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

Would you like to add a weight after this blood pressure, doctor? Discovery of potentially actionable associations between the provision of multiple screens in primary care

The CPCSSN was funded through a contribution agreement with the Public Health Agency of Canada.Rationale, aims, and objective:  Guidelines recommend screening for risk factors associated with chronic diseases but current electronic prompts have limited effects. Our objective was to discover and rank associations between the presence of screens to plan more efficient prompts in primary care. Methods:  Risk factors with the greatest impact on chronic diseases are associated with blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, glycaemic and lipid levels, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and exercise. We looked for associations between the presence of screens for these in electronic medical records. We used association rule mining to describe relationships among items, factor analysis to find latent categories, and Cronbach α to quantify consistency within latent categories. Results:  Data from 92 140 patients in or around Toronto, Ontario, were included. We found positive correlations (lift >1) between the presence of all screens. The presence of any screen was associated with confidence greater than 80% that other data on items with high prevalence (blood pressure, glycaemic and lipid levels, or smoking) would also be present. A cluster of rules predicting the presence of blood pressure were ranked highest using measures of interestingness such as standardized lift. We found 3 latent categories using factor analysis; these were laboratory tests, vital signs, and lifestyle factors; Cronbach α ranged between .58 for lifestyle factors and .88 for laboratory tests. Conclusions:  Associations between the provision of important screens can be discovered and ranked. Rules with promising combinations of associated screens could be used to implement data driven alerts.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

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

Primary care physicians’ perspectives on computer-based health risk assessment tools for chronic diseases: a mixed methods study

Background Health risk assessment tools compute an individual’s risk of developing a disease. Routine use of such tools by primary care physicians (PCPs) is potentially useful in chronic disease prevention. We sought physicians’ awareness and perceptions of the usefulness, usability and feasibility of performing assessments with computer-based risk assessment tools in primary care settings.Methods Focus groups and usability testing with a computer-based risk assessment tool were conducted with PCPs from both university-affiliated and community-based practices. Analysis was derived from grounded theory methodology.Results PCPs (n = 30) were aware of several risk assessment tools although only select tools were used routinely. The decision to use a tool depended on how use impacted practice workflow and whether the tool had credibility. Participants felt that embedding tools in the electronic medical records (EMRs) system might allow for health information from the medical record to auto-populate into the tool. User comprehension of risk could also be improved with computer-based interfaces that present risk in different formats.Conclusions In this study, PCPs chose to use certain tools more regularly because of usability and credibility. Despite there being differences in the particular tools a clinical practice used, there was general appreciation for the usefulness of tools for different clinical situations. Participants characterised particular features of an ideal tool, feeling strongly that embedding risk assessment tools in the EMR would maximise accessibility and use of the tool for chronic disease management. However, appropriate practice workflow integration and features that facilitate patient understanding at point-of-care are also essential.

Factors associated with the breast cancer diagnostic interval across five Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study

Introduction A long breast cancer diagnostic process can affect patient anxiety and survival. Variations in the length of the diagnostic interval for similar patient presentations can indicate health system inequities and/or inefficiencies. Objectives and Approach We describe the breast cancer diagnostic interval across Canada and factors associated with its length. We studied breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2004/7 to 2010/11/12 in the Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Using administrative data, we created parallel population-based, provincial-level datasets and ran common analyses. The diagnostic interval was defined from the screening mammogram to the diagnosis for screen-led and from the first referral/test ordering date to the diagnosis for diagnostic-led patients. Stratified by these two diagnostic routes, we describe the variation in the interval across provinces and report on the province-specific associations between the diagnostic interval and: patient age, comorbid disease burden, socioeconomic status combined with rural residence, and continuity of primary care while controlling for cancer stage. Results The median diagnostic interval varied by 6 days (29 to 35 days) across provinces. Screen-led patients were diagnosed more quickly (median 2-12 days quicker). The 90th percentile diagnostic interval was 84-126 days longer in diagnostic-led patients. In the diagnostic-led group, increasing comorbid burden was consistently associated with longer diagnostic intervals and being >70 was associated with a shorter interval at the 90th percentile in Manitoba and Ontario. There was no evidence of a clear rural or low socioeconomic status effect and patients without a primary care physician had shorter intervals. In the screen-led group, patients age 40-49 and those in the medium or low income rural areas waited longer for a diagnosis. Conclusion/Implications Diagnostic wait times differ across Canada and are variably associated with comorbidity, age, area-level socioeconomic status and rural residence. These results point to practice and system-level effects that warrant further study

