Dataset Information

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

ABSTRACT: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.A clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.The tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.The integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.The registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 .

SUBMITTER: Manca DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4523915 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

Manca Donna Patricia DP Campbell-Scherer Denise D Aubrey-Bassler Kris K Kandola Kami K Aguilar Carolina C Baxter Julia J Meaney Christopher C Salvalaggio Ginetta G Carroll June C JC Faria Vee V Nykiforuk Candace C Grunfeld Eva E

Implementation science : IS 20150804

<h4>Background</h4>The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associa ...[more]

PMID: 26238338

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95% CI: $16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner.

Project description:ObjectiveFree online tools show potential for promoting weight loss at a low cost, but there is limited evidence about how to effectively engage patients with them. To address this, a low-dose, flexible intervention was developed that aims to enhance weight-related discussions with primary care providers (PCPs) and engage patients with an organic (i.e., not researcher-created) weight loss-focused social media community and online self-monitoring tool. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was evaluated in a single-arm, 12-week pilot.MethodsPCPs were recruited at two clinics, then PCP's patients with upcoming appointments were identified and recruited. Patients received an interactive online kickoff before their scheduled primary care appointment, then 8 follow-up messages over 12 weeks via email or their electronic health record patient portal. Patients completed assessments at baseline, post-appointment, and week 12. Primary care providers and patients completed semi-structured interviews.ResultsAll PCPs approached enrolled (n = 6); patient recruitment was on track to meet the study goal prior to COVID-19 restrictions, and n = 27 patients enrolled. Patient satisfaction with the pre-appointment kickoff was high. Twenty-four patients reported discussing weight-related topics at their primary care appointment and all were satisfied with the discussion. Twenty-two patients completed 12-week assessments. Of these, 15 reported engaging with the self-monitoring tool and 9 with the social media community. Patient interviews revealed reasons for low social media community engagement, including perceived lack of fit. On average, patients with available data (n = 21) lost 2.4 ± 4.1% of baseline weight, and 28.6% of these patients lost ≥3% of baseline weight. Primary care providers reported high intervention satisfaction.ConclusionsThe intervention and trial design show potential, although additional strategies are needed to promote tool engagement.

Project description:BackgroundThe successful implementation of interventions targeted to improve kidney health requires early identification of CKD which involves screening at-risk populations as well as recognizing CKD. We aim to determine CKD screening and recognition rates, factors associated with these rates, and evaluate the effect of CKD awareness on delivery of care.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of veterans enrolled with Veterans Integrated Service Network 17 who had hypertension (HTN) and/or diabetes (DM) and were seen at least twice in primary care clinics within 18 months. The final cohort of 270,170 patients (52% HTN, 5% DM, and 44% both) was examined for serum creatinine/eGFR, urine protein/albumin, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for CKD, and nephrology referral. CKD was defined as eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and/or urine albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR) >30 mg/g at least twice 90 days apart. Clinical covariates, HTN control, and prescription rates of renal prudent medications and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were assessed.ResultsOverall, 254,831 (94%) patients had either eGFR, urine protein/albumin, or both. However, screening for protein/albuminuria was low (56%), particularly in patients with isolated HTN (35%). Of 254,831 patients, 92,900 (36%) had laboratory evidence of CKD and, of these, 40,586 (44%) were recognized to have CKD by ICD code and/or nephrology referral. CKD due to presence of uACR criteria alone had the lowest recognition (19%) as compared with CKD due to eGFR criteria (44%) or both (67%). Frequency of emergency room visits, hospitalization, and cardiac and endovascular procedures requiring contrast had the highest odds and races other than white had the lower odds of screening. In contrast, CKD recognition was high in races other than white and increased with worsening eGFR and increasing uACR. In screened and recognized CKD, prescription was higher for angiotensin inhibitors, statins, and diuretics, and was lower for NSAIDs.ConclusionsAlthough overall CKD screening rate was high, screening of protein/albuminuria in isolated HTN and overall recognition of CKD was low in at-risk veterans. Increased recognition was associated with a favorable prescription rate for renal prudent medications.

Project description:The increasing number of patients with chronic diseases represents a challenge for health care systems. The Chronic Care Model suggests a multi-component remodelling of chronic disease services to improve patient outcomes. To meet the complex and ongoing needs of patients, chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) has been advocated as a key feature of primary care producing better outcomes, greater effectiveness and improved access to services compared to other sectors. The objective of this study is to evaluate the adaptation and implementation of an intervention involving the integration of chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) services into primary health care.The implementation of the intervention will be evaluated using descriptive qualitative methods to collect data from various stakeholders (decision-makers, primary care professionals, CDPM professionals and patients) before, during and after the implementation. The evaluation of the effects will be based on a combination of experimental designs: a randomized trial using a delayed intervention arm (n = 326), a before-and-after design with repeated measures (n = 163), and a quasi-experimental design using a comparative cohort (n = 326). This evaluation will utilize self-report questionnaires measuring self-efficacy, empowerment, comorbidity, health behaviour, functional health status, quality of life, psychological well-being, patient characteristics and co-interventions. The study will take place in eight primary care practices of the Saguenay region of Quebec (Canada). To be included, patients will have to be referred by their primary care provider and present at least one of the following conditions (or their risk factors): diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma. Patients presenting serious cognitive problems will be excluded.In the short-term, improved patient self-efficacy and empowerment are expected. In the mid-term, we expect to observe an improvement in health behaviour, functional health status, quality of life and psychological well-being. At the organizational level, the project should lead to coordinated service delivery, improved patient follow-up mechanisms and enhanced interprofessional collaboration. Integration of CDPM services at the point of care in primary care practices is a promising innovation in care delivery that needs to be thoroughly evaluated.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01319656.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Seven chronic disease prevention and management programs were implemented across Quebec with funding support from a provincial-private industry funding initiative. Given the complexity of implementing integrated primary care chronic disease management programs, a knowledge transfer meeting was held to share experiences across programs and synthesize common challenges and success factors for implementation. METHODS:The knowledge translation meeting was held in February 2014 in Montreal, Canada. Seventy-five participants consisting of 15 clinicians, 14 researchers, 31 knowledge users, and 15 representatives from the funding agencies were broken up into groups of 10 or 11 and conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on either the implementation or the evaluation of these chronic disease management programs. Results were reported back to the larger group during a plenary and recorded. Audiotapes were transcribed and summarized using pragmatic thematic analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:Strengths to leverage for the implementation of the seven programs include: (1) synergy between clinical and research teams; (2) stakeholders working together; (3) motivation of clinicians; and (4) the fact that the programs are evidence-based. Weaknesses to address include: (1) insufficient resources; (2) organizational change within the clinical sites; (3) lack of referrals from primary care physicians; and (4) lack of access to programs. Strengths to leverage for the evaluation of these programs include: (1) engagement of stakeholders and (2) sharing of knowledge between clinical sites. Weaknesses to address include: (1) lack of referrals; (2) difficulties with data collection; and (3) difficulties in identifying indicators and control groups. Opportunities for both themes include: (1) fostering new and existing partnerships and stakeholder relations; (2) seizing funding opportunities; (3) knowledge transfer; (4) supporting the transformation of professional roles; (5) expand the use of health information technology; and (6) conduct cost evaluations. Fifteen recommendations related to mobilisation of primary care physicians, support for the transformation of professional roles, and strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation and evaluation of chronic disease management programs were formulated based on the discussions at this knowledge translation event. CONCLUSION:The results from this knowledge translation day will help inform the sustainability of these seven chronic disease management programs in Quebec and the implementation and evaluation of similar programs elsewhere.

Dataset Information

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

Publications

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets