High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care. METHODS: We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management. RESULTS: In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.

Improving access to specialists in remote communities: a cross-sectional study and cost analysis of the use of eConsult in Nunavut.

BACKGROUND: Residents of remote communities face inequities in access to specialists, excessive wait times, and poorly coordinated care. The Champlain BASETM (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) service facilitates asynchronous communication between primary care providers (PCP) and specialists. The service was extended to several PCPs in Nunavut in 2014. OBJECTIVE: To (1) describe the use of eConsult services in Nunavut, and (2) conduct a costing evaluation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study and cost analysis of all eConsult cases submitted between August 2014 and April 2016. RESULTS: PCPs from Nunavut submitted 165 eConsult cases. The most popular specialties were dermatology (16%), cardiology (8%), endocrinology (7%), otolaryngology (7%), and obstetrics/gynaecology (7%). Specialists provided a response in a median of 0.9 days (IQR=0.3-3.0, range=0.01-15.02). In 35% of cases, PCPs were able to avoid the face-to-face specialist visits they had originally planned for their patients. Total savings associated with eConsult in Nunavut are estimated at $180,552.73 or $1,100.93 per eConsult. CONCLUSIONS: The eConsult service provided patients in Nunavut's remote communities with prompt access to specialist advice. The service's chief advantage in Canada's northern communities is its ability to offer electronic access to a breadth of specialties far greater than could be supported locally. Our findings suggest that a territory-wide adoption of eConsult would generate enormous savings.

Improved delivery of cardiovascular care (IDOCC) through outreach facilitation: study protocol and implementation details of a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation. METHODS: The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.

Cost-effectiveness of Anticipatory and Preventive multidisciplinary Team Care for complex patients: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anticipatory and Preventive Team Care (APTCare). DESIGN: Analysis of data drawn from a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A family health network in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 50 years of age or older at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes. Analysis of cost-effectiveness was performed for a subsample of participants with at least 1 of the chronic diseases used in the quality of care (QOC) measure (74 intervention and 78 control patients). INTERVENTIONS: At-risk patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care from their family physicians or APTCare from a collaborative team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness and the net benefit to society of the APTCare intervention. RESULTS: Costs not directly associated with delivery of the intervention were similar in the 2 arms: $9121 and $9222 for the APTCare and control arms, respectively. Costs directly associated with the program were $3802 per patient for a total cost per patient of $12,923 and $9222, respectively (P=.033). A 1% improvement in QOC was estimated to cost $407 per patient. Analysis of the net benefit to society in absolute dollars found a breakeven threshold of $750 when statistical significance was required. This implies that society must place a value of at least $750 on a 1% improvement in QOC in order for the intervention to be socially worthwhile. By any of the metrics used, the APTCare intervention was not cost-effective, at least not in a population for which baseline QOC was high. CONCLUSION: Although our calculations suggest that the APTCare intervention was not cost-effective, our results need the following caveats. The costs of such a newly introduced intervention are bound to be higher than those for an established, up-and-running program. Furthermore, it is possible that some benefits of the secondary preventive measures were not captured in this limited 12- to 18-month study or were simply not measured. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00238836 (CONSORT).

Randomized controlled trial of anticipatory and preventive multidisciplinary team care: for complex patients in a community-based primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: T o examine whether quality of care (QOC) improves when nurse practitioners and pharmacists work with family physicians in community practice and focus their work on patients who are 50 years of age and older and considered to be at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A family health network with 8 family physicians, 5 nurses, and 11 administrative personnel serving 10 000 patients in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 50 years of age and older at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes (N = 241). INTERVENTIONS: At-risk patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care from their family physicians or Anticipatory and Preventive Team Care (APTCare) from a collaborative team composed of their physicians, 1 of 3 nurse practitioners, and a pharmacist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care for chronic disease management (CDM) for diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RESULTS: Controlling for baseline demographic characteristics, the APTCare approach improved CDM QOC by 9.2% (P < .001) compared with traditional care. The APTCare intervention also improved preventive care by 16.5% (P < .001). We did not observe significant differences in other secondary outcome measures (intermediate clinical outcomes, quality of life [Short-Form 36 and health-related quality of life scales], functional status [instrumental activities of daily living scale] and service usage). CONCLUSION: Additional resources in the form of collaborative multidisciplinary care teams with intensive interventions in primary care can improve QOC for CDM in a population of older at-risk patients. The appropriateness of this intervention will depend on its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00238836 (CONSORT).

Home-based intermediate care program vs hospitalization: Cost comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a home-based intermediate care program in a large Canadian city lowers the cost of care and to look at whether such home-based programs could be a solution to the increasing demands on Canadian hospitals. DESIGN: Single-arm study with historical controls. SETTING: Department of Family Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital (Civic campus) in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients requiring hospitalization for acute care. Participants were matched with historical controls based on case-mix, most responsible diagnosis, and level of complexity. INTERVENTIONS: Placement in the home-based intermediate care program. Daily home visits from the nurse practitioner and 24-hour access to care by telephone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariate regression models were used to estimate the effect of the program on 5 outcomes: length of stay in hospital, cost of care substituted for hospitalization (Canadian dollars), readmission for a related diagnosis, readmission for any diagnosis, and costs incurred by community home-care services for patients following discharge from hospital. RESULTS: The outcomes of 43 hospital admissions were matched with those of 363 controls. Patients enrolled in the program stayed longer in hospital (coefficient 3.3 days, P < .001), used more community care services following discharge (coefficient $729, P = .007), and were more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 3 months of discharge (coefficient 17%, P = .012) than patients treated in hospital. Total substituted costs of home-based care were not significantly different from the costs of hospitalization (coefficient -$501, P = .11). CONCLUSION: While estimated cost savings were not statistically significant, the limitations of our study suggest that we underestimated these savings. In particular, the economic inefficiencies of a small immature program and the inability to control for certain factors when selecting historical controls affected our results. Further research is needed to determine the economic effect of mature home-based programs.

Patient, informal caregiver and care provider acceptance of a hospital in the home program in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Hospital in the home programs have been implemented in several countries and have been shown to be safe substitutions (alternatives) to in-patient hospitalization. These programs may offer a solution to the increasing demands made on tertiary care facilities and to surge capacity. We investigated the acceptance of this type of care provision with nurse practitioners as the designated principal home care providers in a family medicine program in a large Canadian urban setting. METHODS: Patients requiring hospitalization to the family medicine service ward, for any diagnosis, who met selection criteria, were invited to enter the hospital in the home program as an alternative to admission. Participants in the hospital in the home program, their caregivers, and the physicians responsible for their care were surveyed about their perceptions of the program. Nurse practitioners, who provided care, were surveyed and interviewed. RESULTS: Ten percent (104) of admissions to the ward were screened, and 37 patients participated in 44 home hospital admissions. Twenty nine patient, 17 caregiver and 38 provider surveys were completed. Most patients (88%-100%) and caregivers (92%-100%) reported high satisfaction levels with various aspects of health service delivery. However, a significant proportion in both groups stated that they would select to be treated in-hospital should the need arise again. This was usually due to fears about the safety of the program. Physicians (98%-100%) and nurse practitioners also rated the program highly. The program had virtually no negative impact on the physician workload. However nurse practitioners felt that the program did not utilize their full expertise. CONCLUSION: Provision of hospital level care in the home is well received by patients, their caregivers and health care providers. As a new program, investment in patient education about program safety may be necessary to ensure its long term success. A small proportion of hospital admissions were screened for this program. Appropriate dissemination of program information to family physicians should help buy-in and participation. Nurse practitioners' skills may not be optimally utilized in this setting.