Lessons Learned: It Takes a Village to Understand Inter-Sectoral Care Using Administrative Data across Jurisdictions

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group’s (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on ‘lessons learned’. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and include a list of ‘lessons learned’ and a study process checklist for future use

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences. DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate. RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer—either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes

Adherence to Breast Cancer Follow-up Care Guidelines for Vulnerable Populations in four Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study

Introduction Breast cancer survivors are at risk for late and ongoing problems including cancer recurrence and late effects of treatment. Vulnerable groups may not enjoy equitable access to quality follow-up care. This study examines utilization of guideline-based follow-up care among vulnerable subpopulations in four Canadian provinces. Objectives and Approach For vulnerable groups of breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 2007-2010 in British Columbia (BC), 2007-2011 in Manitoba (MB), 2007-2010 in Ontario (ON), and 2007-2012 in Nova Scotia (NS), alive at 30 months post-diagnosis and followed for five years from diagnosis, we undertook a retrospective population-based cohort study linking cancer registries, clinical and health administrative databases. We calculated adherence to recommended follow-up care for surveillance of recurrent and new cancer, late effects, and general preventive care, and examined variation among provinces. Vulnerable groups were defined as those diagnosed at older ages, with lower income status, and/or who resided in rural area. Results Survivor numbers were 23,700 (ON), 9493 (BC), 2688 (MB), and 2735 (NS). In Year 2, between 9.3% (BC) and 28.1% (ON) of survivors diagnosed aged 74+ years received annual breast cancer-related PCP or oncologist follow-up visits, a lower proportion than their younger-diagnosed counterparts; rates of surveillance breast imaging (between 34.2% (BC) and 68.6% (ON) in Year 2) were also lower than those diagnosed at younger ages. Those with incomes in the lowest 40\% did not have different rates of primary care physician and oncologist visits compared to the top 60%, nor did their utilization of surveillance imaging or imaging for metastatic disease differ. Guideline-adherent surveillance breast imaging was conducted on a higher proportion of urban than rural patients in all provinces. Conclusion/Implications While area-level incomes do not appear to appreciably affect follow-up care, older age and rural residence resulted in differential access to care. These results suggest that there are gaps in provision of follow-up care that potentially can be addressed through system and practice-level change

Adherence to Follow-up Care Guidelines for Breast Cancer Survivors in four Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study

Introduction Breast cancer survivors are at risk for late and ongoing problems including cancer recurrence and late effects of treatment. Lack of access to quality follow-up care may affect later mortality, morbidity, and quality of life. This study examines variation in utilization of guideline-based follow-up care separately for four Canadian provinces. Objectives and Approach For our retrospective population-based cohort study of breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 2007 to 2010 in British Columbia (BC), 2007-2011 in Manitoba (MB), 2007-2010 in Ontario (ON), and 2007-2012 in Nova Scotia (NS), we linked provincial cancer registries, clinical and health administrative databases, and followed cases alive at 30 months post-diagnosis to five years from diagnosis. For each province, we calculated percent adherence, overuse, and underuse of recommended follow-up care, including surveillance for recurrent and new cancer, surveillance for late effects, and general preventive care. We also examined variation among provinces and over time. Results Survivor numbers were 23,700 (ON), 9493 (BC), 2688 (MB), and 2735 (NS). Annual oncologist visit guideline compliance varied provincially (e.g. Year 2 ON=32.7%, BC=15.0%). For most provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had fewer oncologist visits than recommended.  However, survivors had additional annual breast cancer-related visits to a primary care provider.  Surveillance breast imaging guideline compliance was high (e.g. Year 2, ON=81.1%, MB=72.0%, NS=52.8%, BC =49.7%), with rates declining in ON and MB (to approximately 64%), but increasing in NS and BC (to approximately 58%) by Year 5. Overuse of breast imaging was identified in NS (9.1%-20.7% overuse in follow-up years 2-5).  As per the guideline, 72.9%-79.7% (Years 2-5) of BC survivors had no imaging for metastastic disease, highest among all provinces. Conclusion/Implications Provincial and temporal variations in guideline adherence were identified. Patterns differed by guideline, and both overuse and underuse were observed. These results point to opportunities to improve survivor care and efficiencies in care delivery. In particular, regular care with a primary care physician has been shown to improve follow-up care

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: Survey development and implementation

Objectives: This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses. Design and setting: Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions. Participants: Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases. Main outcomes: Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types. Conclusion: An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis