Dataset Information

Primary health care services for patients with chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador: a descriptive analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Newfoundland and Labrador has a rapidly aging population, much of which is rural, with poor health behaviours and high rates of chronic disease. These factors contribute to a unique challenge in health care delivery. Our aim was to describe the availability of publicly funded primary health care programs and services delivered by regional health authorities across the province. METHODS:We performed a descriptive analysis using data from a cross-sectional provincial primary health care survey deployed across Newfoundland and Labrador. Survey data included location, disease-specific chronic disease prevention programming, types of routine primary care, allied health prevention and promotion, chronic disease prevention and management services, and team-based care. The mode of service delivery was identified for most programs and services. RESULTS:Surveys were returned by 153 sites (99.4% response rate). Family physician services were available at 66% of sites (95/145) and nurse practitioner services were available at 51% (74/144) of sites. Many sites offered screening for cervical (60%, 86/144), colon (42%, 59/142) and prostate cancers (43%, 60/141), in addition to various self-management and education services. Allied health services, such as clinical nutrition counselling (47%, 68/46) and occupational therapy (46%, 68/147), were available at many sites. Available health care services were most often offered by on-site staff, and few sites provided primary health care services through telehealth. Overall, rural sites offered a greater variety of services than urban sites. INTERPRETATION:Considerable variability exists in the range of primary health care services available across Newfoundland and Labrador, with limited delivery of some programs and services. Future research should examine how availability of programs and services affects health outcomes and costs.

SUBMITTER: Buote R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6336483 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary health care services for patients with chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador: a descriptive analysis.

Buote Richard R Asghari Shabnam S Aubrey-Bassler Kris K Knight John C JC Lukewich Julia J

CMAJ open 20190115 1

<h4>Background</h4>Newfoundland and Labrador has a rapidly aging population, much of which is rural, with poor health behaviours and high rates of chronic disease. These factors contribute to a unique challenge in health care delivery. Our aim was to describe the availability of publicly funded primary health care programs and services delivered by regional health authorities across the province.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a descriptive analysis using data from a cross-sectional provincial prim ...[more]

PMID: 30647075

Similar Datasets

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:Efforts to engage patients as partners in health research have grown and thereby the need for feedback and evaluation. In this pilot evaluation study, we aimed to 1) evaluate patient engagement in health research projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and 2) learn more about how to best monitor and evaluate patient engagement. This paper presents the results of our participatory evaluation study and the lessons learned. The evaluation of the projects was driven by questions patients wanted answered. Methods:We conducted a formative evaluation of patient engagement in health research projects. Projects spanned a variety of topics, target groups, research designs and methods of patient engagement. Participants included principal investigators (n =?6) and their patient partners (n =?14). Furthermore, graduate students (n =?13) working on their own research projects participated. Participants completed an online survey with closed and open-ended questions about their patient engagement efforts, experiences and preliminary outcomes. Patients were involved as co-investigators in the entire evaluation study. We used qualitative methods to evaluate our participatory process. Results:The evaluation study results show that most patients and researchers felt prepared and worked together in various phases of the research process. Both groups felt that the insights and comments of patients influenced research decisions. They believed that patient engagement improved the quality and uptake of research. Students felt less prepared and were less satisfied with their patient engagement experience compared to researchers and their patient partners. Involvement of patient co-investigators in this evaluation resulted in learnings, transparency, validation of findings and increased applicability. Challenges were to select evaluation questions relevant to all stakeholders and to adapt evaluation tools to local needs. Conclusions:Our findings show that researchers, patient partners and students value patient engagement in health research. Capacity building at the supervisor level in academic institutions is needed to better support students. Sufficient time is also needed to permit observable outcomes. Participatory evaluation may increase the relevance and usefulness of information, but it also raises issues such as who defines and designs the content of evaluation tools. A co-creation process is required to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation strategies.

