Primary healthcare provider experience of knowledge brokering interventions for mood management.

Background: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation strategy used in healthcare settings to facilitate the implementation of evidence into practice. How healthcare providers perceive and respond to various knowledge translation approaches is not well understood. This qualitative study used the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine healthcare providers' experiences with receiving one of two knowledge translation strategies: a remote knowledge broker (rKB); or monthly emails, for encouraging delivery of mood management interventions to patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 healthcare providers recruited from primary care teams. We used stratified purposeful sampling to recruit participants who were allocated to receive either the rKB, or a monthly email-based knowledge translation strategy as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Interviews were structured around domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore determinants influencing practice change. Data were coded into relevant domains. Results: Both knowledge translation strategies were considered helpful prompts to remind participants to deliver mood interventions to patients presenting depressive symptoms. Neither strategy appeared to have influenced the health care providers on the domains we probed. The domains pertaining to knowledge and professional identity were perceived as facilitators to implementation, while domains related to beliefs about consequences, emotion, and environmental context acted as barriers and/or facilitators to healthcare providers implementing mood management interventions. Conclusion: Both strategies served as reminders and reinforced providers' knowledge regarding the connection between smoking and depressed mood. The TDF can help researchers better understand the influence of specific knowledge translation strategies on healthcare provider behavior change, as well as potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-informed interventions. Environmental context should be considered to address challenges and facilitate the movement of knowledge into clinical practice.

The impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare system resource use and costs in two provinces in Canada: An interrupted time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to assess the initial impact of COVID-19 on total publicly-funded direct healthcare costs and health services use in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC). METHODS: This retrospective repeated cross-sectional study used population-based administrative datasets, linked within each province, from January 1, 2018 to December 27, 2020. Interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate changes in the level and trends of weekly resource use and costs, with March 16-22, 2020 as the first pandemic week. Also, in each week of 2020, we identified cases with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test and estimated their healthcare costs until death or December 27, 2020. RESULTS: The resources with the largest level declines (95% confidence interval) in use in the first pandemic week compared to the previous week were physician services [Ontario: -43% (-49%,-37%); BC: -24% (-30%,-19%) (both p<0.001)] and emergency department visits [Ontario: -41% (-47%,-35%); BC: -29% (-35%,-23%) (both p<0.001)]. Hospital admissions declined by 27% (-32%,-23%) in Ontario and 21% (-26%,-16%) in BC (both p<0.001). Resource use subsequently rose but did not return to pre-pandemic levels. Only home care and dialysis clinic visits did not significantly decrease compared to pre-pandemic. Costs for COVID-19 cases represented 1.3% and 0.7% of total direct healthcare costs in 2020 in Ontario and BC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced utilization of healthcare services in the overall population outweighed utilization by COVID-19 patients in 2020. Meeting the needs of all patients across all services is essential to maintain resilient healthcare systems.

Initial health care costs for COVID-19 in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada: an interprovincial population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 imposed substantial health and economic burdens. Comprehensive population-based estimates of health care costs for COVID-19 are essential for planning and policy evaluation. We estimated publicly funded health care costs in 2 Canadian provinces during the pandemic's first wave. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we linked patients with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result by June 30, 2020, in 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) to health care administrative databases and matched to negative or untested controls. We stratified patients by highest level of initial care: community, long-term care, hospital (without admission to the intensive care unit [ICU]) and ICU. Mean publicly funded health care costs for patients and controls, mean net (attributable to COVID-19) costs and total costs were estimated from 30 days before to 120 days after the index date, or to July 31, 2020, in 30-day periods for patients still being followed by the start of each period. RESULTS: We identified 2465 matched people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 in BC and 28 893 in Ontario. Mean age was 53.4 (standard deviation [SD] 21.8) years (BC) and 53.7 (SD 22.7) years (Ontario); 55.7% (BC) and 56.1% (Ontario) were female. Net costs in the first 30 days after the index date were $22 010 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19 512 to 24 509) and $15 750 (95% CI 15 354 to 16 147) for patients admitted to hospital, and $65 828 (95% CI 58 535 to 73 122) and $56 088 (95% CI 53 721 to 58 455) for ICU patients in BC and Ontario, respectively. In the community and long-term care settings, net costs were near 0. Total costs for all people, from 30 days before to 30 days after the index date, were $22 128 330 (BC) and $175 778 210 (Ontario). INTERPRETATION: During the first wave, we found that mean costs attributable to COVID-19 were highest for patients with ICU admission and higher in BC than Ontario. Reducing the number of people who acquire COVID-19 and severity of illness are required to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.

