Identifying Primary Care Models of Dementia Care that Improve Quality of Life for People Living with Dementia and their Care Partners: An Environmental Scan.

Dementia is a growing concern in Canada, affecting peoples' health and raising the cost of care. Between June and October 2019, we conducted an environmental scan to identify primary care models, strategies, and resources for dementia care from 11 pre-selected countries and assess their impact on quality-of-life measures. Search strategies included a rapid scoping review, grey literature search, and discussions with stakeholders. Eighteen primary care-based models of dementia care were identified. Common factors include team-based care, centralized care/case coordination, individual treatment plans, a stepped-care approach, and support for care partners. Five provinces had released a dementia strategy. Evidence of positive outcomes supported primary care-based models for dementia care, although only one model demonstrated evidence of impact on quality of life. Although these findings are encouraging, further research is needed to identify primary care-based models of dementia care that demonstrably improve quality of life for people living with dementia and their care partners.

Impact of the Connected Medicine collaborative in improving access to specialist care: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement launched the Connected Medicine collaborative to support the implementation, spread and adaptation of 2 innovative remote consult solutions - the Champlain Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE) eConsult service and the Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise (RACE) service - across Canada. We evaluated the impact of the programs implemented through the collaborative. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from provincial teams that participated in the Connected Medicine collaborative, which took place between June 2017 and December 2018 in 7 provinces across Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador). Data included utilization data collected automatically by the BASE and RACE services and, where available, responses to surveys completed by primary care providers at the end of each case. We assessed programs on the following outcomes: usage (i.e., number of cases completed, average specialist response time), number of specialties available, impact on primary care provider's decision to refer and impact on emergency department visits. We performed descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Ten provincial teams participated in the collaborative and implemented or adapted either the RACE service (4 teams), the BASE service (5 teams) or a combination of the 2 services (1 team). Average monthly case volume per team ranged from 14.7 to 424.5. All programs offered multispecialty access, with specialists from 5 to 37 specialty groups available. Specialists responded to eConsults within 7 days in 80% (n = 294/368) to 93% (n = 164/176) of cases. Six programs provided survey data on avoidance of referrals, which occurred in 48% (n = 667/1389) to 76% (n = 302/398) of cases. Two programs reported on the avoidance of potential emergency department visits, noting that originally considered referrals were avoided in 28% (n = 138/492) and 74% (n = 127/171) of cases, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The 2 innovative virtual care solutions implemented through the Connected Medicine collaborative received widespread usage and affected primary care providers' decisions to refer patients to specialists. The impact of these models of care in multiple settings shows that they are an effective means to move beyond the pilot stage and achieve spread and scale.

A tribute to Dr. Serge N. Timasheff, our mentor.

Dr. Serge N. Timasheff, our mentor and friend, passed away in 2019. This article is a collection of tributes from his postdoctoral fellows, friends, and daughter, who all have been associated with or influenced by him or his research. Dr. Timasheff is a pioneer of research on thermodynamic linkage between ligand interaction and macromolecular reaction. We all learned a great deal from Dr. Timasheff, not only about science but also about life.

Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation.

BACKGROUND: Expanding healthcare innovations from the local to national level is a complex pursuit requiring careful assessment of all relevant factors. In this study (a component of a larger eConsult programme of research), we aimed to identify the key factors involved in the spread and scale-up of a successful regional eConsult model across Canada. METHODS: We conducted a constant comparative thematic analysis of stakeholder discussions captured during a full-day National eConsult Forum meeting held in Ottawa, Canada, on 11 December 2017. Sixty-four participants attended, representing provincial and territorial governments, national organisations, healthcare providers, researchers and patients. Proceedings were recorded, transcribed and underwent qualitative analysis using the Framework for Applied Policy Research. RESULTS: This study identified four main themes that were critical to support the intentional efforts to spread and scale-up eConsult across Canada, namely (1) identifying population care needs and access problems, (2) engaging stakeholders who were willing to roll up their sleeves and take action, (3) building on current strategies and policies, and (4) measuring and communicating outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to promote innovation in healthcare are more likely to succeed if they are based on an understanding of the forces that drive the spread and scale-up of innovation. Further research is needed to develop and strengthen the conceptual and applied foundations of the spread and scale-up of healthcare innovations, especially in the context of emergent learning health systems across Canada and beyond.

