Implementation of the Canadian National Standards in Breast Cancer Surgical Care: Gaps, Barriers, Enablers and Opportunities.

Background: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for breast cancers has become increasingly complex. Recently, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based surgical standards for the care of breast cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants of their implementation nationally. Methods: This study was undertaken in two parts-(1) National survey of breast cancer surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; (2) Formation of a focus group with a representative sample of breast surgeons across Canada to further understand the barriers and facilitators towards future breast standards implementation. Results: 35 surgeons participated in the survey: 66% were from community hospitals. There were four categories of standards that were the most significantly lacking across the country-(a) processes related to quality assurance, (b) turnaround time for pathology results (c) psychosocial and health-related support for the breast cancer patient and (d) breast reconstruction for patients undergoing mastectomy. The focus group included participants from all ten Canadian provinces. For each standard, the 134 determinants fell into three main categories-individual physician (n = 27, 20%); organizational (n = 46, 34%), and system (n = 61, 46%). While specific determinants were present for each category, surgical standards were more likely to be implemented in practice if (1) they aligned with organizational priorities standards; (2) the individual physicians or physician groups were accountable to the organization and/or cancer jurisdiction regarding compliance with the standard; and (3) if infrastructure or resources existed within the organization or system for the reliable collection of relevant, meaningful, practice changing data combined with the capability of benchmarking, peer-peer comparisons and timely feedback to the surgeons. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated variation, barriers and opportunities for the national implementation of CPAC's breast cancer surgery standards and identified determinants of high-quality breast surgical care delivery.

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally. METHODS: This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation. RESULTS: 37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group. CONCLUSION: Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.

How to adapt existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: a case example with smoking cessation guidelines in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and encourage the adoption of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for smoking cessation in Canada by engaging stakeholders in the adaptation of existing high-quality CPGs using principles of the ADAPTE framework. METHODS: An independent expert body in guideline review conducted a review and identified six existing CPGs, which met a priori criteria for quality and potential applicability to the local context. Summary statements were extracted and assigned a grade of recommendation and level of evidence by a second expert panel. Regional knowledge exchange brokers recruited additional stakeholders to build a multidisciplinary network of over 800 clinicians, researchers and decision-makers from across Canada. This interprofessional network and other stakeholders were offered various opportunities to provide input on the guideline both online and in person. We actively encouraged end-user input into the development and adaptation of the guidelines to ensure applicability to various practice settings and to promote adoption. RESULTS: The final guideline contained 24 summary statements along with supporting clinical considerations, across six topic area sections. The guideline was adopted by various provincial/territorial and national government and non-governmental organisations. CONCLUSIONS: This method can be applied in other jurisdictions to adapt existing high-quality smoking cessation CPGs to the local context and to facilitate subsequent adoption by various stakeholders.

Quality indicators for the detection and management of chronic kidney disease in primary care in Canada derived from a modified Delphi panel approach.

BACKGROUND: The detection and management of chronic kidney disease lies within primary care; however, performance measures applicable in the Canadian context are lacking. We sought to develop a set of primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease in the Canadian setting and to assess the current state of the disease's detection and management in primary care. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi panel approach, involving 20 panel members from across Canada (10 family physicians, 7 nephrologists, 1 patient, 1 primary care nurse and 1 pharmacist). Indicators identified from peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were subjected to 3 rounds of voting to develop a set of quality indicators for the detection and management of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting. The final indicators were applied to primary care electronic medical records in the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) to assess the current state of primary care detection and management of chronic kidney disease in Ontario. RESULTS: Seventeen indicators made up the final list, with 1 under the category Prevalence, Incidence and Mortality; 4 under Screening, Diagnosis and Risk Factors; 11 under Management; and 1 under Referral to a Specialist. In a sample of 139 993 adult patients not on dialysis, 6848 (4.9%) had stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease, with the average age of patients being 76.1 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.0); 62.9% of patients were female. Diagnosis and screening for chronic kidney disease were poorly performed. Only 27.1% of patients with stage 3 or higher disease had their diagnosis documented in their cumulative patient profile. Albumin-creatinine ratio testing was only performed for 16.3% of patients with a low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and for 28.5% of patients with risk factors for chronic kidney disease. Family physicians performed relatively better with the management of chronic kidney disease, with 90.4% of patients with stage 3 or higher disease having an eGFR performed in the previous 18 months and 83.1% having a blood pressure recorded in the previous 9 months. INTERPRETATION: We propose a set of measurable indicators to evaluate the quality of the management of chronic kidney disease in primary care. These indicators may be used to identify opportunities to improve current practice in Canada.

