Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Recreating the village: the patient experience with a hybrid model of Group Perinatal Care (GPPC) in an academic family health team.

BACKGROUND: Group prenatal care (GPC) has been shown to have a positive impact on social support, patient knowledge and preparedness for birth. We developed an interprofessional hybrid model of care whereby the group perinatal care (GPPC) component was co-facilitated by midwives (MW) and family medicine residents (FMR) and alternating individual visits were provided by family physicians (FP's) within our academic family health team (FHT) In this qualitative study, we sought to explore the impact of this program and how it supports patients through pregnancy and the early newborn period. METHODS: Qualitative study that was conducted using semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 participants who had completed GPPC in the Mount Sinai Academic Family Health Team in Toronto, Canada and delivered between November 2016 and October 2018. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted by team members using grounded theory. RESULTS: Four over-arching themes emerged from the data: (i) Participants highly valued information they received from multiple trusted sources, (ii) Participants felt well cared for by the collaborative and coordinated interprofessional team, (iii) The design of GPPC enabled a shared experience, allowing for increased support of the pregnant person, and (iv) GPPC facilitated a supportive transition into the community which positively impacted participants' emotional well- being. CONCLUSIONS: The four constructs of social support (emotional, informational, instrumental and appraisal) were central to the value that participants found in GPPC. This support from the team of healthcare providers, peers and partners had a positive impact on participants' mental health and helped them face the challenges of their transition to parenthood.

Patient Experience With Resident Versus Staff Physicians: Results From a Cross-Sectional Patient Survey From Canadian Family Medicine Residencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared experiences of patients who reported usually being seen by a resident with those usually seen by a staff physician. METHODS: We analyzed responses to a patient experience survey distributed at 13 family medicine teaching practices affiliated with the University of Toronto between May and June 2020. We analyzed responses to seven questions pertaining to timely access, continuity, and patient-centeredness. We compared responses between two types of usual primary care clinicians and calculated odds ratios before and after adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 6,545 unique surveys; 18.6% reported their usual clinician was a resident physician. Resident patients were more likely to be older, born outside of Canada, report a high school education or less, and report having difficulty making ends meet. Compared to patients of staff physicians, patients of resident physicians had lower odds of being able to see their preferred primary care clinician and lower odds of getting nonurgent care in a reasonable time. They also had lower odds of reporting patient-centered care, but we found no significant differences in whether the time for an urgent appointment was about right or whether accessing care after hours was easy. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, patients who reported usually seeing resident physicians had worse continuity of care and timeliness for nonurgent care than patients who reported usually seeing staff physicians despite resident patients being older, sicker, and having a lower socioeconomic position. Postgraduate training programs need to test models to support access and continuity for resident patient panels.

Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care.

PURPOSE: The experience-based design approach using patient-guided tours (PGT) has been suggested as an effective way to understand the patient experience and may better allow the patient to recall thoughts and feelings. The objective of this study was to assess how patients with a disability perceive the effectiveness of PGTs for understanding their experiences of receiving primary health care. METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Participants were chosen by convenience sampling. The patient was asked to walk through the clinic as they would on a "typical visit" while describing their experiences. They were questioned about their experience and perception of PGTs. The tour was audiotaped and transcribed. The investigators took field notes and completed thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen patients participated. The main findings were: (1) Touchpoints and physical cues were effective in eliciting experiences that participants stated they would not have recalled using other research methods, (2) The ability for participants to show the investigator aspects of the space that impacted their experience enabled the investigator to "see through their eyes" resulting in ease of communication and a sense of empowerment, (3) PGTs encouraged individuals to be active participants which fostered comfort and collaboration, and (4) PGTs may exclude those that are severely disabled. CONCLUSION: This method was perceived as effective at eliciting experiences of patients with a disability. It has benefits over more traditional research methods by allowing the participant to refresh their memory at "touchpoints" and enabling them to be active participants.

