Dataset Information

Evaluating a process of academic detailing in primary care: an educational programme for acute kidney injury.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary care has a significant role in AKI management: two-thirds of AKI originates in the community. Through academic detailing (an evidence-based educational approach) we aimed to implement and measure the effect of a primary care-based education programme based around academic detailing and peer-reviewed audit.

Methods

The education programme took place across a large clinical commissioning group (CCG) consisting of 55 primary care practices. All 55 practices participated in large group teaching sessions, 25 practices participated in academic detailing and 28 of the remaining 30 practices performed internal AKI audit. Over a 12 month period, an educational programme was delivered consisting of large group teaching sessions followed by either academic detailing sessions or self-directed AKI audit activity. Academic detailing sessions consisted of a short presentation by a consultant nephrologist followed by discussion of cases. Qualitative feedback was collected from all participants at peer review sessions. Web-based, CCG-wide questionnaires assessed baseline and post-intervention knowledge levels.

Results

Nine hundred ninety-six individuals completed the questionnaires (556 at baseline, 440 at 1 yr., 288 participated in both). Exposure to AKI teaching, self-reported awareness and confidence levels were higher in the second questionnaire. There was a significant increase in the percentage of correct answers before and after the intervention (55.6 ± 21% versus 87.5 ± 20%, p < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in practices that did not participate in academic detailing. 92.9% of participants in the academic detailing sessions ranked their usefulness as high, but half of participants expressed some anxiety about discussion of cases in front of peers.

Conclusion

Primary care education can improve knowledge and awareness of AKI. Small group teaching with involvement of a nephrologist was popular, although there were mixed responses to group discussion of real cases. Academic detailing did not appear more effective than other educational formats.

SUBMITTER: Noble RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6617939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveClinical review of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) is considered a valuable tool for opioid prescribing risk mitigation; however, PDMP use is often low, even in states with mandatory registration and use policies. The objective was to evaluate the impact of an academic detailing (AD) outreach intervention on PDMP use among primary care prescribers.MethodsAD intervention was delivered to primary care based controlled substance prescribers (N = 87) and their associated PDMP delegates (n = 42) by a clinical pharmacist as 1 component of a large-scale, statewide initiative to improve opioid prescribing safety. Prescriber PDMP use behavior was assessed by prescriber self-report and analysis of objective 2016-2018 PDMP data regarding the number of monthly report requests. We compared means between pre- and postintervention using a paired t test and plotted the monthly average reports over time to assess the trend of mean reports over time. Generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution was used to assess the difference in the trend and magnitude of the combined count of reports for the entire sample and prescriber subsets that were segmented on the basis of the adoption status of PDMP.ResultsThe monthly mean of reports by combined prescribers and delegates significantly increased after the AD intervention (mean 28.1 pre vs. 53.0 post; P < 0.001), with the increase in delegate reports (mean 17.1 pre vs. 60.0 post; P < 0.001) driving the overall increase. Reports were requested 40.4 times more often than in the preintervention period (P < 0.001). Patterns of pre- to postchanges in mean monthly report requests differed by baseline PDMP adoption status.ConclusionThe AD intervention was transformative in facilitating practice change to use delegates to run reports. Visits with both prescribers and delegates, including hands-on PDMP training and registration assistance, can be viewed as beneficial for practice facilitation.

Project description:BackgroundVisual impairment is a global public health problem, with an estimated 285 million affected globally, of which 43% are due to refractive error. A lack of specialist eye care in low and middle-income countries indicates a new model of care would support a task-shifting model and address this urgent need. We describe the features and results of the process evaluation of a national primary eye care (PEC) programme in Rwanda.MethodsWe used the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework to examine the implementation of the PEC programme, and to determine enablers and challenges to implementation. The process evaluation uses a mixed methods approach, drawing on results from several sources including a survey of 574 attendees at 50 PEC clinics, structured clinical observations of 30 PEC nurses, in-depth interviews with 19 key stakeholders, documentary review and a participatory process evaluation workshop with key stakeholders to review collated evidence and contextualize the results.ResultsStructured clinical assessment indicated that the PEC provided is consistent with the PEC curriculum, with over 90% of the clinical examination processes conducted correctly. In 4 years, programme monitoring data showed that nearly a million PEC eye examinations had been conducted in every health centre in Rwanda, with 2707 nurses trained. The development of the eye health system was an important enabler in the implementation of PEC, where political support allowed key developments such as inclusion of eye-drops on the essential medicines list, the inclusion of PEC on insurance benefits, the integration of PEC indicators on the health management information systems and integration of the PEC curriculum into the general nursing school curriculum. Challenges included high turnover of primary care nurses, lack of clarity and communication on the future funding of the programme, competing priorities for the health sector and sustained supervision to assure quality of care.ConclusionsA model of a national primary eye care programme is presented, with service delivery to all areas in Rwanda. Key learning from this evaluation is the importance of strengthening the eye health care system, together with a strong focus on training primary care nurses using a PEC curriculum.

Project description:Improving the ability to risk-stratify patients is critical for efficiently allocating resources within healthcare systems.The purpose of this study was to evaluate a physician-defined complexity prediction model against outpatient Charlson score (OCS) and a commercial risk predictor (CRP).Using a cohort in which primary care physicians reviewed 4302 of their adult patients, we developed a predictive model for estimated physician-defined complexity (ePDC) and categorized our population using ePDC, OCS and CRP.143,372 primary care patients in a practice-based research network participated in the study.For all patients categorized as complex in 2007 by one or more risk-stratification method, we calculated the percentage of total person time from 2008-2011 for which eligible cancer screening was incomplete, HbA1c was ? 9 %, and LDL was ? 130 mg/dl (in patients with cardiovascular disease). We also calculated the number of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions per person year (ppy).There was modest agreement among individuals classified as complex using ePDC compared with OCS (36.7 %) and CRP (39.6 %). Over 4 follow-up years, eligible ePDC-complex patients had higher proportions (p?<?0.001) of time with: incomplete cervical (17.8 % vs. 13.3 % for OCS; 19.4 % vs. 11.2 % for CRP), breast (21.4 % vs. 14.9 % for OCS; 22.7 % vs. 15.0 % for CRP), and colon (25.9 % vs. 18.7 % for OCS; 27.0 % vs. 18.2 % for CRP) cancer screening; HbA1c???9 % (15.6 % vs. 8.1 % for OCS; 15.9 % vs. 6.9 % for CRP); and LDL???130 mg/dl (12.4 % vs. 7.9 % for OCS; 11.8 % vs 9.0 % for CRP). ePDC-complex patients had higher rates (p?<?0.003) of: ED visits (0.21 vs. 0.11 ppy for OCS; 0.17 vs. 0.15 ppy for CRP), and admissions in patients 45-64 and ? 65 years old (0.11 vs. 0.10 ppy AND 0.24 vs. 0.21 ppy for OCS).Our measure for estimated physician-defined complexity compared favorably to commonly used risk-prediction approaches in identifying future suboptimal quality and utilization outcomes.

Project description:In 2014, nursing home administration and government officials were facing increasing public and media scrutiny around the variation of antipsychotic medication (APM) prescribing across Ontario nursing homes. In response, policy makers partnered to test an academic detailing (AD) intervention to address appropriate prescribing of APM in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized trial. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how and why the AD intervention may have resulted in changes in the nursing home context. The objectives were to understand how the intervention was implemented, explore contextual factors associated with implementation, and examine impact of the intervention on prescribing.Administrative data for the primary outcome of the full randomized trial will not be available for a minimum of 1 year. Therefore, this paper reports the findings of a planned, quantitative interim trial analysis assessed mean APM dose and prescribing prevalence at baseline and 3 and 6 months across 40 nursing homes (18 intervention, 22 control). Patient-level administrative data regarding prescribing were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home staff from the intervention group to explore opinions and experiences of the AD intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method, with constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied as pre-defined deductive codes. Open coding was applied when emerging themes did not align with CFIR constructs. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated to examine points of divergence to understand how the intervention may work and to identify areas for future opportunities and areas for improvement.No significant differences were observed in prescribing outcomes. A total of 22 interviews were conducted, including four academic detailers and 18 nursing home staff. Constructs within the CFIR domains of Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals presented barriers to antipsychotic prescribing. Intervention Source, Evidence Strength and Quality, and Adaptability explained participant engagement in the AD intervention; nursing homes that exhibited a Tension for Change and Leadership Engagement reported positive changes in processes and communication.Participants described their experiences with the intervention against the backdrop of a range of factors that influence APM prescribing in nursing homes that exist at the system, facility, provider, and resident levels. In this context, the perceived credibility and flexibility of the intervention were critical features that explained engagement with and potential impact of the intervention. Development of a common language across the team to enable communication was reported as a proximal outcome that may eventually have an effect on APM prescribing rates. Process evaluations may be useful during early stages of evaluation to understand how the intervention is working and how it might work better. Qualitative results suggest the lack of early changes observed in prescribing may reflect the number of upstream factors that need to change for APM rates to decrease.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02604056.

Project description:IntroductionSocial distancing requirements during COVID-19 pose a challenge to conducting traditional academic detailing, which typically involves in-person peer education visits to improve patient outcomes. The main alternative is to conduct virtual academic detailing delivered through web-based technology, but this approach is fraught with many challenges. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual academic detailing program implemented among health care providers.MethodsThe academic detailing program focused on appropriate opioid prescribing and chronic non-cancer pain management among a sample of providers. An initial in-person visit was followed by a virtual visit up to 8 weeks later. Videoconferencing was used to conduct the virtual visit with telephone as a backup. Feasibility was assessed whether the virtual visits could happen, and acceptability was assessed by provider satisfaction. Validated measures of Provider Satisfaction with Academic Detailing (PSAD) and Detailer Assessment of Visit Effectiveness (DAVE) with a 5-point Likert-type scale were used. Higher scores corresponded to higher satisfaction and greater perceived effectiveness. Non-parametric and parametric statistical tests were used to compare instrument summary scores across visits and between groups. Pairwise analyses across visits only included instrument responses for providers who participated in both visits and completed both surveys in their entirety.ResultsThere were 127 (90 %) initial in-person visits completed out of 141 visits scheduled, with a survey response rate of 96 %. Out of 120 virtual follow-up visits scheduled, 92 (77 %) were conducted, and 56 surveys (61 %) were collected. There was a high level of satisfaction with the initial and follow up virtual academic detailing visits, though, among providers who participated in both visits and had completed surveys (n = 50), initial visits had slightly higher scores (mean difference = -2.94 [95 % Confidence intervals: -4.38, -1.50], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in detailer perception across the two visits as seen in the scale summary score (0.05 [-0.56, 0.66], p = 0.86) and two individually reported items related to feasibility (0.07 [-0.29, 0.42], p = 0.72) and conversation (-0.05 [-0.28, 0.17], p = 0.63). Forty-one (44.6 %) virtual visits were conducted using WebEx, where video and screen sharing of visit content was possible, while the remaining 51 (55.4 %) were conducted using a telephone. There was no significant difference in provider satisfaction between WebEx vs. telephone visits (-1.47 [-4.99, 2.05], p = 0.82). Provider satisfaction was also not impacted by any technical difficulties as reported by the detailer (-0.04 [-3.30, 3.38], p = 0.98).ConclusionThe results slightly favor in-person visits and suggest that virtual detailing visits need to incorporate strategies that minimize technical difficulties and prevent participants from defaulting to less favorable technology. Future research opportunities include evaluating the effectiveness of a virtual versus in-person delivery of AD program on outcomes such as providers' opioid prescribing behavior.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is challenging to conduct and quickly disseminate findings from in-depth qualitative analyses, which can impede timely implementation of interventions because of its time-consuming methods. To better understand tradeoffs between the need for actionable results and scientific rigor, we present our method for conducting a framework-guided rapid analysis (RA) and a comparison of these findings to an in-depth analysis of interview transcripts. METHODS:Set within the context of an evaluation of a successful academic detailing (AD) program for opioid prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration, we developed interview guides informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and interviewed 10 academic detailers (clinical pharmacists) and 20 primary care providers to elicit detail about successful features of the program. For the RA, verbatim transcripts were summarized using a structured template (based on CFIR); summaries were subsequently consolidated into matrices by participant type to identify aspects of the program that worked well and ways to facilitate implementation elsewhere. For comparison purposes, we later conducted an in-depth analysis of the transcripts. We described our RA approach and qualitatively compared the RA and deductive in-depth analysis with respect to consistency of themes and resource intensity. RESULTS:Integrating the CFIR throughout the RA and in-depth analysis was helpful for providing structure and consistency across both analyses. Findings from the two analyses were consistent. The most frequently coded constructs from the in-depth analysis aligned well with themes from the RA, and the latter methods were sufficient and appropriate for addressing the primary evaluation goals. Our approach to RA was less resource-intensive than the in-depth analysis, allowing for timely dissemination of findings to our operations partner that could be integrated into ongoing implementation. CONCLUSIONS:In-depth analyses can be resource-intensive. If consistent with project needs (e.g., to quickly produce information to inform ongoing implementation or to comply with a policy mandate), it is reasonable to consider using RA, especially when faced with resource constraints. Our RA provided valid findings in a short timeframe, enabling identification of actionable suggestions for our operations partner.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of academic detailing in changing physicians' knowledge and practice has been the subject of many primary research publications and systematic reviews. However, there is little written about the features of academic detailing that physicians find valuable or that affect their use of it. The goal of our project was to explore family physicians' (FPs) perceptions of academic detailing and the factors that affect their use of it.MethodsWe used 2 methods to collect data, a questionnaire and semi-structured telephone interviews. We mailed questionnaires to all FPs in the Dalhousie Office of Continuing Medical Education database and analyzed responses of non-users and users of academic detailing. After a preliminary analysis of questionnaire data, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 7 FPs who did not use academic detailing and 17 who did use it.ResultsOverall response rate to the questionnaire was 33% (289/869). Response rate of non-users of academic detailing was 15% (60/393), of users was 48% (229/476). The 3 factors that most encouraged use of academic detailing were the topics selected, the evidence-based approach adopted, and the handout material. The 3 factors that most discouraged the use of academic detailing were spending office time doing CME, scheduling time to see the academic detailer, and having CME provided by a non-physician. Users of academic detailing rated it as being more valuable than other forms of CME. Generally, interview data confirmed questionnaire data with the exception that interview informants did not view having CME provided by a non-physician as a barrier. Interview informants mentioned that the evidence-based approach adopted by academic detailing had led them to more critically evaluate information from other CME programs, pharmaceutical representatives, and journal articles, but not advice from specialists.ConclusionUsers of academic detailing highly value its educational value and tend to view information from other sources more critically because of its evidence-based approach. Non-users are unlikely to adopt academic detailing despite its high educational value because they find using office time for CME too much of a barrier. To reach these physicians with academic detailing messages, we will have to find other CME formats.