How long are Canadians waiting to access specialty care? Retrospective study from a primary care perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate patient wait times for specialist care using data from primary care clinics across Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. SETTING: Primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 primary care clinics across 7 provinces and 1 territory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wait time 1, defined as the period between a patient's referral by a family physician to a specialist and the visit with said specialist. RESULTS: Overall, 2060 referrals initiated between January 2014 and December 2016 were included in the analysis. The median national wait time 1 was 78 days (interquartile range [IQR] of 34 to 175 days). The shortest waits were observed in Saskatchewan (51 days; IQR = 23 to 101 days) and British Columbia (59 days; IQR = 29 to 131 days), whereas the longest were in New Brunswick (105 days; IQR = 43 to 242 days) and Quebec (104 days; IQR = 36 to 239 days). Median wait time 1 varied substantially among different specialty groups, with the longest wait time for plastic surgery (159 days; IQR = 59 to 365 days) and the shortest for infectious diseases (14 days; IQR = 6 to 271 days). CONCLUSION: This is the first national examination of wait time 1 from the primary care perspective. It provides a picture of patient access to specialists across provinces and specialty groups. This research provides decision makers with important context for developing programs and policies aimed at addressing the largely ignored stage of the wait time continuum from the time of referral to eventual appointment time with the specialist.

The Feasibility of Using Electronic Consultation in Long-Term Care Homes.

Patients in long-term care (LTC) homes face barriers to accessing specialist advice. Electronic consultation (eConsult) has the potential to improve access for these patients. We used a multi-method approach to evaluate adoption of the Champlain BASE eConsult service in LTC homes across Eastern Ontario, Canada. We conducted a cross-sectional study of all eConsults submitted by primary care providers (PCPs) working at LTC homes between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. Service use data were collected and descriptive statistics were calculated. We completed a thematic analysis of 4 focus groups with PCPs, senior leadership, and a nurse champion working in LTC homes where eConsult is used. Sixty-four cases were submitted to 23 specialty and subspecialty groups by LTC PCPs, most frequently dermatology (19%), geriatric medicine (11%), and infectious disease (9%). Specialists responded in a median of 0.6 days, and 70% of cases were resolved without the resident needing a face-to-face specialist visit. In 60% of cases, PCPs received advice for a new or additional course of action. Participants described complexities in the LTC context, the value of eConsult in LTC, and considerations for implementation. PCPs with experience using the service described increased access to specialist advice, ease of use, and benefits to themselves, residents, and families. eConsult is feasible in LTC and should continue to be used in this region and beyond to improve equity of access to specialist advice. Resolving the identified limitations in LTC, which hinder access to specialists and adoption of eConsult and similar innovations, should be of high priority to researchers and policy makers.

Creating Clinical Cohorts: Challenges Encountered in Two Canadian Provinces.

In 2013, the Living with HIV (LHIV) Innovation team established clinical cohorts of people living with HIV in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, and they linked the data to provincial health administrative databases. Access to these data enabled researchers to conduct studies across provincial borders; contribute to a national dialogue on HIV health system performance; and give recommendations for evidence-based healthcare, health policy and public health. However, research funding is episodic; maintaining cohorts requires stable funding. We support the establishment of a cross-jurisdictional approach to facilitate streamlined data collection and linkage without interruption and to allow for meaningful analysis in order to inform national policies.

Evolving Toward Shared HIV Care Using the Champlain BASE eConsult Service.

Background. Electronic consultation (eConsultation) is a potential strategy to improve access to specialist expertise and facilitate collaborative care models. The Champlain BASE eConsult service allows for asynchronous communication between primary care providers (PCP) and specialists on a secure, web-based system. HIV experts accessible include HIV physician specialists, HIV pharmacists, and social workers with expertise in HIV. Objective. This study aims to describe the use, value, and utility of this eConsultation service in the care of people living with HIV and to characterize the common question types and clinical topics asked by PCPs. Methods. We analyzed the data from eConsults sent to the HIV specialty group in Ontario's Champlain Local Health Integration Network between February 2015 and December 2017. Usage data and close-out survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, eConsults were classified using a predefined list of validated taxonomy, and a thematic analysis was performed on the consultation logs to identify common clinical themes. Results. Among the 46 eConsults, the most common question type related to drug treatment (58.7%, n = 27) and management (19.6%, n = 9). The main clinical themes involved the care of significant complexities in people living with HIV, such as comorbidities and drug interactions, and suggestions of coordinated patient care. As well, eConsult was used for advice regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-negative patients at risk of HIV infection. PCPs highly valued the eConsult service (average rating 4.8/5). Conclusion. Overall, this study demonstrates that eConsult provides an efficient and valuable service to PCPs caring for patients living with or at risk for HIV by improving access to HIV specialists and facilitating the delivery of team-based comprehensive care.

