease in mental HRQOL (p=0.0003). Mental illness severity predicted mental HRQOL (p=0.002) but not physical HRQOL or %TWL. CONCLUSION: Those with controlled CPH can achieve comparable weight loss compared to those with OPD or NPD. However, CPH may predict post-surgical decline in mental HRQOL. These findings demonstrate a need to reevaluate exclusion criteria to ensure equitable access to care, while continuing to monitor for psychiatric illness following surgery.

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada. METHODS: A clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing. RESULTS: The tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: The integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 .

Are We Asking Patients if They Smoke?: Missing Information on Tobacco Use in Canadian Electronic Medical Records.

INTRODUCTION: All adolescent and adult patients should be asked if they smoke. Data entered in electronic medical records offer new opportunities to study tobacco-related clinical activities. The purpose of this study is to examine the recording of tobacco use in Canadian electronic medical records. METHODS: Data were collected on September 30, 2013, and analyzed in 2014. Data on 249,223 patients that were aged ≥16 years as of September 30, 2013 and had at least one primary care encounter in the previous 2 years were included. The proportion of patients with information on tobacco use entered in a summative health profile was calculated. Associations between data gaps and patient or physician factors were examined. RESULTS: Information on tobacco use was available for 64.4% of patients. Physicians using an electronic medical record for ≥4 years were more likely to have data (AOR=4.57, 95% CI=1.84, 7.29, p<0.0001). Patients aged ≥30 years were more likely to have tobacco information present (AOR=2.92, 95% CI=2.82, 3.02, p<0.0001, for patients aged 30-59 compared to those aged <30 years), as were patients with any comorbidities (AOR=1.41, 95% CI=1.36, 1.45, p<0.0001, for patients with one or two comorbidities compared with none) or more visits. CONCLUSIONS: A third of Canadians in this sample lacked data on tobacco in their electronic medical record. Younger, healthier people were less likely to have information about their smoking status. Efforts to improve the recording of tobacco-related information in electronic medical records, especially for younger patients, are needed.