Exposure-based Interventions for the management of individuals with high levels of needle fear across the lifespan: a clinical practice guideline and call for further research.

Needle fear typically begins in childhood and represents an important health-related issue across the lifespan. Individuals who are highly fearful of needles frequently avoid health care. Although guidance exists for managing needle pain and fear during procedures, the most highly fearful may refuse or abstain from such procedures. The purpose of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide actionable instruction on the management of a particular health concern; this guidance emerges from a systematic process. Using evidence from a rigorous systematic review interpreted by an expert panel, this CPG provides recommendations on exposure-based interventions for high levels of needle fear in children and adults. The AGREE-II, GRADE, and Cochrane methodologies were used. Exposure-based interventions were included. The included evidence was very low quality on average. Strong recommendations include the following. In vivo (live/in person) exposure-based therapy is recommended (vs. no treatment) for children seven years and older and adults with high levels of needle fear. Non-in vivo (imaginal, computer-based) exposure (vs. no treatment) is recommended for individuals (over seven years of age) who are unwilling to undergo in vivo exposure. Although there were no included trials which examined children < 7 years, exposure-based interventions are discussed as good clinical practice. Implementation considerations are discussed and clinical tools are provided. Utilization of these recommended practices may lead to improved health outcomes due to better health care compliance. Research on the understanding and treatment of high levels of needle fear is urgently needed; specific recommendations are provided.

Appropriate prescribing in nursing homes demonstration project (APDP) study protocol: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial and mixed methods process evaluation of an Ontario policy-maker initiative to improve appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are routinely prescribed in nursing homes to address the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Unfortunately, inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medications is common and associated with increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. Multifaceted interventions can achieve a 12-20 % reduction in antipsychotic prescribing levels in nursing homes. Effective interventions have featured educational outreach and ongoing performance feedback. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic, cluster-randomized control trial and embedded process evaluation seeks to determine the effect of adding academic detailing to audit and feedback on prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes, compared with audit and feedback alone. Nursing homes within pre-determined regions of Ontario, Canada, are eligible if they express an interest in the intervention. The academic detailing intervention will be delivered by registered health professionals following an intensive training program including relevant clinical issues and techniques to support health professional behavior change. Physicians in both groups will have the opportunity to access confidential reports summarizing their prescribing patterns for antipsychotics in comparison to the local and provincial average. Participating homes will be allocated to one of the two arms of the study (active/full intervention versus standard audit and feedback) in two waves, with a 2:1 allocation ratio. Homes will be randomized after stratifying for geography, baseline antipsychotic prescription rates, and size, to ensure a balance of characteristics. The primary outcome is antipsychotic dispensing in nursing homes, measured 6 months after allocation; secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization. DISCUSSION: Policy-makers and the public have taken note that antipsychotics are used in nursing homes in Ontario far more than other jurisdictions. Academic detailing can be an effective technique to address challenges in appropriate prescribing in nursing homes, but effect sizes vary widely. This opportunistic, policy-driven evaluation, embedded within a government-initiated demonstration project, was designed to ensure policy-makers receive the best evidence possible regarding whether and how to scale up the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NLM Identifier: NCT02604056 .

