Comparando las perspectivas de los médicos de atención primaria de Canarias y Alberta. ¿Es más bonito el jardín del vecino que el mío?

ResumenObjetivoExaminar desde la perspectiva del médico de atención primaria (AP) las ventajas e inconvenientes de 2 formas diferentes de organización del sistema sanitario.DiseñoEstudio cualitativo basado en análisis de documentos elaborados para el estudio a modo de diarios.EmplazamientoAtención Primaria de Canarias (España) y Alberta (Canadá).Participantes y/o contextosMuestreo intencionado con el fin de identificar diferentes perfiles de médicos.MétodoA los participantes se solicitó que escribieran un documento en el que hicieran una descripción de su actividad laboral, incluyendo un análisis del impacto en su vida personal como de la organización del sistema. Se solicitó a 2 representantes del sistema sanitario que hicieran una descripción detallada de cómo se organiza la atención primaria en su país. Se obtuvieron 9 diarios de médicos (5 de Canarias y 4 de Alberta). Se utilizó el marco de Ritchie y Spencer para el análisis.ResultadosEn Alberta los médicos tienen acceso a más pruebas complementarias; pueden ofrecer asistencia en el hospital; tienen que ocuparse de la gestión; pueden establecerse donde consideren; y pueden especializarse por áreas. En Canarias los médicos disponen de vacaciones y no depende de ellos la responsabilidad de la administración de los servicios; los pacientes tienen un médico asignado; y tienen más apoyo institucional.ConclusionesLos resultados de este estudio permiten hacer una crítica constructiva sobre el papel del médico en atención primaria, valorar las ventajas y replantearnos los inconvenientes relacionados con nuestra forma de trabajar con el fin de aprender de otros sistemas organizativos.AbstractObjectiveTo examine the advantages and disadvantages of two different Health Care Systems from the perspective of Primary Care (PC) physicians.DesignQualitative research based on the analysis of documents written as diaries for the study.SettingPrimary Care in the Canary Islands (Spain) and Alberta (Canada)Context and participantsIntentional sample to identify different profiles of physicians.MethodParticipants were asked to write a document describing their work activities, including the impact of the organisational system and on their personal life. Two representatives of the health care system were asked to write a detailed description about how PC is organised in their country. Nine diaries were collected (5 from the Canary Islands and 4 from Alberta). Ritchie & Spencer framework was used for the analysis.ResultsIn Alberta, physicians have access to more complementary tests; they can offer hospital care; they have to sort out administrative work; they can choose were to work; and can specialise in different types of health care services. In the Canary Islands physicians can have paid holidays and the administrative issues do not depend on them, patients have a physician assigned and seem to have more institutional support.ConclusionsThe results of this study allow us to constructively analyse the role of PC physicians, assess the advantages and re-think the disadvantages related to how we work in order to learn from other health care systems

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

BackgroundPrimary 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.MethodsPragmatic 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.Results789 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$16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner

Monthly Incidence Rates of Abusive Encounters for Canadian Family Physicians by Patients and Their Families

Objective. The goal of this study was to examine the monthly incidence rates of abusive encounters for family physicians in Canada. Methods. A 7-page cross-sectional survey. Results. Of the entire study sample (N = 720), 29% of the physicians reported having experienced an abusive event in the last month by a patient or patient family member. Abusive incidents were classified as minor, major, or severe. Of the physician participants who reported having been abused, all reported having experienced a minor event, 26% a major, and 8% a severe event. Of the physicians who experienced an abusive event, 55% were not aware of any policies to protect them, 76% did not seek help, and 64% did not report the abusive event. Conclusion. Family physicians are subjected to significant amounts of abuse in their day-to-day practices. Few physicians are aware of workplace policies that could protect them, and fewer report abusive encounters. Physicians would benefit from increased awareness of institutional policies that can protect them against abusive patients and their families and from the development of a national policy

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

BackgroundThe Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.MethodsA clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.ResultsThe tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.ConclusionThe integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.Trial registrationThe registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460

Linking primary care EMR data and administrative data in Alberta, Canada: experiences, challenges, and potential solutions