How the delivery of HIV care in Canada aligns with the Chronic Care Model: A qualitative study.

With the advent of continuous antiretroviral therapy, HIV has become a complex chronic, rather than acute, condition. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides an integrated approach to the delivery of care for people with chronic conditions that could therefore be applied to the delivery of care for people living with HIV. Our objective was to assess the alignment of HIV care settings with the CCM. We conducted a mixed methods study to explore structures, organization and care processes of Canadian HIV care settings. The quantitative results of phase one are published elsewhere. For phase two, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants from 12 HIV care settings across Canada. Irrespective of composition of the care setting or its location, HIV care in Canada is well aligned with several components of the CCM, most prominently in the areas of linkage to community resources and delivery system design with inter-professional team-based care. We propose the need for improvements in the availability of electronic clinical information systems and self-management support services to support better care delivery and health outcomes among people living with HIV in Canada.

Canadian HIV Care Settings as Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs).

PURPOSE: For people living with HIV (PLWH) using continuous antiretroviral therapy, HIV is now a complex chronic condition often managed in primary care settings. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a model to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated primary care that promotes collaboration between primary and specialist care and allied services. The study assessed how both Canadian primary and specialist HIV care settings align with the PCMH. METHODS: Mixed-methods surveys and interviews with providers in Canadian HIV care settings. RESULTS: Twenty-two settings completed the survey, 12 of which participated in follow-up interviews. Settings had a mean PCMH score of 8.06/12 (SD = 1.53), indicating the basic elements of each PCMH domain have been implemented. We found no significant differences between HIV primary care and specialist care settings. Continuous team-based healing relationships had the highest score (mean = 9.2; SD = 2.15), and quality improvement strategy had the lowest score (mean = 7.19; SD = 2.26). The themes that arose from the interviews were 1) endorsement of the domains of the PCMH by all settings, 2) organizational structures of settings located in hospitals facilitating the implementation of the PCMH through existing technology, patient advisory boards, and accessible services, and 3) dissonance between complex care needs and existing organizational structures in some settings, including limited clinic hours, lack of electronic medical records, and limited mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: HIV care in Canada is reasonably well aligned with the PCMH, irrespective of structure of settings. We propose the need for improvements in the use of electronic medical records, quality improvement strategies, and integration of mental health services to achieve better care delivery and health outcomes among PLWH in Canada.

"Still learning and evolving in our approaches": patient and stakeholder engagement among Canadian community-based primary health care researchers.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Increasingly, health researchers are conducting their research in partnership with non-researchers such as patients and caregivers, advocacy groups, clinicians, and policymakers. The idea behind this partnership is to make research more relevant and appropriate. However, so far there is not much evidence about how this partnership or engagement actually affects research. We conducted an online survey of 12 teams in Canada that have engaged patients and other stakeholders in community based health research, partly as a requirement to obtain funding. We found that in many cases, the teams have engaged a wide variety and large number of stakeholders, and have involved them in many different stages of their research. Teams reported that their overall experience of this approach to research has been positive, but some challenges have been encountered along the way. Some teams found that it was difficult to communicate appropriately with all the stakeholders, and to keep them informed when research was going slowly. Other teams had trouble finding government representatives to work with. Several teams noted that engagement is time-consuming, and requires a lot of effort. Nevertheless, all teams reported that they had learned from the experience, and found it valuable. As a result, Canadian health care researchers are better positioned to engage with patients and other stakeholders in the future. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and other stakeholder engagement in research is increasingly important, but there is limited evidence of its impact. In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched a five-year Community Based Primary Health Care (CBPHC) initiative that funded 12 teams for innovative approaches to primary health care involving engagement with patients, communities, decision-makers, and clinicians across jurisdictions in Canada. The present study examines the extent of engagement by these teams, and the factors that affected it, either as challenges or opportunities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey across the 12 CBPHC Innovation Teams, in which we were also participants. We used a data collection tool developed by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute that included both closed and open-ended questions. Results The quantitative data showed that the CBPHC Innovation teams have engaged with diverse stakeholders at different levels and in different stages of research. Almost all teams surveyed engaged with policymakers, most with clinicians and health system representatives, and more than half with patients, mostly at the level of consultation or collaboration. There were very few instances of stakeholder-led research reported. There was a near universal recognition of the importance of communications processes/tools in facilitating engagement, whereas time was the most commonly identified challenge. In almost all cases, challenges encountered were partially if not fully resolved.The qualitative findings showed that each team's engagement was contextualized by factors such as the jurisdictions and geographic scope of the project, the number and type of stakeholders engaged and their level of involvement. These intersected with the researchers' motivations for engagement, to give rise to diverse experiences, but ones that the CBPHC teams assessed positively as an approach to research. Conclusions Over the past five years, primary health care researchers in Canada have been actively engaging with patients and other stakeholders. The wide range, extent and nature of that engagement shows that these researchers have anticipated developments in this approach to research and are thus in a position to support and strengthen future efforts to understand the impact of this engagement on health care outcomes.

