Clinical Outcomes of Indigenous Versus Non-Indigenous Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in the Province of Quebec.

INTRODUCTION: Canadian Indigenous populations have a high incidence of poisoning; it has been suggested that care provided to the population living in remote areas is suboptimal. Our study aims to compare the continuum of care of poisoned people in Indigenous communities with those in non-Indigenous communities located in rural regions in the province of Québec. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using data from the Center Antipoison du Québec (CAPQ) over a 2-year period (2016-2017). We evaluated the care trajectory of Indigenous patients suffering of poisoning as compared to non-Indigenous patients living in rural areas. Our primary outcome was the duration of CAPQ involvement in case management. Our secondary outcome was the symptoms severity at the end of case management. RESULTS: Among 491 identified poisoned patients (238 Indigenous/253 non-Indigenous), the duration of CAPQ involvement in case management was 9.4 h [2.9-21.3] for Indigenous patients versus 5.5 h [0.1-14.4] for non-Indigenous patients. No statistically significant difference was found between groups (geometric means ratio (GMR) adjusted = 1.08; [0.84; 1.38]). Results were consistent by age and sex groups. Most patients, in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, showed mild to moderate symptoms at follow-up (59% vs 54%). One death was registered in each group. The CAPQ received a limited number of calls from the non-conventioned First Nations during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe differences on the duration in case management. Perceptions of suboptimal care provided to rural Indigenous population are likely to be related to geographical remoteness rather than ethnicity. Further research is needed to better identify potential factors involved in the continuity of care provided in emergency situations. Another study will be carried out to describe the Indigenous realities and to better understand the results of this study.

Effect of Taste Additives on the Palatability of Activated Charcoal: a Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Activated charcoal is a decontaminating agent used for acute intoxication. It can be mixed with taste additives to overcome its poor palatability. Our purpose was to evaluate the taste additives used to improve activated charcoal's palatability. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies on taste additives used to improve activated charcoal's palatability. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL. We included controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate the effect of at least one taste additive, compared with activated charcoal alone. Our primary outcome was palatability. Our secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, adsorption efficacy, and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. RESULTS: Among 38 eligible articles, seven observational studies and three crossover clinical trials met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was found to be high for seven studies and intermediate for three others. The preferred flavoring agents were cola and chocolate milk for children, and sweetening agents for adults. All taste additives studied seemed to improve activated charcoal's palatability, except for yogurt (n = 1). The addition of bentonite, sorbitol, carboxymethylcellulose, or yogurt showed no impact on the in-vivo adsorption capacity of activated charcoal, whereas the results were inconclusive for chocolate. No meta-analysis was performed due to insufficient data. CONCLUSION: Strategies to improve activated charcoal's palatability seem to enhance the taste. Descriptive data are in favor of a limited impact on activated charcoal's adsorption capacity when adding binding agents or sweeteners. TRIAL REGISTRATION ON PROSPERO: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019135092.

Implementation Strategies for Knowledge Products in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in health care, and primary care is no exception. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (SR) of SRs using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SRs. The inclusion criteria were any primary care contexts, health care professionals and patients, any Effective Practice and Organization of Care implementation strategies of specified knowledge products, any comparators, and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019 without any restrictions. We searched the references of the included SRs. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Data extraction was informed by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results by using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 (0.73%) SRs were included. Of these 81, a total of 47 (58%) SRs involved health care professionals alone. Moreover, 15 SRs had a high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed 1 type of knowledge product (56/81, 69%), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56, 46%) or management, and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions (24/56, 43%). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81, 83%), predominantly education-based (meetings in 60/81, 74%; materials distribution in 59/81, 73%; and academic detailing in 45/81, 56%), reminder (53/81, 36%), and audit and feedback (40/81, 49%) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seemed to be used more when the population was composed of health care professionals alone. Improvements in the adoption of knowledge products were the most commonly measured outcome (72/81, 89%). The evidence level was reported in 12% (10/81) of SRs on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvements in adoption), of which 16 (26%) outcomes were of moderate or high level. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products and are implemented through the mixed use of educational, reminder, and audit and feedback strategies. There is a need for a strong methodology for the SR of randomized controlled trials to explore their effectiveness and the entire cascade of implementation outcomes.

Acute health care among Indigenous patients in Canada: a scoping review.

A recent report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada demonstrates the inferior health status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada when compared to non-Indigenous populations. This scoping review maps out the available literature concerning acute health care for Indigenous Peoples in Canada in order to better understand the health care issues they face. All existing articles concerning health care provided to Indigenous Peoples in Canada in acute settings were included in this review. The targeted studied outcomes were access to care, health care satisfaction, hospital visit rates, mortality, quality of care, length of stay and cost per hospitalisation. 114 articles were identified. The most studied outcomes were hospitalisation rates (58.8%), length of stay (28.0%), mortality (25.4%) and quality of care (24.6%) Frequently studied topics included pulmonary disease, injuries, cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Indigenous Peoples presented lower levels of satisfaction and access to care although they tend to be over-represented in hospitalisation rates for acute care. Greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the health care system and in the training of health care providers is necessary to ensure a better quality of care that is culturally safe for Indigenous Peoples.

Effects of the scope of practice on family physicians: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine is a branch of medicine that manages common and long-term illnesses in children and adults. Family physicians in particular play a major role and their scope of practice is expected to impact patient and population. However, little is known about its impact on physicians. We aimed to assess the effects of scope of practice on family physician outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review that we reported using PRISMA guidelines. For the inclusion criteria, any study exploring an association between the scope of practice and physician outcomes was considered. Three bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and ERIC were consulted through OVID interface from their respective inceptions to November, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of studies using appropriate tools. We conducted data synthesis using a narrative form. GRADE was used for evaluating quality of cumulative evidence. RESULTS: In total, we included 12 studies with 38,732 participants from 6927 citations identified. Eleven of them were cross-sectional, and one was a cohort study with acceptable methodological quality. We found that: 1) family physicians with diverse clinical and nonclinical activities significantly improve their job satisfaction (p<0.05); 2) family physicians with a variety of clinical practices significantly improve their competences and health status (p<0.05); 3) family physicians who perform clinical procedures (mainly extended to gynecological procedures) significantly improve their psychosocial outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) (p<0.05); and 4) some associations are not statistically significant (e.g., relation between variety of practice settings and outcomes). We observed that the evidence available has a very low level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the scope of practice may be favorably associated with some family physician outcomes but with a very low level of evidence available. Based on these findings, healthcare system managers could monitor the scope of practice among family physicians and encourage future research in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Our protocol was registered under the number CRD42019121990 in PROSPERO.

Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: protocol for a series of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. METHODS: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2-any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3-any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible. DISCUSSION: Our results could inform not only the overviews' methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/.