Sociodemographic differences in patient experience with primary care during COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional survey in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand patients' care-seeking behaviours early in the pandemic, their use and views of different virtual care modalities, and whether these differed by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We conducted a multisite cross-sectional patient experience survey at 13 academic primary care teaching practices between May and June 2020. An anonymised link to an electronic survey was sent to a subset of patients with a valid email address on file; sampling was based on birth month. For each question, the proportion of respondents who selected each response was calculated, followed by a comparison by sociodemographic characteristics using χ2 tests. RESULTS: In total, 7532 participants responded to the survey. Most received care from their primary care clinic during the pandemic (67.7%, 5068/7482), the majority via phone (82.5%, 4195/5086). Among those who received care, 30.53% (1509/4943) stated that they delayed seeking care because of the pandemic. Most participants reported a high degree of comfort with phone (92.4%, 3824/4139), video (95.2%, 238/250) and email or messaging (91.3%, 794/870). However, those reporting difficulty making ends meet, poor or fair health and arriving in Canada in the last 10 years reported lower levels of comfort with virtual care and fewer wanted their practice to continue offering virtual options after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that newcomers, people living with a lower income and those reporting poor or fair health have a stronger preference and comfort for in-person primary care. Further research should explore potential barriers to virtual care and how these could be addressed.

Predicting hospital readmission risk: A prospective observational study to compare primary care providers' assessments with the LACE readmission risk index.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine if the primary care provider (PCP) assessment of readmission risk is comparable to the validated LACE tool at predicting readmission to hospital. METHODS: A prospective observational study of recently discharged adult patients clustered by PCPs in the primary care setting. Physician readmission risk assessment was determined via a questionnaire after the PCP reviewed the hospital discharge summary. LACE scores were calculated using administrative data and the discharge summary. The sensitivity and specificity of the physician assessment and the LACE tool in predicting readmission risk, agreement between the 2 assessments and the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: 217 patient readmission encounters were included in this study from September 2017 till June 2018. The rate of readmission within 30 days was 14.7%, and 217 discharge summaries were used for analysis. The weighted kappa coefficient was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30-0.51) demonstrating a moderate level of agreement. Sensitivity of physician assessment was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.22-0.40) and specificity was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.83). The sensitivity of the LACE assessment was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.25-0.59) and specificity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85). The AUROC for the LACE readmission risk was 0.65 (95% C.I. 0.55-0.76) demonstrating modest predictive power and was 0.57 (95% C.I. 0.46-0.68) for physician assessment, demonstrating low predictive power. CONCLUSION: The LACE index shows moderate discriminatory power in identifying high-risk patients for readmission when compared to the PCP's assessment. If this score can be provided to the PCP, it may help identify patients who requires more intensive follow-up after discharge.

Experiences of patients with a disability in receiving primary health care: Using experience-based design for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To use patient-guided tours to gain insight into the experiences of patients with disabilities receiving primary care, with the goal of suggesting improvements. DESIGN: A qualitative experience-based design study, using patient-guided tours. SETTING: Multidisciplinary academic urban primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with disabilities identified by their health care providers. METHODS: Patients walked through the clinic as they would on a "typical visit" describing their feelings and experiences. The investigator used a semistructured interview guide to prompt the patient. The tour was audiorecorded and transcribed. Thematic content analysis was used. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants included 18 patients with various disabilities (physical disability, sensory disability, chronic illness, mental illness, learning disability, developmental disability). Strong positive relationships, particularly with the team and administrative staff, profoundly affected perceived access and experience of care. Multidirectional, clear, and respectful communication independently improved patients' experiences dramatically. Participants said that many access, coordination, and physical barriers were eased by team relationships and communication. Physical space and building issues were troublesome for those with physical and mental disabilities alike. Each participant's disability itself played a role in their experience but was not described as prominently as their relationship, communication, and spatial challenges. Participants described the patient-guided tour method as valuable to elicit experiences and feelings. CONCLUSION: Some health care teams are unaware of how relationships and communication affect every aspect of health care for people with disabilities. Highlighting these findings with providers and organizations might prompt a more patient-centred model of care. Our experience-based design consisting of patient-guided tours was effective in assessing how those with disabilities experienced care.

Development and evaluation of a primary care antimicrobial stewardship program (PC-ASP) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Background: Effective community-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are needed because 90% of antimicrobials are prescribed in the community. A primary care ASP (PC-ASP) was evaluated for its effectiveness in lowering antibiotic prescriptions for six common infections. Methods: A multi-faceted educational program was assessed using a before-and-after design in four primary care clinics from 2015 through 2017. The primary outcome was the difference between control and intervention clinics in total antibiotic prescriptions for six common infections before and after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included changes in condition-specific antibiotic use, delayed antibiotic prescriptions, prescriptions exceeding 7 days duration, use of recommended antibiotics, and emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 30 days. Multi-method models adjusting for demographics, case mix, and clustering by physician were used to estimate treatment effects. Results: Total antibiotic prescriptions in control and intervention clinics did not differ (difference in differences = 1.7%; 95% CI -12.5% to 15.9%), nor did use of delayed prescriptions (-5.2%; 95% CI -24.2% to 13.8%). Prescriptions for longer than 7 days were significantly reduced (-21.3%; 95% CI -42.5% to -0.1%). However, only 781 of 1,777 encounters (44.0%) involved providers who completed the ASP education. Where providers completed the education, delayed prescriptions increased 17.7% (p = 0.06), and prescriptions exceeding 7 days duration declined (-27%; 95% CI -48.3% to -5.6%). Subsequent emergency department visits and hospitalizations did not increase. Conclusions: PC-ASP effectiveness on antibiotic use was variable. Shorter prescription durations and increased use of delayed prescriptions were adopted by engaged primary care providers.

Historique: Des programmes de gestion antimicrobienne (PGA) communautaires efficaces doivent exister, parce que 90 % des antimicrobiens sont prescrits dans la communauté. Des chercheurs ont évalué un PGA en première ligne (PGA-PL) afin d'en déterminer l'efficacité à réduire les prescriptions d'antibiotiques pour six infections courantes. Méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont évalué un programme de formation polyvalent au moyen d'une méthodologie avant-après dans quatre cliniques de soins de première ligne entre 2015 et 2017. Le résultat clinique primaire était la différence entre les cliniques de contrôle et d'intervention pour ce qui est du total de prescriptions antibiotiques contre six infections courantes avant et après l'intervention. Les résultats cliniques secondaires incluaient des modifications à l'utilisation des antibiotiques propres au trouble de santé, le report des prescriptions d'antibiotiques, des prescriptions de plus de sept jours, l'utilisation des antibiotiques recommandés et les visites à l'urgence ou les hospitalisations dans les 30 jours. Les chercheurs ont utilisé des méthodes multimodèles tenant compte de la démographie, du mélange de cas et du regroupement par médecin pour évaluer l'effet des traitements. Résultats: Les prescriptions totales d'antibiotiques dans les cliniques de contrôle et d'intervention ne différaient pas (différences des différences = 1,7 %; IC à 95 %, ­12,5 % à 15,9 %), ni l'utilisation de prescriptions reportées (­5,2 %; IC à 95 %, ­24,2 % à 13,8 %). Les prescriptions de plus de sept jours étaient très peu courantes (­21,3 %; IC à 95 %, ­42,5 % à ­0,1 %). Cependant, seulement 781 des 1 777 rencontres (44,0 %) avaient eu lieu avec des dispensateurs qui avaient suivi la formation sur le PGA. Lorsque les dispensateurs avaient suivi la formation, les reports de prescriptions augmentaient de 17,7 % (p = 0,06) et les prescriptions de plus de sept jours diminuaient (­27 %; IC à 95 %, ­48,3 % à ­5,6 %). Les visites subséquentes à l'urgence et les hospitalisations n'ont pas augmenté. Conclusions: L'efficacité du PGA-PL pour l'utilisation d'antibiotiques était variable. Les dispensateurs de soins de première ligne qui y avaient participé préparaient des prescriptions de moins longue durée et reportaient davantage leurs prescriptions.

Derivation and Validation of a Risk-Prediction Tool for Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Adults With Diabetes: The Hypoglycemia During Hospitalization (HyDHo) Score.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop the Hypoglycemia During Hospitalization (HyDHo) scoring system, to predict the risk for hypoglycemia during hospitalization in patients with diabetes at the time of admission to a general medical unit. METHODS: We randomly selected 300 patients with diabetes who had been admitted to a medical inpatient unit at a teaching hospital. Hypoglycemia was defined as any point-of-care glucose test result ≤3.9 mmol/L. Demographic and clinical predictors of hypoglycemia were identified through review of the hospitalization record. Bivariate associations between each predictor variable and hypoglycemia were used to choose variables for a logistic regression model. Model coefficients were converted into an integer points score. The selected model was applied to a validation dataset from 300 similar randomly selected patients admitted to a different teaching hospital. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, 72 (25%) patients experienced hypoglycemia during their hospitalizations. The final selected model included 5 variables: age, emergency department visit 6 months prior, insulin use, use of oral agents that do not induce hypoglycemia, and severe chronic kidney disease. With a score of ≥9, sensitivity was 86% and specificity was 32%. The model had adequate discrimination and good calibration in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A parsimonious risk prediction model that uses 5 key clinical variables predicts hypoglycemia during hospitalization at the time of admission. More than one-quarter of patients at low risk for hypoglycemia had scores below the threshold. They could be identified at the time of admission by applying the HyDHo scoring system and may need less intensive glucose monitoring while in hospital.