"Bring the Hoses to Where the Fire Is!": Differential Impacts of Marginalization and Socioeconomic Status on COVID-19 Case Counts and Healthcare Costs.

OBJECTIVES: Local health leaders and the Director General of the World Health Organization alike have observed that COVID-19 "does not discriminate." Nevertheless, the disproportionate representation of people of low socioeconomic status among those infected resembles discrimination. This population-based retrospective cohort study examined COVID-19 case counts and publicly funded healthcare costs in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on marginalization. METHODS: Individuals with their first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, were linked to administrative databases and matched to negative/untested controls. Mean net (COVID-19-attributable) costs were estimated for 30 days before and after diagnosis, and differences among strata of age, sex, comorbidity, and measures of marginalization were assessed using analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: We included 28 893 COVID-19 cases (mean age 54 years, 56% female). Most cases remained in the community (20 545, 71.1%) or in long-term care facilities (4478, 15.5%), whereas 944 (3.3%) and 2926 (10.1%) were hospitalized, with and without intensive care unit, respectively. Case counts were skewed across marginalization strata with 2 to 7 times more cases in neighborhoods with low income, high material deprivation, and highest ethnic concentration. Mean net costs after diagnosis were higher for males ($4752 vs $2520 for females) and for cases with higher comorbidity ($1394-$7751) (both P < .001) but were similar across levels of most marginalization dimensions (range $3232-$3737, all P ≥ .19). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that allocating resources unequally to marginalized individuals may improve equality in outcomes. It highlights the importance of reducing risk of COVID-19 infection among marginalized individuals to reduce overall costs and increase system capacity.

Research, Sovereignty and Action: Lessons from a First Nations-Led Study on Aging in Ontario.

First Nations in Ontario are building capacity to leverage health services data in Ontario to provide robust, First Nations-driven health evidence. Beyond providing evidence, population health research processes must involve diverse First Nations' perspectives, collective capacity building and translation of research findings into action through integrated and community engaged knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) approaches. Suggested ways include integrating stories and traditional knowledge, prioritizing gatherings and establishing an enduring commitment to action. To effectively support First Nations' self-determination and sovereignty, First Nations' principles of ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP®) in research could be expanded to include "action" (OCAPA).

High and Sustained Participation in a Multi-year Voluntary Performance Measurement Initiative Among Primary Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: The province of Ontario, Canada has made major investments in interdisciplinary primary care teams. There is interest in both demonstrating and improving the quality of care they provide. Challenges include lack of consensus on the definition of quality and evidence that the process of measuring quality can be counter-productive to actually achieving it. This study describes how primary care teams in Ontario voluntarily measured quality at the team level. METHODS: Data for this 4-year observational study came from electronic medical records (EMRs), patient surveys and administrative reports. Descriptive statistics were calculated for individual measures (eg, access, preventive interventions) and composite indicators of quality and healthcare system costs. Repeated measures identified patient and practice characteristics related to quality and cost outcomes. RESULTS: Teams participated in an average of 5 of 8 possible iterations of the reporting process. There was variation between teams. For example, cervical cancer screening rates ranged from 21 to 86% of eligible patients. Rural teams had significantly better performance on some indicators (eg, continuity) and worse on others (eg, cancer screening). There were some statistical but small changes in performance over time. CONCLUSION: High, sustained voluntary participation suggests that the initiative served a need for the primary care teams involved. The absence of robust data standards suggests that these standards were not crucial to achieve participation. The constant level of performance might mean that measurement has not yet led to improvement or that measures used might not accurately reflect improvement. The data reinforce the need to consider differences between rural and urban settings. They also suggest that further analysis is needed to identify characteristics that teams can change to improve the quality of care their patients experience. The study describes a practical, sustainable real-world approach to performance measurement in primary care that was attractive to interdisciplinary teams.

Conceptualizing success factors for patient engagement in patient medical homes: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is a priority for health care quality improvement and health system design, but many organizations struggle to engage patients meaningfully. We describe patient engagement activities and success factors that influence organizational decision-making in Ontario's patient medical homes. METHODS: From March to May 2018, we conducted an online survey focused on practice-level patient engagement that targeted primary care organization leaders at all Ontario family health teams, community health centres, nurse practitioner-led clinics and Aboriginal Health Access Centres. We asked questions from the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Engagement (MORE) and Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) questionnaires. We used factor and mediation analysis to identify organizational conditions and activities that are associated with the outcomes of patient engagement, affecting board decisions, program-level decisions and the formation of collaborative partnerships. RESULTS: We achieved a 53% response rate (n = 149/283); after removing missing data, our final sample size was 141 respondents. Most respondents perceived that their organization's patient engagement activities and resources were insufficient. Processes that had a direct effect on outcomes (ß = 0.7, p < 0.0001) included planning, training and supporting employees; identifying, recruiting and supporting relevant patients; and using leaders. Structures - including an organizational mission and vision for patient engagement, and policies, procedures, job positions, training programs and organizational culture that reflect that mission - indirectly affected outcomes, mediated by the aforementioned processes (ß = 0.7, p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Based on the perceptions of primary care leaders, organizational structures and processes are related to successful patient engagement. Organizations that seek to improve patient engagement should assess their commitment and follow-through with associated resources and activities.

The effectiveness of generic emails versus a remote knowledge broker to integrate mood management into a smoking cessation programme in team-based primary care: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that has been gaining popularity in Canada although the effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of generalised, exclusively email-based prompts versus a personalised remote knowledge broker for delivering evidence-based mood management interventions within an existing smoking cessation programme in primary care settings. METHODS: The study design is a cluster randomised controlled trial of 123 Ontario Family Health Teams participating in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients programme. They were randomly allocated 1:1 for healthcare providers to receive either: a remote knowledge broker offering tailored support via phone and email (group A), or a generalised monthly email focused on tobacco and depression treatment (group B), to encourage the implementation of an evidence-based mood management intervention to smokers presenting depressive symptoms. The primary outcome was participants' acceptance of a self-help mood management resource. The secondary outcome was smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, measured by self-report of smoking abstinence for at least 7 previous days. The tertiary outcome was the costs of delivering each intervention arm, which, together with the effectiveness outcomes, were used to undertake a cost minimisation analysis. RESULTS: Between February 2018 and January 2019, 7175 smokers were screened for depression and 2765 (39%) reported current/past depression. Among those who reported current/past depression, 29% (437/1486) and 27% (345/1277) of patients accepted the mood management resource in group A and group B, respectively. The adjusted generalised estimating equations showed that there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in patients' odds of accepting the mood management resource or in the patients' odds of smoking abstinence at follow-up. The cost minimisation analysis showed that the email strategy was the least costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants did not accept the resource regardless of remote knowledge broker strategy. In contexts with an existing KT infrastructure, decision-makers should consider an email strategy when making changes to a programme given its lower cost compared with other strategies. More research is required to improve remote knowledge broker strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03130998 . Registered April 18, 2017, (Archived on WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6ylyS6RTe ).

It starts with a strong foundation: constructing collaborative interprofessional teams in primary health care.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how team members experience and enact interprofessional teamwork in primary health care (PHC). Fifty-three participants (from eight teams), members of the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario (AFHTO), were interviewed; interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The data analyses used an iterative process with individual and team analysis. Findings revealed components that comprise the foundation and pillars of collaborative interprofessional teamwork in PHC. First, participants described a shared philosophsy of teamwork with six elements: values, vision, and mission; collaboration; communication; trust; respect and team members that 'fit.' Second, findings revealed three 'pillars.' The first pillar, leadership, included the elements of specific leadership attributes, such as leaders encouraging teamwork, mitigating conflict, and facilitating change. In the second pillar, participants described three elements of team building: formal and informal team building activities plus how these activities benefited both the team and patient care. The last pillar, optimizing scope of practice, included the elements of recognizing, appreciating, utilizing, and expanding team members' scope of practice. While each component and their concomitant elements can be enacted individually, collectively applying all elements produces collaborative interprofessional teamwork in primary health care.

Measuring the performance of interprofessional primary health care teams: understanding the teams perspective.

AIM: The aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers. BACKGROUND: Despite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models. METHODS: A qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question. FINDINGS: A total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Balancing patient priorities for technical and interactional aspects of care in a measure of primary care quality.

AIM: This study attempts to strike a balance to measure primary care quality in a way that considers what is important to patients, providers and the healthcare system, all at the same time. BACKGROUND: The interest in delivering patient-centered primary care implies a need for patient-centered performance measurement. However, the distinction between measures of patient experience and technical aspects of care raises an unanswerable question: if a provider has good performance on technical measures but not on patient experience measures (or vice versa), what can be said about the quality of care? METHODS: We surveyed patients to determine the relative priorities of each of a series of primary care measures in the patients' relationship with their primary care provider. The on-line survey was co-designed with patient co-investigators. The items consisted of 14 primary care quality measures used in pre-existing performance report, 41 additional indicators including a novel set of patient-generated Key Performance Indicators and 17 questions about patients' demographics, health and socioeconomic status as well as open-ended questions. FINDINGS: Despite challenges, the study suggests that this is feasible. We argue that it is necessary to get better at measuring and finding ever-better ways to put patients at the center of primary care.

Tailored Versus Generic Knowledge Brokering to Integrate Mood Management Into Smoking Cessation Interventions in Primary Care Settings: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both tobacco smoking and depression are major public health problems associated with high morbidity and mortality. In addition, individuals with depression are almost twice as likely to smoke and less likely to achieve smoking cessation. In the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program, an established smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada, 38% of smokers in primary care settings have current or past depression with 6-month quit rates that are significantly lower than those without depression (33% versus 40%, P<.001). Integrating self-help mood management (eg, relaxation exercises and mood monitoring) with smoking cessation treatment increases long-term quit rates by 12%-20%. However, integration in real-world settings has not been reported. It is unclear which knowledge translation strategy would be more effective for motivating clinicians to provide resources on mood management to eligible patients. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to investigate the following comparisons among depressed smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation program: 1) the effectiveness of generalized, exclusively email-based prompts versus a personalized knowledge broker in implementing mood management interventions; 2) the effectiveness of the two knowledge translation strategies on smoking quit rates; and 3) the incremental costs of the two knowledge translation strategies on the implementation of mood management interventions. METHODS: The study design is a cluster randomized controlled trial of Family Health Teams participating in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program. Family Health Teams will be randomly allocated 1:1 to receive either generalized messages (related to depression and smoking) exclusively via email (group A) or be assigned a knowledge broker who provides personalized support through phone- and email-based check-ins (group B). The primary outcome, measured at the site level, is the proportion of eligible baseline visits that result in the provision of the mood management intervention to eligible patients. RESULTS: Recruitment for the primary outcome of this study will be completed in 2018/2019. Results will be reported in 2019/2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study will address the knowledge gap in the implementation strategies (ie, email-based prompts versus a knowledge broker) of mood management interventions for smokers with depression in primary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130998; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130998 (Archived on WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6ylyS6RTe)