Why are children still crying? Going beyond "evidence" in guideline development to improve pain care for children: the HELPinKIDS experience.

The failure to translate research evidence into day-to-day clinical practices is identified as a significant reason for suboptimal quality care across the health system, including procedural pain management in children. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist in this process by synthesizing and interpreting research evidence for end users. Numerous CPGs have been developed for procedural pain management in children, yet gaps persist in the adoption of best practices. This article reviews the experience and approach of 1 guideline development group, the Help ELiminate Pain in KIDS Team (HELPinKIDS), in incorporating implementation considerations and knowledge translation (KT) strategies within the process of guideline development for the HELPinKIDS CPG about childhood vaccination pain management to facilitate greater uptake of the CPG. Specific areas that will be addressed include partnerships with stakeholders, rigor of guideline development, issues of implementation, and editorial independence. The work of HELPinKIDS was guided by a KT map, which identified, at a high level, the target audiences, key messages, tools, and strategies that could be used to communicate, disseminate, and implement the CPG into diverse settings. Examples of impact at both the individual and systems levels from HELPinKIDS KT activities are also presented.

Impact of an online medical internet site on knowledge and practice of health care providers: a mixed methods study of the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence project.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether ongoing access to a broad-based Internet knowledge resource can influence the practice of health care providers. We undertook a study to evaluate the impact of a Web-based knowledge resource on increasing access to evidence and facilitating best practice of health care providers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate (1) the impact of the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence (SCIRE) project on access to information for health care providers and researchers and (2) how SCIRE influenced health care providers' management of clients. METHODS: A 4-part mixed methods evaluation was undertaken: (1) monitoring website traffic and utilization using Google Analytics, (2) online survey of users who accessed the SCIRE website, (3) online survey of targeted end-users, that is, rehabilitation health care providers known to work with spinal cord injury (SCI) clients, as well as researchers, and (4) focus groups with health care providers who had previously accessed SCIRE. RESULTS: The online format allowed the content for a relatively specialized field to have far reach (eg, 26 countries and over 6500 users per month). The website survey and targeted end-user survey confirmed that health care providers, as well as researchers perceived that the website increased their access to SCI evidence. Access to SCIRE not only improved knowledge of SCI evidence but helped inform changes to the health providers' clinical practice and improved their confidence in treating SCI clients. The SCIRE information directly influenced the health providers' clinical decision making, in terms of choice of intervention, equipment needs, or assessment tool. CONCLUSIONS: A Web-based knowledge resource may be a relatively inexpensive method to increase access to evidence-based information, increase knowledge of the evidence, inform changes to the health providers' practice, and influence their clinical decision making.

Guideline harmonization and implementation plan for the BETTER trial: Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) randomized controlled trial is to improve the primary prevention of and screening for multiple conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer) and some of the associated lifestyle factors (tobacco use, alcohol overuse, poor nutrition, physical inactivity). In this article, we describe how we harmonized the evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations and patient tools to determine the content for the BETTER trial. METHODS: We identified clinical practice guidelines and tools through a structured literature search; we included both indexed and grey literature. From these guidelines, recommendations were extracted and integrated into knowledge products and outcome measures for use in the BETTER trial. End-users (family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses and dieticians) were engaged in reviewing the recommendations and tools, as well as tailoring the content to the needs of the BETTER trial and family practice. RESULTS: In total, 3-5 high-quality guidelines were identified for each condition; from these, we identified high-grade recommendations for the prevention of and screening for chronic disease. The guideline recommendations were limited by conflicting recommendations, vague wording and different taxonomies for strength of recommendation. There was a lack of quality evidence for manoeuvres to improve the uptake of guidelines among patients with depression. We developed the BETTER clinical algorithms for the implementation plan. Although it was difficult to identify high-quality tools, 180 tools of interest were identified. INTERPRETATION: The intervention for the BETTER trial was built by integrating existing guidelines and tools, and working with end-users throughout the process to increase the intervention's utility for practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07170460.

