Attitudes and Opinions of Canadian Nephrologists Toward Continuous Quality Improvement Options.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Iskander C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5965948 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rationale & objectiveAlthough kidney biopsy is a useful tool, nephrologists' approach toward biopsies is inconsistent for reasons incompletely understood, including lack of established clinical guidelines. We examined contemporary clinical decision-making patterns among nephrologists to perform native kidney biopsy.Study designQualitative study using semistructured interviews.Setting & participantsPurposive sampling was used to select nephrologists from different regions in the United States. Semistructured interviews were continued until thematic saturation.Analytical approachA modified grounded theory was used to identify dominant themes reflecting the nephrologists' decision-making styles about kidney biopsy.ResultsTwenty nephrologists were interviewed: 16 (80%) were from academic centers, 3 (15%) performed their own biopsies, and 7 (35%) had been in practice for less than 10 years. The median time of practice was 14 years. We found substantial variability among the nephrologists in their attitude toward using kidney biopsy, which reflected individual differences in weighing the risks and benefits of the procedure for an individual patient. Five overarching themes were identified: operator comfort with biopsy and availability of interventional radiologist, exposure to biopsy during training and years of experience, concerns about the invasiveness of biopsy and inflicting harm, perception of evidence base and limited treatment options, and patient characteristics and preference.LimitationsGeneralizability was limited because the nephrologists sampled may not have been broadly representative.ConclusionsMultiple factors influence nephrologists' decision to pursue kidney biopsy, with substantial variability among nephrologists that can have meaningful clinical implications. This suggests the need to establish consensus guidelines to make biopsy practice more standardized.
| S-EPMC8664729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGenomic testing is becoming widely available as a diagnostic tool, although widespread implementation is not yet established in nephrology.MethodsAn anonymous electronic survey was administered to investigate experience and confidence with genomic tests, perceived clinical utility of genomic services, preferences for service delivery models, and readiness for implementation among nephrologists. Questions were guided by a comprehensive literature review and published tools, including a validated theoretical framework for implementation of genomic medicine: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsResponses were received from 224 clinicians, of which 172 were eligible for analysis. Most clinicians (132 [76%]) had referred at least one patient to a genetics clinic. Despite most clinicians (136 [85%]) indicating that they believed genetic testing would be useful, only 39 (23%) indicated they felt confident to use results of genomic testing, with pediatric clinicians feeling more confident compared with adult clinicians (12 of 20 [60%] vs. 27 of 149 [18%]), P < 0.01, Fisher exact). A multidisciplinary renal genetics clinic was the preferred model among clinicians surveyed (98 of 172 [57%]). A key implementation barrier highlighted related to the hospital or organizational culture and/or environment. Specific barriers noted in quantitative and qualitative responses included inadequate staffing, learning resources, and funding.ConclusionsOur findings suggest support for genomic testing among nephrologists, with a strong preference for a multidisciplinary model (involving a nephrologist, clinical geneticist, and genetic counselor). Broad-ranging interventions are urgently required to shift the current culture and ensure successful implementation of genomics in nephrology, including reducing knowledge gaps, increased funding and resources, disease-specific guidelines, and streamlining of testing processes.
| S-EPMC7879212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundJust as there is inconsistency with respect to coverage of genomic testing with insurance carriers, there is interprovincial discrepancy in Canada. Consequently, the option of private pay (e.g., self pay) arises, which can lead to inequities in access, particularly when patients may not be aware of this option. There are currently no published data regarding how the Canadian genetics community handles discussions of private pay options with patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of genetic healthcare professionals (GHPs: medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and genetic nurses) practicing in Canada toward these discussions.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to members of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors to assess frequencies, rationale, and ethical considerations regarding these conversations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 144 respondents, 95% reported discussing private pay and 65% reported working in a clinic without a policy on this issue. There were geographic and practice-specific differences. The most common circumstance for these discussions was when a test was clinically indicated (e.g., but funding was denied) followed by when the patient initiated the conversation. The most frequently discussed tests included: multi-gene panels (73% of respondents), noninvasive prenatal testing (62%), and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (58%). Although 65% felt it was ethical to discuss private pay, 35% indicated it was "sometimes" ethical.ConclusionWith the increasing availability of genomic technologies, these findings inform how we practice and demonstrate the need for policy in this area.
| S-EPMC6465662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists' current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices.MethodsA web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory.ResultsA total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments.ConclusionsThere is variability in medical oncologists' practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada's drug funding process.
| S-EPMC8628663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveContinuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are foundational approaches to improving healthcare delivery. Publications using the term CQI, however, are methodologically heterogeneous, and labels other than CQI are used to signify relevant approaches. Standards for identifying the use of CQI based on its key methodological features could enable more effective learning across quality improvement (QI) efforts. The objective was to identify essential methodological features for recognizing CQI.DesignPrevious work with a 12-member international expert panel identified reliably abstracted CQI methodological features. We tested which features met rigorous a priori standards as essential features of CQI using a three-phase online modified-Delphi process.SettingPrimarily United States and Canada.Participants119 QI experts randomly assigned into four on-line panels.InterventionParticipants rated CQI features and discussed their answers using online, anonymous and asynchronous discussion boards. We analyzed ratings quantitatively and discussion threads qualitatively. Main outcome measure(s) Panel consensus on definitional CQI features.Results/st> Seventy-nine (66%) panelists completed the process. Thirty-three completers self-identified as QI researchers, 18 as QI practitioners and 28 as both equally. The features 'systematic data guided activities,' 'designing with local conditions in mind' and 'iterative development and testing' met a priori standards as essential CQI features. Qualitative analyses showed cross-cutting themes focused on differences between QI and CQI.ConclusionsWe found consensus among a broad group of CQI researchers and practitioners on three features as essential for identifying QI work more specifically as 'CQI.' All three features are needed as a minimum standard for recognizing CQI methods.
| S-EPMC3914565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.
| S-EPMC10381377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of psychosocial issues affecting patients with kidney failure.ObjectiveWe sought to examine Canadian nephrologists' attitudes and opinions regarding the importance of renal patient psychosocial care, nephrologists' roles, and experience with psychosocial care in addition to what barriers, if any, prevent these physicians from providing psychosocial care to their patients.DesignA self-administered, survey questionnaire.SettingOnline.SampleCanadian Society of Nephrology members who predominantly work in clinical care with adult, in-center hemodialysis patients.MeasurementsMeasurements of the survey include demographics, training, and nephrologists' opinions regarding their role in administering psychosocial care, potential administrative and patient time constraints, accessibility of other health care workers for this activity, and factors that influence or impede physicians' ability to address their patients' psychosocial needs.MethodsA self-administered survey was sent to almost 500 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology between November 2018 and December 2018. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather opinions and attitudes on psychosocial care delivery as well as potential influencing factors on nephrologists' ability to provide this care. A univariate statistical analysis was used to analyze survey responses.ResultsA total of 30 nephrologists responded to the survey, generating a 6% response rate. Respondents varied across provinces, with the majority being staff nephrologists (80%). While over 94% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that focus on psychosocial care improves patient outcomes, only 43% felt that staff nephrologists were suited to provide this care to patients; 97% of respondents believed social workers to be the most suited to provide this. Lack of additional supporting health care members, the need for additional training, too many administrative duties, and empathy fatigue were some of the predominant barriers respondents felt prevented them from addressing the psychosocial care of their patients.LimitationsA low response rate for the survey was obtained, roughly 6%, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Survey answers by respondents may be different from those by nonrespondents. Answers may be subject to social desirability and/or selection bias.ConclusionNephrologists believe that the current psychosocial care of patients in hemodialysis units is inadequate. However, further research is necessary to elucidate the barriers nephrologists face in providing psychosocial care and the changes required to most effectively implement optimal psychosocial care for patients with kidney failure in hemodialysis units.