Project description:Despite the rising burden of noncommunicable diseases, access to quality decentralized noncommunicable disease services remain limited in many low- and middle-income countries. Here we describe the strategies we employed to drive the process from adaptation to national endorsement and implementation of the 2016 Botswana primary healthcare guidelines for adults. The strategies included detailed multilevel assessment with broad stakeholder inputs and in-depth analysis of local data; leveraging academic partnerships; facilitating development of supporting policy instruments; and embedding noncommunicable disease guidelines within broader primary health-care guidelines in keeping with the health ministry strategic direction. At facility level, strategies included developing a multimethod training programme for health-care providers, leveraging on the experience of provision of human immunodeficiency virus care and engaging health-care implementers early in the process. Through the strategies employed, the country's first national primary health-care guidelines were endorsed in 2016 and a phased three-year implementation started in August 2017. In addition, provision of primary health-care delivery of noncommunicable disease services was included in the country's 11th national development plan (2017-2023). During the guideline development process, we learnt that strong interdisciplinary skills in communication, organization, coalition building and systems thinking, and technical grasp of best-practices in low- and middle-income countries were important. Furthermore, misaligned agendas of stakeholders, exaggerated by a siloed approach to guideline development, underestimation of the importance of having policy instruments in place and coordination of the processes initially being led outside the health ministry caused delays. Our experience is relevant to other countries interested in developing and implementing guidelines for evidence-based noncommunicable disease services.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is a prevalent health concern in the United States (US) and a frequent reason for patients to seek primary care. The challenges associated with developing effective pain management strategies can be perceived as a burden on the patient-provider relationship.ObjectiveThis study explored the relationship between patients' overall satisfaction with their primary care providers (PCPs) and their satisfaction with their chronic pain treatment, as well as the provider behaviors that contributed to chronic pain patients' satisfaction with their PCPs.DesignConcurrent nested mixed-methods design PARTICIPANTS: 97 patients with chronic pain who were assigned to the usual care arm of the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) study.ApproachWe analyzed phone interview and survey data (n?=?97). Interviews assessed provider behaviors that led to patient satisfaction. Interview transcripts were analyzed based on a content analysis approach. Survey responses assessed patient satisfaction with primary care and pain services. We calculated a Pearson's correlation coefficient using five response categories.Key resultsInterviews revealed that high satisfaction with primary care was driven by five concrete PCP behaviors: (1) listening, (2) maintaining communication with patients, (3) acting as an access point to comprehensive pain care, (4) providing an honest assessment of the possibilities of pain care, and (5) taking time during consultations with patients. In surveys, participants reported higher satisfaction with their primary care services than with the pain services they received; these variables were only moderately correlated (r?=?0.586).ConclusionsResults suggest that patients with chronic pain can view the relationship with their PCPs as positive, even in the face of low satisfaction with their pain treatment. The expectations that these patients held of PCPs could be met regardless of providers' ability to successfully relieve chronic pain.

Project description:BackgroundVarious clinical pharmacy services exist to improve the health outcomes of patients. However, there are numerous barriers to their implementation and execution, especially in outpatient settings. As pharmacists design and implement clinical pharmacy services in outpatient settings, they often do not consider the needs of providers until after service development.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess primary care providers' (PCPs') perceptions of clinical pharmacy services and their clinical pharmacy support needs.MethodsA web-based survey was distributed via email to PCPs across North Carolina (NC). Survey dissemination was completed in two phases. Data analysis consisted of mixed methods - quantitative and qualitative. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic differences within each phase as well as the ranking of medication classes/disease states by providers. Qualitative data analysis through inductive coding was done to assess provider perceptions of clinical pharmacy services.ResultsThe response rate of the survey was 19.7%. Providers with previous experience with a clinical pharmacist rated overall services as positive. 62.9% of PCPs (N = 80) provided their perception of the positive attributes (pros) of clinical pharmacy services. 53.5% of PCPs (N = 68) provided their perception of the negative attributes (cons) of clinical pharmacy services. The top three medication classes/disease states that providers indicated they would value clinical pharmacy services for were: comprehensive medication management (CMM), diabetes medication management, and anticoagulation medication management. Of the remaining areas assessed, statin and steroid management ranked the lowest.ConclusionsThe results from this study demonstrated that clinical pharmacy services are valued by PCPs. They also highlighted how pharmacists can best contribute to collaborative care in outpatient settings. As pharmacists, we should aim to implement the clinical pharmacy services that PCPs would value most.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic diseases have increased needs for assistance and care. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and use of primary care (PC) and hospital care (HC) health services by chronic patients according to risk level based on adjusted morbidity groups (AMG) and to analyze the associated factors.MethodsCross-sectional descriptive observational study. Patients from a basic health area classified as chronically ill by the AMG classification system of the Madrid PC electronic medical record were included. Sociodemographic, clinical-care characteristics (classified as predisposing factors or need factors) and service utilization variables were collected. Univariate, bivariate and simple linear regression analyses were performed.ResultsThe sample consisted of 9866 chronic patients and 8332 (84.4%) used health services. Of these service users, 63% were women, mean age was 55.7 (SD = 20.8), 439 (5.3%) were high risk, 1746 (21.2%) were medium risk, and 6041(73.4%) were low risk. A total of 8226 (98.7%) were PC users, and 4284 (51.4%) were HC users. The average number of annual contacts with PC was 13.9 (SD = 15); the average number of contacts with HC was 4.8 (SD = 6.2). Predisposing factors associated with services utilization at both care levels were: age (B coefficient [BC] = 0.03 and 0.018, 95% CI = 0.017-0.052 and 0.008-0.028, respectively, for PC and HC) and Spanish origin (BC = 0.962 and 3.396, 95% CI = 0.198-1.726 and 2.722-4.070); need factors included: palliative care (BC = 10,492 and 5047; 95% CI = 6457-14,526 and 3098-6995), high risk (BC = 4631 and 2730, 95% CI = 3022-6241 and 1.949-3.512), number of chronic diseases (BC = 1.291 and 0.222, 95% CI = 1.068-1.51 and 0.103-0.341) and neoplasms (BC = 2.989 and 4.309, 95% CI = 1.659-4.319 and 3.629-4.989).ConclusionsThe characteristics and PC and HC service utilization of chronic patients were different and varied according to their AMG risk level. There was greater use of PC services than HC services, although utilization of both levels of care was high. Service use was related to predisposing factors such as age and country of origin and, above all, to need factors such as immobility, high risk, and number and type of chronic diseases that require follow-up and palliative care.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Dataset Information

Primary health care services for patients with chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador: a descriptive analysis.

Publications

Primary health care services for patients with chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador: a descriptive analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets