ATRIAL FIBRILLATION IN RURAL AND NORTHERN CANADA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PRIMARY CARE PROVIDERS MANAGING ATRIAL FIBRILLATION AND ENACTING CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. Objective To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. Approach Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. Key Results Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Conclusions Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

Download Full-text

How to decide adequately? Qualitative study of GPs’ view on decision-making in self-referred and physician-referred emergency department consultations in Berlin, Germany

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026786 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. e026786 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Sarah Oslislo ◽

Christoph Heintze ◽

Martina Schmiedhofer ◽

Martin Möckel ◽

Liane Schenk ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Qualitative Study ◽

Qualitative Content Analysis ◽

Wide Spectrum ◽

Influencing Factor ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Ambulatory Setting ◽

Care Providers ◽

Registration Number

ObjectivesPatients with acute symptoms present not only to general practitioners (GPs), but also frequently to emergency departments (EDs). Patients’ decision processes leading up to an ED self-referral are complex and supposed to result from a multitude of determinants. While they are key providers in primary care, little is known about GPs’ perception of such patients. This qualitative study explores the GPs’ view regarding motives and competences of patients self-referring to EDs, and also GPs’ rationale for or against physician-initiated ED referrals.DesignQualitative study with semi-structured, face-to-face interviews; qualitative content analysis.SettingGP practices in Berlin, Germany.Participants15 GPs (female/male: 9/6; mean age 53.6 years).ResultsThe interviewed GPs related a wide spectrum of factors potentially influencing their patients’ decision to visit an ED, and also their own decision-making in potential referrals. Considerations go beyond medical urgency. Statements concerning patients’ surmised rationale corresponded to GPs’ reasoning in a variety of important areas. For one thing, the timely availability of an extended spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic options may make ED services attractive to both. Access difficulties in the ambulatory setting were mentioned as additional triggers for an ED visit initiated by a patient or a GP. Key patient factors like severity of symptoms and anxiety also play a major role; a desire for reassurance may lead to both self-referred and physician-initiated ED visits. Patients’ health competence was prevailingly depicted as limited, with the internet as an important influencing factor. Counselling efforts by GP were described as crucial for improving health literacy.ConclusionsHealth education could hold promise when aiming to reduce non-urgent ED consultations. Primary care providers are in a key position here. Amelioration of organisational shortages in ambulatory care, for example, limited consultation hours, might also make an important impact, as these trigger both self-referrals and GP-initiated ED referrals.Trial registration numberDRKS00011930.

Download Full-text

Driving action through data: Delivering online cancer screening reports to primary care providers.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.32.30_suppl.174 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽

pp. 174-174

Author(s):

Nicki Cunningham ◽

Shama Umar ◽

Dafna Carr ◽

Richard Smith ◽

Patrick Flynn

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Clinical Guidelines ◽

Management System ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Providers ◽

Access Management ◽

Screening Programs ◽

Screening Activity

174 Background: The Screening Activity Report (SAR), a supplementary tool for primary care providers (PCPs), was released in April, 2014. Providers are able to access this comprehensive report securely via an online solution and view the screening activity of their patients across Cancer Care Ontario (CCO)’s three organized cancer screening programs; breast, cervical and colorectal. The objectives of the SAR are to improve the quality of cancer screening by increasing provincial screening rates, improving the rate of appropriate follow-up of abnormal results and promote the alignment of cancer screening practices with CCO’s evidence-based clinical guidelines. Methods: CCO partnered with eHealth Ontario in 2012 to leverage their identity and access management system to provide safe and secure online access to the report. Since this time, CCO has implemented a multi-faceted campaign to support registrations to the system, encourage report access, and gather feedback on how to improve the report for future iterations. Using a detailed methodology developed by a wide range of subject matter experts at CCO, the SAR employs numerous provincial data sources to provide an overview of the patient rosters. Actionable categories are assigned at the patient level using a unique algorithm based on the latest clinical guidelines. Results: Previous to April 2014, the SAR was referred to as the ColonCancerCheck SAR (CCC SAR) as it included colorectal cancer screening data only. The last release of the CCC SAR was in October, 2013. At this time 4,824 providers were registered to the identity and access management system and adoption of this report had reached 31% after being available for five months to providers. To date, 4,992 providers are now registered and adoption of the April SAR has already reached 27% after being available for almost two months. Conclusions: The SAR is the first tool of its kind to make widespread use of eHealth’s identity and access management system service and target a broad user base of PCPs. The successful launch of the SAR has provided key insights into how technology can be leveraged to share provincial data in a meaningful way with providers and support them in improving the quality of cancer screening.

Download Full-text