| S-EPMC8361505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers' attitudes toward vaccination have been widely described in the literature, but a restricted amount of studies assessed healthcare students' knowledge, attitudes, and opinions on this issue. This study aimed to estimate the influence of a degree course on knowledge and immunization behavior among healthcare students and to compare medical students with students from other health profession degree programs to identify possible differences.MethodsA multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed in 2018 in 14 Italian Universities (3,131 students were interviewed). A validated questionnaire was used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and opinions toward vaccinations, with a specific focus on influenza vaccine and attitudes toward mandatory vaccination policies. Statistical software STATA® 14 was used.ResultsSignificant differences were recorded between medical students and other healthcare students. The intention to get vaccinated against influenza during the next season and having been vaccinated in the previous season was higher in the medical group (p < 0.001). In the group of students of other health professions, we registered a lower probability of identifying themselves as a high-risk group for contracting infectious diseases as a consequence of their profession and health status (aOR 0.49; CI95%: 0.40-0.60) and an increased likelihood of defining their level of knowledge on vaccine-preventable diseases and related vaccinations as "insufficient/sufficient/fair" (aOR 1.31; CI95%: 1.11-1.56).ConclusionsResults show several differences between medical students and students of other health professions when it comes to vaccination knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions, as well as a general low tendency to be vaccinated against influenza.
| S-EPMC9346936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective This study aims to survey medical students interested in ophthalmology about how changes in electives and Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) due to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have affected their attitudes toward applying to ophthalmology residency. Design This is a cross-sectional survey. Participants A total of 32 Canadian medical students interested in ophthalmology responded to the survey. Methods A 32-question survey tool used was developed in consultation with medical students, academic ophthalmologists, and residency program directors. The survey was distributed through e-mail by local ophthalmology interest groups at all of Canada's medical schools. Results Respondents felt that changes in ability to travel for electives significantly decreased their likelihood of applying to ophthalmology residency. Additionally, respondents expressed concerns that lack of travel for electives and in-person CaRMS interviews significantly reduced their chances of successfully matching to ophthalmology. Respondents identified one-on-one video calls with program directors and residents as the initiatives that would best counteract the negative impacts from COVID-19. Increased presence of programs on social media were relatively less valued. Conclusion Canadian medical students interested in ophthalmology have concerns about how changes in electives and the CaRMS match due to COVID-19 will impact their ability to be fairly assessed and successfully match to ophthalmology. Lack of travel for electives and interviews has also resulted in students feeling ill equipped to make informed choices about program selection. However, there remains a sustained interest in ophthalmology among applicants.
| S-EPMC9928002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesRecent guidelines suggest that patients should be evaluated after AKI for resolution versus progression of CKD. There is uncertainty as to the role of nephrologists in this process. The objective of this study was to compare the follow-up recommendations from nephrologists with contemporary processes of care for varying scenarios of patients hospitalized with AKI.Design, setting participants, & measurementsWe surveyed Canadian nephrologists using a series of clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with severe AKI and asked them to rank their likelihood of recommending follow-up for each patient after hospital discharge. We compared these responses with administrative health data on rates of community follow-up with nephrologists for patients hospitalized with AKI in Alberta, Canada between 2005 and 2014.ResultsOne hundred forty-five nephrologists participated in the survey (46% of the physician membership of the Canadian Society of Nephrology). Nephrologists surveyed indicated that they would definitely or probably re-evaluate patients in 87% of the scenarios provided, with a higher likelihood of follow-up for patients with a history of preexisting CKD (89%), heart failure (92%), receipt of acute dialysis (91%), and less complete recovery of kidney function (98%). In contrast, only 24% of patients with similar characteristics were seen by a nephrologist in Alberta within 1 year after a hospitalization with AKI, with a trend toward lower rates of follow-up over more recent years of the study. Follow-up with a nephrologist was significantly less common among patients over the age of 80 years old (20%) and more common among patients with preexisting CKD (43%) or a nephrology consultation before or during AKI hospitalization (78% and 41%, respectively).ConclusionsThere is a substantial disparity between the opinions of nephrologists and actual processes of care for nephrology evaluation of patients after hospitalization with severe AKI.
| S-EPMC5672966 | biostudies-literature