Strategies used in managing conversations about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among family physicians (FPs): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Screening for prostate cancer in healthy asymptomatic men using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is controversial due to conflicting recommendations from and a lack of strong evidence regarding the benefit of population-based screening. In Canada and internationally, there is variability in how family physicians (FPs) approach PSA testing in asymptomatic men. The purpose of our study was to explore how family FPs approach discussions with their male patients around PSA testing in Manitoba, Canada. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: High-ordering and median-ordering FPs were invited to participate in an interview. In addition to exploring practice behaviours around PSA testing, participants were asked to elaborate on their typical discussion with asymptomatic men who request a PSA test or other tests and procedures that they do not feel are clinically warranted. Data were analysed inductively using a constant-comparison approach. RESULTS: There were important variations between high-ordering and median-ordering FP's approaches to discussing PSA testing. Strategies to facilitate conversations were more frequently identified by median-ordering physicians and often included methods to facilitate assessing their patient's understanding and values. In addition to decision aids, median-ordering FPs used motivational interviewing to tailor a discussion, organised their practice structure and workflow habits in a way that enhanced patient-provider discussions and leveraged 'new' evidence and other aids to guide conversations with men. CONCLUSION: We found that high-ordering FPs tended to use the PSA test for screening asymptomatic men with limited shared decision-making. Median-ordering FPs used conversational strategies that emphasised uncertainty of benefit and potential risk and did not present the test as a recommendation.

Impact of employing primary healthcare professionals in emergency department triage on patient flow outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool. RESULTS: From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre-post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020148053.

Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department overcrowding: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. METHODS: We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). RESULTS: From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either 'within ED' (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or 'outside ED' interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The 'within ED' and 'outside ED' interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.