The organizational attributes of HIV care delivery models in Canada: A cross-sectional study.

HIV treatment in Canada has rapidly progressed with the advent of new drug therapies and approaches to care. With this evolution, there is increasing interest in Canada in understanding the current delivery of HIV care, specifically where care is delivered, how, and by whom, to inform the design of care models required to meet the evolving needs of the population. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian care settings identified as delivering HIV care between June 2015 and January 2016. Given known potential differences in delivery approaches, we stratified settings as primary care or specialist settings, and described their structure, geographic location, populations served, health human resources, technological resources, and available clinical services. We received responses from 22 of 43 contacted care settings located in seven Canadian provinces (51.2% response rate). The total number of patients and HIV patients served by the participating settings was 38,060 and 17,678, respectively (mean number of HIV patients in primary care settings = 1,005, mean number of HIV patients in specialist care settings = 562). Settings were urban for 20 of the 22 (90.9%) clinics and 14 (63.6%) were entirely HIV focused. Primary care settings were more likely to offer preventative services (e.g., cervical smear, needle exchange, IUD insertion, chronic disease self-management program) than specialist settings. The study illustrates diversity in Canadian HIV care settings. All settings were team based, but primary care settings offered a broader range of preventative services and comprehensive access to mental health services, including addictions and peer support.

Patient activation among people living with HIV: a cross-sectional comparative analysis with people living with diabetes mellitus.

Standardized self-management supports are an integral part of care delivery for many chronic conditions. We used the validated Patient Activation Measure (PAM®) to assess level of engagement for self-management from a sample of 165 people living with HIV (PLWH) and 163 people with diabetes. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between demographics and PAM® scores. PLWH had high levels of activation that were no different from those of people with diabetes (mean score = 67.2, SD = 14.2 versus 65.0, SD = 14.9, p = 0.183). After adjusting for patient characteristics, only being on disability compared to being employed or a student was associated with being less activated (AOR = 0.276, 95%CI = 0.103-0.742). Our findings highlight the potential for the implementation of existing standardized chronic disease self-management programs to enhance the care delivery for PLWH, with people on disability as potential target populations.

Understanding Patient Referral Wait Times for Specialty Care in Ontario: A Retrospective Chart Audit.

CONTEXT: When examining wait times for specialist care, the duration between a patient's referral and specialist visit (wait time one) is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To calculate wait time one in primary care clinics across Ontario using chart audit. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart audit at five Ontario-based primary care clinics in 2014-2015. RESULTS: We analyzed 461 referrals. Median wait time one for non-urgent and urgent referrals was 79 and 49 days, respectively. Gastroenterology, obstetrics/gynecology, and ear, nose and throat received the most referrals. Wait times were longest for dermatology (112 days) and shortest for general surgery (32 days). CONCLUSION: Wait times vary substantially by referral urgency and specialty type in Ontario. Calculating wait time from primary care clinics directly offers new perspectives on wait time one and enables clinics to target improvement efforts to best meet patient needs. Our findings will be relevant to providers and policy makers interested in implementing strategies to reduce wait times.

Experiences of practice facilitators working on the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care project: Retrospective case study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the barriers to and facilitators of practice facilitation experienced by participants in the Improving Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project. DESIGN: Case studies of practice facilitators' narrative reports. SETTING: Eastern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care practices that participated in the IDOCC project. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cases were identified by calculating sum scores in order to determine practices' performance relative to their peers. Two case exemplars were selected that scored within ± 1 SD of the total mean score, and a qualitative analysis of practice facilitators' narrative reports was conducted using a 5-factor implementation framework to identify barriers and facilitators. Narratives were divided into 3 phases: planning, implementation, and sustainability. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators fluctuated over the intervention's 3 phases. Site A reported more barriers (n = 47) than facilitators (n = 38), while site B reported a roughly equal number of barriers (n = 144) and facilitators (n = 136). In both sites, the most common barriers involved organizational and provider factors and the most common facilitators were associated with innovation and structural factors. CONCLUSION: Both practices encountered various barriers and facilitators throughout the IDOCC's 3 phases. The case studies reveal the complex interactions of these factors over time, and provide insight into the implementation of practice facilitation programs.

