Assessing the implementation of a clinical decision support tool in primary care for diabetes prevention: a qualitative interview study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science

Background In this paper we describe the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to study implementation of a web-based, point-of-care, EHR-linked clinical decision support (CDS) tool designed to identify and provide care recommendations for adults with prediabetes (Pre-D CDS). Methods As part of a large NIH-funded clinic-randomized trial, we identified a convenience sample of interview participants from 22 primary care clinics in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin that were randomly allocated to receive or not receive a web-based EHR-integrated prediabetes CDS intervention. Participants included 11 clinicians, 6 rooming staff, and 7 nurse or clinic managers recruited by study staff to participate in telephone interviews conducted by an expert in qualitative methods. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data analysis was conducted using a constructivist version of grounded theory. Results Implementing a prediabetes CDS tool into primary care clinics was useful and well received. The intervention was integrated with clinic workflows, supported primary care clinicians in clearly communicating prediabetes risk and management options with patients, and in identifying actionable care opportunities. The main barriers to CDS use were time and competing priorities. Finally, while the implementation process worked well, opportunities remain in engaging the care team more broadly in CDS use. Conclusions The use of CDS tools for engaging patients and providers in care improvement opportunities for prediabetes is a promising and potentially effective strategy in primary care settings. A workflow that incorporates the whole care team in the use of such tools may optimize the implementation of CDS tools like these in primary care settings. Trial registration Name of the registry: Clinicaltrial.gov. Trial registration number: NCT02759055. Date of registration: 05/03/2016. URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02759055 Prospectively registered.

The Effects of Heatwaves on Human Morbidity in Primary Care Settings: A Case-Crossover Study

Purpose: This study assesses the potential acute effects of heatwaves on human morbidities in primary care settings. Methods: We performed a time-stratified case-crossover study to assess the acute effects of heatwaves on selected morbidities in primary care settings in Flanders, Belgium, between 2000 and 2015. We used conditional logistic regression models. We assessed the effect of heatwaves on the day of the event (lag 0) and X days earlier (lags 1 to X). The associations are presented as Incidence Density Ratios (IDR). Results: We included 22,344 events. Heatwaves are associated with increased heat-related morbidities such as heat stroke IDR 3.93 [2.94–5.26] at lag 0, dehydration IDR 3.93 [2.94–5.26] at lag 1, and orthostatic hypotension IDR 2.06 [1.37–3.10] at lag 1. For cardiovascular morbidities studied, there was only an increased risk of stroke at lag 3 IDR 1.45 [1.04–2.03]. There is no significant association with myocardial ischemia/infarction or arrhythmia. Heatwaves are associated with decreased respiratory infection risk. The IDR for upper respiratory infections is 0.82 [0.78–0.87] lag 1 and lower respiratory infections (LRI) is 0.82 [0.74–0.91] at lag 1. There was no significant effect modification by age or premorbid chronic disease (diabetes, hypertesnsion). Conclusion: Heatwaves are associated with increased heat-related morbidities and decreased respiratory infection risk. The study of heatwaves’ effects in primary care settings helps evaluate the impact of heatwaves on the general population. Primary care settings might be not suitable to study acute life-threatening morbidities.

Changing antibiotic prescribing practices in outpatient primary care settings in China: Study protocol for a health information system-based cluster-randomised crossover controlled trial

Background The overuse and abuse of antibiotics is a major risk factor for antibiotic resistance in primary care settings of China. In this study, the effectiveness of an automatically-presented, privacy-protecting, computer information technology (IT)-based antibiotic feedback intervention will be evaluated to determine whether it can reduce antibiotic prescribing rates and unreasonable prescribing behaviours. Methods We will pilot and develop a cluster-randomised, open controlled, crossover, superiority trial. A total of 320 outpatient physicians in 6 counties of Guizhou province who met the standard will be randomly divided into intervention group and control group with a primary care hospital being the unit of cluster allocation. In the intervention group, the three components of the feedback intervention included: 1. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based real-time warnings of improper antibiotic use; 2. Pop-up windows of antibiotic prescription rate ranking; 3. Distribution of educational manuals. In the control group, no form of intervention will be provided. The trial will last for 6 months and will be divided into two phases of three months each. The two groups will crossover after 3 months. The primary outcome is the 10-day antibiotic prescription rate of physicians. The secondary outcome is the rational use of antibiotic prescriptions. The acceptability and feasibility of this feedback intervention study will be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods. Discussion This study will overcome limitations of our previous study, which only focused on reducing antibiotic prescription rates. AI techniques and an educational intervention will be used in this study to effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates and antibiotic irregularities. This study will also provide new ideas and approaches for further research in this area. Trial registration ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN13817256. Registered on 11 January 2020.

Clinical evaluation and red flags of acute low back pain in primary care

Back pain has been reported as a common cause for various patients to present in an emergency or primary care settings. Besides, the management of back pain has been associated with a huge economic burden and remarkably impacts the quality of life of the affected patients. The diagnosis of acute low-back pain can be adequately achieved by conducting proper clinical evaluation and knowing the characteristics of each condition. The present review discusses the clinical evaluation and red flags for diagnosing patients presenting with acute low-back pain. An adequate examination of patients is conducted by obtaining a thorough history and successful physical examination. It should be noted that obtaining an adequate history might not be enough in some cases, and physical examination might not show any diagnostic clues. However, we also reported various red flags for detecting serious conditions, including malignancy, infections, inflammation, and others. These might help establish a further assessment of these patients, including imaging and laboratory studies. Therefore, these cases should be managed as early as possible to enhance the prognosis and intervene against any potential complications.

Understandings of depression among community members and primary healthcare attendees in rural Ethiopia: A qualitative study

Available evidence in Africa suggests that the prevalence of depression in primary care settings is high but it often goes unrecognized. In this study, we explored how depression is conceptualized and communicated among community members and primary care attendees diagnosed with depression in rural Ethiopia with the view to informing the development of interventions to improve detection. We conducted individual interviews with purposively selected primary care attendees with depression (n = 28; 16 females and 12 males) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with males, females, and priests (n = 21) selected based on their knowledge of their community. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. None of the community members identified depression as a mental illness. They considered depressive symptoms presented in a vignette as part of a normal reaction to the stresses of life. They considered medical intervention only when the woman's condition in the vignette deteriorated and “affected her mind.” In contrast, participants with depression talked about their condition as illness. Symptoms spontaneously reported by these participants only partially matched symptoms listed in the current diagnostic criteria for depressive disorders. In all participants’ accounts, spiritual explanations and traditional healing were prominent. The severity of symptoms mediates the decision to seek medical help. Improved detection may require an understanding of local conceptualizations in order to negotiate an intervention that is acceptable to affected people.

Clinical and Organizational Impacts of Medical Ordering Settings on Patient Pathway and Community Pharmacy Dispensing Process: The Prospective ORDHOSPIVILLE Study

During the dispensing process of medical orders (MOs), community pharmacists (CPs) can manage drug-related problems (DRPs) by performing pharmacist interventions (PIs). There is little evidence that the PI rate is higher with MOs from hospitals (MOHs) than ambulatory (MOAs) settings, and their impact on the patient and community pharmacy is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to compare the MOH and MOA PI rates. The secondary objective was to describe PIs and their clinical and organizational impacts on patient and community pharmacy workflow. A total of 120 CPs participated in a prospective study. Each CP included 10 MOH and 10 MOA between January and June 2020. DRP and PI description and clinical and organizational impacts between MOH and MOA were assessed and compared. We analyzed 2325 MOs. PIs were significantly more frequent in MOH than in MOA (9.7% versus 4.7%; p < 0.001). The most reported PI was the difficulty of contacting hospital prescribers (n = 45; 52.2%). MOHs were associated with a longer dispensing process time and a greater impact on patient pathway and community pharmacy workflow than MOAs. Lack of communication between hospital and primary care settings partly explains the results. Implementation of clinical pharmacy activities at patient discharge could alleviate these impacts.