Finding a BETTER way: a qualitative study exploring the prevention practitioner intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Our randomized controlled trial (The BETTER Trial) found that training a clinician to become a Prevention Practitioner (PP) in family practices improved chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS). PPs were trained on CDPS and provided prevention prescriptions tailored to participating patients. For this embedded qualitative study, we explored perceptions of this new role to understand the PP intervention. METHODS: We used grounded theory methodology and purposefully sampled participants involved in any capacity with the BETTER Trial. Two physicians and one coordinator in each of two cities (Toronto, Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta) conducted eight individual semi-structured interviews and seven focus groups. We used an interview guide and documented research activities through an audit trail, journals, field notes and memos. We analyzed the data using the constant comparative method throughout open coding followed by theoretical coding. RESULTS: A framework and process involving external and internal practice facilitation using the new role of PP was thought to impact CDPS. The PP facilitated CDPS through on-going relationships with patients and practice team members. Key components included: 1) approaching CDPS in a comprehensive manner, 2) an individualized and personalized approach at multiple levels, 3) integrated continuity that included linking the patients and practices to CPDS resources, and 4) adaptability to different practices and settings. CONCLUSIONS: The BETTER framework and key components are described as impacting CDPS through a process that involved a new role, the PP. The introduction of a novel role of a clinician within the primary care practice with skills in CDPS could appropriately address gaps in prevention and screening.

Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care. METHODS: Pragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. RESULTS: 789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met. CONCLUSIONS: A Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.

Interprofessional primary care protocols: a strategy to promote an evidence-based approach to teamwork and the delivery of care.

Primary care reform involving interprofessional team-based care is a global phenomenon. In Ontario, Canada, 150 Family Health Teams (FHTs) have been approved in the past few years. The transition to a FHT is complex involving many changes and the processes for collaborative teamwork are not clearly delineated. To support the transition to team-based care in FHTs, a project was undertaken to develop and implement a series of interprofessional protocols in four clinical areas. These interprofessional protocols would contain relevant and evidence-based resources to support both a team and evidence-based approach to care. This paper reports on a qualitative study to examine the process of interprofessional protocol development and pilot implementation. Adopting an exploratory case study approach (Robson, 2002 ), 36 interviews were conducted with health professionals and community group members who participated in the creation and piloting of the protocols, and with project managers. In addition, observational and documentary data were gathered on the protocol development and implementation processes. The findings from the protocol development stage demonstrate the value of the focus on evidence and team, the process of assessing and targeting FHT needs, inter-organizational and interprofessional sharing, the importance of facilitation and support, and expectations for implementation. The findings from the pilot implementation stage report on the importance of champions and leaders, the implementation strategies used, FHT and organizational factors affecting implementation, and outcomes achieved. Findings are discussed in relation to the knowledge translation and interprofessional literature. Research is ongoing to examine the effectiveness of dissemination of the protocols to FHTs across the province of Ontario and its impact on health care outcomes.

Interprofessional collaboration in family health teams: An Ontario-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine family health team (FHT) members' perspectives and experiences of interprofessional collaboration and perceived benefits. DESIGN: Qualitative case study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Fourteen FHTs in urban and rural Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Purposeful sample of the members of 14 FHTs, including family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, dietitians, social workers, pharmacists, and managers. METHODS: A multiple case-study approach involving 14 FHTs was employed. Thirty-two semistructured interviews were conducted and data were analyzed by employing an inductive thematic approach. A member-checking technique was also undertaken to enhance the validity of the findings. MAIN FINDINGS: Five main themes are reported: rethinking traditional roles and scopes of practice, management and leadership, time and space, interprofessional initiatives, and early perceptions of collaborative care. CONCLUSION: This study shows the importance of issues such as roles and scopes of practice, leadership, and space to effective team-based primary care, and provides a framework for understanding different types of interprofessional interventions used to support interprofessional collaboration.