Research protocol of the Laval-ROSA Transilab: a living lab on transitions for people living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: The Laval-ROSA Transilab is a living lab that aims to support the Laval Integrated Health and Social Services Centres (Quebec, Canada) in consolidating the Quebec Alzheimer Plan. It aims to improve care transitions between different settings (Family Medicine Groups, home care, and community services) and as such improve the care of people living with dementia and their care partners. Four transition-oriented innovations are targeted. Two are already underway and will be co-evaluated: A) training of primary care professionals on dementia and interprofessional collaboration; B) early referral process to community services. Two will be co-developed and co-evaluated: C) developing a structured communication strategy around the dementia diagnosis disclosure; D) designation of a care navigator from the time of dementia diagnosis. The objectives are to: 1) co-develop a dashboard for monitoring transitions; 2) co-develop and 3) co-evaluate the four targeted innovations on transitions. In addition, we will 4) co-evaluate the impact and implementation process of the entire Laval-ROSA Transilab transformation, 5) support its sustainability, and 6) transfer it to other health organizations. METHODS: Multi-methods living lab approach based on the principles of a learning health system. Living labs are open innovation systems that integrate research co-creation and knowledge exchange in real-life settings. Learning health systems centers care improvement on developing the organization's capacity to learn from their practices. We will conduct two learning cycles (data to knowledge, knowledge to practice, and practice to data) and involve various partners. We will use multiple data sources, including health administrative databases, electronic health records data, surveys, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and observations. DISCUSSION: Through its structuring actions, the Laval-ROSA Transilab will benefit people living with dementia, their care partners, and healthcare professionals. Its strategies will support sustainability and will thus allow for improvements throughout the care continuum so that people can receive the right services, at the right time, in the right place, and from the right staff.

Interprofessional primary care: indispensable for family physicians yet invisible to older patients.

There is growing consensus that interprofessional primary care is key to delivering timely, coordinated, and comprehensive care, especially in the older patient population who often live with complex and chronic needs. Despite significant investments in reforming health systems toward interprofessional primary care, there is a paucity of evidence describing the importance of interprofessional primary care for older patients and physicians. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to understand the use and utility of interprofessional primary care for older patients and family physicians from the perspective of different stakeholders within primary care in Ontario, Canada. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews (including 16 older patients, six family physicians, three primary care managers) and a focus group with 13 patient representatives were conducted. Our study found that while the benefits of interprofessional primary care teams for family physicians were clearly emphasized, stakeholders consistently reported that older patients often appeared to be unaware of the presence of, or roles played by, non-physician healthcare professionals in their clinic. Better transparency and education regarding available services and roles of different care providers may allow for more optimal use of interprofessional family medicine clinics by patients.

Hospital-at-Home Interventions vs In-Hospital Stay for Patients With Chronic Disease Who Present to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Hospitalizations are costly and may lead to adverse events; hospital-at-home interventions could be a substitute for in-hospital stays, particularly for patients with chronic diseases who use health services more than other patients. Despite showing promising results, heterogeneity in past systematic reviews remains high. Objective: To systematically review and assess the association between patient outcomes and hospital-at-home interventions as a substitute for in-hospital stay for community-dwelling patients with a chronic disease who present to the emergency department and are offered at least 1 home visit from a nurse and/or physician. Data Sources: Databases were searched from date of inception to March 4, 2019. The databases were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Technology Assessment, the Cochrane Library, OVID Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials in which the experimental group received hospital-at-home interventions and the control group received the usual in-hospital care. Patients were 18 years or older with a chronic disease who presented to the emergency department and received home visits from a nurse or physician. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Risk of bias was assessed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes that were reported by at least 2 studies using comparable measures. Risk ratios (RRs) were reported for binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed for other outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were patient outcomes, which included mortality, long-term care admission, readmission, length of treatment, out-of-pocket costs, depression and anxiety, quality of life, patient satisfaction, caregiver stress, cognitive status, nutrition, morbidity due to hospitalization, functional status, and neurological deficits. Results: Nine studies were included, providing data on 959 participants (median age, 71.0 years [interquartile range, 70.0-79.9 years]; 613 men [63.9%]; 346 women [36.1%]). Mortality did not differ between the hospital-at-home and the in-hospital care groups (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15; I2 = 0%). Risk of readmission was lower (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95; I2 = 31%) and length of treatment was longer in the hospital-at-home group than in the in-hospital group (mean difference, 5.45 days; 95% CI, 1.91-8.97 days; I2 = 87%). In addition, the hospital-at-home group had a lower risk of long-term care admission than the in-hospital care group (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.74; I2 = 0%). Patients who received hospital-at-home interventions had lower depression and anxiety than those who remained in-hospital, but there was no difference in functional status. Other patient outcomes showed mixed results. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that hospital-at-home interventions represent a viable substitute to an in-hospital stay for patients with chronic diseases who present to the emergency department and who have at least 1 visit from a nurse or physician. Although the heterogeneity of the findings remained high for some outcomes, particularly for length of treatment, the heterogeneity of this study was comparable to that of past reviews and further explored.