Just a click away: exploring patients' perspectives on receiving care through the Champlain BASETM eConsult service.

Background: Excessive wait times for specialist care can have a substantial negative impact on health outcomes. The Champlain BASETM (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) eConsult service based in Ottawa, Canada has demonstrated the ability to improve patients' access to specialist care. Objective: We interviewed patients who were treated using eConsult in order to explore their attitudes towards the service and their experiences of receiving care via the service. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of patient interviews using a constant comparative approach. Patients whose primary care providers used the eConsult service in their care were contacted by telephone between June 2015 and January 2016 and completed 15-min semi-structured interviews. Results: Of 43 contacted participants, 30 completed interviews (70%). Over half of all respondents (n = 16) reported receiving a follow-up call or appointment within 1 week, and 26 stated that eConsult was useful in their case. Participants unanimously agreed that eConsult was an acceptable way to access specialist care, and 29 stated that they would ask their primary care provider to use eConsult on their behalf in the future. Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis of patient comments: access, acceptability of eConsult and strengthened role of the primary care provider. Conclusions: Patients expressed acceptance for eConsult as a model for improving access to specialist care, had largely positive experiences with it as a model of care delivery, and supported its use in their future care.

Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC): Findings from Narrative Reports by Practice Facilitators.

Practice facilitation can help family physicians adopt evidence-based guidelines. However, many practices struggle to effectively implement practice changes that result in meaningful improvement. Building on our previous research, we examined the barriers to and enablers of implementation perceived by practice facilitators (PF) in helping practices to adopt the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) program, which took place at 84 primary care practices in Ottawa, Canada between April 2008 and March 2012. We conducted a qualitative analysis of PFs' narrative reports using a multiple case study design. We used a combined purposeful sampling approach to identify cases that 1) reflected experiences typical of the broader sample and 2) presented sufficient breadth of experience from each project step and family practice model. Sampling continued until data saturation was reached. Team members conducted a qualitative analysis of reports using an open and axial coding style and a constant comparative approach. Barriers and enablers were divided into five constructs: structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation. Narratives from 13 practice sites were reviewed. A total of 8 barriers and 11 enablers were consistently identified across practices. Barriers were most commonly reported at the organizational (n = 3) and structural level, (n = 2) while enablers were most common at the innovation level (n = 6). While physicians responded positively to PFs' presence and largely supported their recommendations for practice change, organizational and structural aspects such as lack of time, minimal staff engagement, and provider reimbursement remained too great for practices to successfully implement practice-level changes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00574808.

A new approach to improving healthcare personnel influenza immunization programs: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel influenza immunization rates remain sub-optimal. Following multiple studies and expert consultations, the "Successful Influenza Immunization Programs for Healthcare Personnel: A Guide for Program Planners" was produced. This trial assessed the impact of the Guide with facilitation in improving healthcare personnel influenza immunization rates in Canadian healthcare organizations. METHODS: A sample of 26 healthcare organizations across six Canadian provinces (ON, MB, NS, BC, SK, NL) was randomized to Intervention (n=13) or Control groups (n=13). Baseline influenza immunization rates were obtained for 2008-2009; the study groups were followed over two subsequent influenza seasons. The Intervention group received the Guide, facilitation support through workshops for managers and ongoing support. The Control groups conducted programs as usual. The Groups were compared using their reported influenza healthcare personnel influenza immunization rates and scores from a program assessment questionnaire. FINDINGS: Twenty-six organizations agreed to participate. 35% (9/26) of sites were acute care hospitals, 19% (5/26) continuing care, long-term care organizations or nursing homes, and 46% (12/26) were mixed acute care hospitals and long-term care or regional health authorities. The median rate of influenza immunization among healthcare personnel for the Intervention group was 43%, 44%, and 51% at three points in time respectively, and in the CONTROL GROUP: 62%, 57%, and 55% respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups at the three points in time. However, there was a 7% increase in the median rates between the Baseline Year and Year Two in the Intervention group, and a 6% decrease in the CONTROL GROUP over the same time period, which was statistically significant (0.071 versus -0.058, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: This pragmatic randomized trial of the Guide with facilitation of its implementation improved healthcare personnel immunization rates, but these rates continued to be sub-optimal and below rates achievable in programs requiring personnel to be immunized. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01207518.