Introduction Administrative data are commonly used for a variety of secondary purposes. Although they lack clinical detail and risk factor information, linkage to primary care electronic medical records (EMR) could fill this gap. Primary care EMRs are a relatively new data source available in Alberta and thus, EMR-administrative linkages are novel. Objectives and Approach To describe the process undertaken for linking de-identified primary care EMR data from two regional Alberta networks of the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) with administrative data (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, pharmacy information) from Alberta Health Services Analytics, specifically as it relates to a study on patients with complex, chronic diseases. As this linkage process is new in Alberta, we will describe the challenges encountered and possible solutions to inform future data linkage for research studies. Results Linkage steps: 1) approval from research ethics board and individual CPCSSN providers as data custodians; 2) notify Privacy Commissioner on behalf of custodian; 3) send linking key (CPCSSN patient ID, EMR ID) from regional database to Analytics; 4) send linking files (patient personal health number [PHN], EMR ID) from custodian’s EMR system to Analytics; 5) match unique EMR ID from linking key and clinic linking files; 6) PHN from clinic linking file mapped to administrative data; 7) data de-identified before transferring to secure repository; administrative data matched to EMR data using CPCSSN ID. Challenges: obtaining individual provider consent for each study; sampling bias; delays/issues generating clinic linkage file; mismatch between patients in clinic \& regional linking files. Current and potential solutions will be discussed during the presentation. Conclusion/Implications As primary care EMR and administrative data become more routinely linked and accepted, the process will become more efficient and streamlined. These data will contribute to a better understanding of patients and their care in Alberta

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods : views of community residents

The adaptation phase is one component of a study funded as a grant proposal entitled 'Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods' by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. Aisha Lofters is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award, as a Clinician Scientist by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, and as Chair in Implementation Science at the Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers at Women’s College Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Andrew Pinto holds a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Applied Public Health Chair and is supported as a Clinician-Scientist in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and supported by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital. He is also the Associate Director for Clinical Research at the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network. Lawrence Paszat is supported by a Clinician Scientist award funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.Peer reviewe

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761

Human hippocampal theta power indicates movement onset and distance travelled

Rodent hippocampal theta-band oscillations are observed throughout translational movement, implicating theta in the encoding of self-motion. Interestingly, increases in theta power are particularly prominent around movement onset. Here, we use intracranial recordings from epilepsy patients navigating in a desktop virtual reality environment to demonstrate that theta power is also increased in the human hippocampus around movement onset and throughout the remainder of movement. Importantly, these increases in theta power are greater both before and during longer paths, directly implicating human hippocampal theta in the encoding of translational movement. These findings help to reconcile previous studies of rodent and human hippocampal theta oscillations and provide additional insight into the mechanisms of spatial navigation in the human brain

A single-point modeling approach for the intercomparison and evaluation of ozone dry deposition across chemical transport models (Activity 2 of AQMEII4)

A primary sink of air pollutants and their precursors is dry deposition. Dry deposition estimates differ across chemical transport models, yet an understanding of the model spread is incomplete. Here, we introduce Activity 2 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative Phase 4 (AQMEII4). We examine 18 dry deposition schemes from regional and global chemical transport models as well as standalone models used for impact assessments or process understanding. We configure the schemes as single-point models at eight Northern Hemisphere locations with observed ozone fluxes. Single-point models are driven by a common set of site-specific meteorological and environmental conditions. Five of eight sites have at least 3 years and up to 12 years of ozone fluxes. The interquartile range across models in multiyear mean ozone deposition velocities ranges from a factor of 1.2 to 1.9 annually across sites and tends to be highest during winter compared with summer. No model is within 50 % of observed multiyear averages across all sites and seasons, but some models perform well for some sites and seasons. For the first time, we demonstrate how contributions from depositional pathways vary across models. Models can disagree with respect to relative contributions from the pathways, even when they predict similar deposition velocities, or agree with respect to the relative contributions but predict different deposition velocities. Both stomatal and nonstomatal uptake contribute to the large model spread across sites. Our findings are the beginning of results from AQMEII4 Activity 2, which brings scientists who model air quality and dry deposition together with scientists who measure ozone fluxes to evaluate and improve dry deposition schemes in the chemical transport models used for research, planning, and regulatory purposes