Dissemination of the Women-Centred HIV Care Model: A Multimodal Process and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Using data from a national cohort study and focus groups, the Women-Centred HIV Care (WCHC) Model was developed to inform care delivery for women living with HIV. METHODS: Through an evidence-based, integrated knowledge translation approach, we developed 2 toolkits based on the WCHC Model for service providers and women living with HIV in English and French (Canada's national languages). To disseminate, we distributed printed advertising materials, hosted 3 national webinars and conducted 2 virtual capacity-building training series. RESULTS: A total of 315 individuals attended the webinars, and the average WCHC knowledge increased by 29% (SD 4.3%). In total, 131 service providers engaged in 22 virtual capacity-building training sessions with 21 clinical cases discussed. Learners self-reported increased confidence in 15/15 abilities, including the ability to provide WCHC. As of December 2023, the toolkits were downloaded 7766 times. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed WCHC toolkits and shared them with diverse clinical and community audiences through various dissemination methods.

A study on creating and sharing a toolkit for healthcare providers and women living with HIVWhy was the study done?:The research team created the Women-Centred HIV Care (WCHC) model to help healthcare providers deliver personalised and thorough care to women living with HIV in Canada. This study aimed to develop a practical toolkit based on the model. The goal was to share this toolkit with women and their providers in various ways to get feedback on its usefulness and to understand the best methods for sharing tools in the future.What did the researchers do?:Through an in-depth, collaborative process, English and French WCHC toolkits were developed by a large and diverse team of women and providers. Various methods including printed materials, national webinars and virtual trainings were used to share the toolkits across Canada. The team assessed the toolkit's reception by using surveys, focus groups and tracking toolkit downloads and webpage views.What did the researchers find?:The study found positive results, including a 29% increase in WCHC knowledge for 315 webinar participants and enhanced confidence in 15 abilities for 131 service providers during virtual training. The toolkits were downloaded 7766 times, indicating broad interest. Usability testing showed that the toolkits were easy to use and helpful. Attendees of the webinars and virtual trainings indicated they were likely to use the toolkit and recommend it to others.What do the findings mean?:Overall, the WCHC toolkits offer valuable guidance to women living with HIV and their providers. The study improved providers' knowledge and confidence in delivering WCHC, especially during the virtual training sessions that focused on applying this knowledge to real clinical cases. During months when the toolkit was shared through printed materials, webinars and virtual training, more people visited the toolkit webpage. The study highlighted the importance of involving those who will use healthcare tools from the beginning and using many ways to share these tools to reach more people.

Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing.

Background: Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work. Method: We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers (n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized. Results: Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption (feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]). Conclusions: The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.

What is already known about the topic?: The causal assumptions and key components of implementation interventions are often not well described, which limits the influence of implementation science on implementation practice. What does this paper add?: This work provides an approach for surfacing the causal assumptions from intervention developers (through interviews with eight participants) and active ingredients from intervention materials, focusing on two real-world interventions already delivered at scale and designed to promote safer opioid prescribing. The analysis provides a comprehensive intervention description and reveals the extent to which final interventions align with developers' intentions. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy?: The findings provide a foundation for future work which will describe the effectiveness of these interventions (alone and in combination) and explore whether they achieve change in the intended ways, thereby providing an example of a more fulsome intervention evaluation. More broadly, our methods can be used by implementation practitioners to review and reflect on their intervention development process and support comprehensive intervention descriptions.

Academic detailing to improve appropriate opioid prescribing: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Academic detailing, an educational outreach service for family physicians, was funded by the Ontario government to address gaps in opioid prescribing and pain management. We sought to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on opioid prescribing, and to understand how and why academic detailing may have influenced opioid prescribing. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we collected quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 2017 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed prescribing outcomes descriptively for a sample of participating physicians and compared them with a matched control group. We invited physicians to participate in qualitative interviews to discuss their experiences in academic detailing. Development and analysis of qualitative interviews was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings to understand the mechanisms that drove changes in opioid prescribing. RESULTS: Physicians receiving academic detailing (n = 238) achieved a greater reduction in opioid prescribing than matched controls (n = 238). Seventeen physicians completed interviews and reported that academic detailing addressed barriers to pain care, including lack of confidence, difficult interactions with patients and prescribing and tapering decisions. Academic detailing reinforced knowledge about opioid prescribing and pain management. Discussion of complex patients and talking points to use during challenging conversations were described as key drivers of practice change. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this real-world, mixed-methods evaluation explain how an academic detailing service addressed key barriers and enablers to limit high-risk opioid prescribing in primary care. This nuanced understanding will be used to inform, spread and scale academic detailing.

Effects of an academic detailing service on benzodiazepine prescribing patterns in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are commonly used to treat anxiety and/or insomnia but are associated with substantial safety risks. Changes to prescribing patterns in primary care may be facilitated through tailored quality improvement strategies. Academic detailing (AD) may be an effective method of promoting safe benzodiazepine prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of AD on benzodiazepine prescribing among family physicians. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used an interrupted time series matched cohort design using population-based administrative claims databases. Participants were family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a voluntary AD service which involves brief service-oriented educational outreach visits by a trained pharmacist. The focus was on key messages for safer benzodiazepine prescribing in primary care with an emphasis on judicious prescribing to older adults aged 65 and older. Physicians in the intervention group were those who received at least one AD visit on benzodiazepine use between June 2019 and February 2020. Physicians in the control group were included if they did not receive an AD visit during the study period. Intervention physicians were matched to control physicians 1:4, on a variety of characteristics. Physicians were excluded if they had inactive billing or billing of less than 100 unique patient visits in the calendar year prior to the index date. The primary outcome was mean total benzodiazepine prescriptions at the level of the physician. Secondary outcomes were rate (per 100) of patients with long-term prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, newly started prescriptions, and benzodiazepine-related patient harms. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures pre-post comparison with an intention-to-treat. Analyses were then stratified to focus on effects within higher-prescribing physicians. There were 1337 physicians were included in the study; 237 who received AD and 1064 who did not. There was no significant change in benzodiazepine prescribing when considering all physicians in the intervention and matched control groups. Although not significant, a greater reduction in total benzodiazepine prescriptions was observed amongst the highest-volume prescribing physicians who received the intervention (% change in slope = -0.53, 95%CI = -2.34 to 1.30, p > .05). The main limitation of our study was the voluntary nature of the AD intervention, which may have introduced a self-selection bias of physicians most open to changing their prescribing. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that future AD interventions should focus on physicians with the greatest room for improvement to their prescribing.

Developing a set of indicators to monitor quality in ambulatory diabetes care using a modified Delphi panel process.

OBJECTIVE: There is a large evidence to practice gap in diabetes care with limited performance assessments that capture the full spectrum of care delivery. Our study aimed to develop a set of ambulatory diabetes quality indicators across six domains (effectiveness, safety, patient-centered, timely, equitable and efficient) to provide a broad view of quality. DESIGN: A modified Delphi panel process was conducted. Phase I involved compiling a list of indicators through literature review and generation of patient and healthcare provider-derived indicators through interviews and surveys, respectively. Phase II involved panelists rating indicators using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality measure attributes on 9-point Likert scale, attending a face-to-face meeting followed by re-rating, and final ranking. SETTING: This study was conducted across five adult academic medical centers affiliated with the University of Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: A multi-disciplinary Delphi panel (n = 16) including patients was assembled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: For indicator advancement for ranking, ≥75% of panelists' responses in the top tertile (between 7 and 9) with a median composite score of ≥7 was required. RESULTS: There were 202 indicators included in the Delphi panel process including 171 from a comprehensive literature review, 14 from patient interviews, and 17 from healthcare provider surveys. Following the first round, 40 indicators proceeded directly to ranking, while 162 indicators were re-rated and distilled down to 12 for ranking. In the final ranking round, the 52 indicators were reduced to 35 including 13 effective, 10 safe, 6 patient-centered, 1 equitable, 3 efficient and 2 timely indicators. CONCLUSION: Thirty-five selected indicators developed with broad stakeholder engagement can be used to monitor quality in diabetes care.

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.