Statins for primary prevention in multimorbid patients: to prescribe or not to prescribe? A qualitative analysis of general practitioners' decision-making processes.

INTRODUCTION: A better understanding of the determinants involved in general practitioners' (GPs) decision-making processes when it comes to prescribing statins as primary prevention in patients with multimorbidity could provide insights for improving implementation of primary prevention guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using a deductive framework-based and inductive analysis of GPs' semi-structured interviews verbatim, from which expertise profiles of prescribers were also drawn. The analytical framework was built from a pragmatic synthesis of the evidence-based medicine, Modelling using Typified Objects (MOT) model of clinical reasoning processes, Theoretical Domains Framework, and shared decision-making frameworks. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs were interviewed between June 2019 and January 2020. Diabetes seemed to represent a specific motivation for deciding about statin prescription for primary prevention purposes; and in situations of multimorbidity, GPs differentiated between cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular multimorbidity. Expert prescribers seemed to have integrated the utilisation of cardiovascular risk calculation scores throughout their practice, whereas non-expert prescribers considered them difficult to interpret and preferred using more of a "rule of thumb" process. One interviewee used the risk calculation score as a support for discussing statin prescription with the patient. CONCLUSION: Our results shed light on the reasons why statins remain under-prescribed for primary prevention and why non-diabetic multimorbid patients have even lower odds of being prescribed a statin. They call for a change in the use of risk assessment scores, by placing them as decision aids, to support and improve personalised shared decision-making discussions as an efficient approach to improve the implementation of recommendations about statins for primary prevention.

Adaptation of time-driven activity-based costing to the evaluation of the efficiency of ambulatory care provided in the emergency department.

Objectives: The aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. Methods: TDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015-2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. Results: Overall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. Conclusions: The greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated-time-based and measured-time-based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.