Evaluating the integration of chronic disease prevention and management services into primary health care

Background

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.

Methods/Design

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.

Discussion

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.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01319656

Mapping the concept of vulnerability related to health care disparities: a scoping review

Background

The aim of this paper is to share the results of a scoping review that examined the relationship between health care disparities and the multiplicity of vulnerability factors that are often clustered together.

Methods

The conceptual framework used was an innovative dynamic model that we developed to analyze the co-existence of multiple vulnerability factors (multi-vulnerability) related to the phenomenon of the ‘Inverse Care Law’. A total of 759 candidate references were identified through a literature search, of which 23 publications were deemed relevant to our scoping review.

Results

The review confirmed our hypothesis of a direct correlation between co-existing vulnerability factors and health care disparities. Several gaps in the literature were identified, such as a lack of research on vulnerable populations’ perception of their own vulnerability and on multimorbidity and immigrant status as aspects of vulnerability.

Conclusions

Future research addressing the revealed gaps would help foster primary care interventions that are responsive to the needs of vulnerable people and, eventually, contribute to the reduction of health care disparities in society.

Transforming primary healthcare by including the stakeholders involved in delivering care to people living in poverty: EQUIhealThY study protocol

BACKGROUND

Ensuring access to timely and appropriate primary healthcare for people living in poverty is an issue facing all countries, even those with universal healthcare systems. The transformation of healthcare practices and organization could be improved by involving key stakeholders from the community and the healthcare system in the development of research interventions. The aim of this project is to stimulate changes in healthcare organizations and practices by encouraging collaboration between care teams and people living in poverty. Our objectives are twofold: 1) to identify actions required to promote the adoption of professional practices oriented toward social competence in primary care teams; and 2) to examine factors that would encourage the inclusion of people living in poverty in the process of developing social competence in healthcare organizations.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will use a participatory action research design applied in healthcare organizations. Participatory research is an increasingly recognized approach that is helpful for involving the people for whom the research results are intended. Our research team consists of 19 non-academic researchers, 11 academic researchers and six partners. A steering committee composed of academic researchers and stakeholders will have a decision-making role at each step, including knowledge dissemination and recommendations for new interventions. In this project we will adopt a multiphase approach and will use a variety of methods, including photovoice, group discussions and interviews.

DISCUSSION

The proposed study will be one of only a few using participatory research in primary care to foster changes aimed at enhancing quality and access to care for people living in poverty. To our knowledge this will be the first study to use photovoice in healthcare organizations to promote new interventions. Our project includes partners who are targeted for practice changes and improvements in delivering primary care to persons living in poverty. By involving knowledge users, including service recipients, our study is more likely to produce a transformation of professional practices and encourage healthcare organizations to take into account the needs of persons living in poverty.

Case management and self-management support for frequent users with chronic disease in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background

Chronic diseases represent a major challenge for health care and social services. A number of people with chronic diseases require more services due to characteristics that increase their vulnerability. Given the burden of increasingly vulnerable patients on primary care, a pragmatic intervention in four Family Medicine Groups (primary care practices in Quebec, Canada) has been proposed for individuals with chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal diseases and/or chronic pain) who are frequent users of hospital services. The intervention combines case management by a nurse with group support meetings encouraging self-management based on the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. The goals of this study are to: (1) analyze the implementation of the intervention in the participating practices in order to determine how the various contexts have influenced the implementation and the observed effects; (2) evaluate the proximal (self-efficacy, self-management, health habits, activation and psychological distress) and intermediate (empowerment, quality of life and health care use) effects of the intervention on patients; (3) conduct an economic analysis of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Methods/Design

The analysis of the implementation will be conducted using realistic evaluation and participatory approaches within four categories of stakeholders (Family Medicine Group and health centre management, Family Medicine Group practitioners, patients and their families, health centre or community partners). The data will be obtained through individual and group interviews, project documentation reviews and by documenting the intervention. Evaluation of the effects on patients will be based on a pragmatic randomized before-after experimental design with a delayed intervention control group (six months). Economic analysis will include cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.

Discussion

The integration of a case management intervention delivered by nurses and self-management group support into primary care practices has the potential to positively impact patient empowerment and quality of life and hopefully reduce the burden on health care. Decision-makers, managers and health care professionals will be aware of the factors to consider in promoting the implementation of this intervention into other primary care practices in the region and elsewhere.

Trial Registration

NCT01719991

Fagus sylvatica trunk epicormics in relation to primary and secondary growth

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

European beech epicormics have received far less attention than epicormics of other species, especially sessile oak. However, previous work on beech has demonstrated that there is a negative effect of radial growth on trunk sprouting, while more recent investigations on sessile oak proved a strong positive influence of the presence of epicormics. The aims of this study were, first, to make a general quantification of the epicormics present along beech stems and, secondly, to test the effects of both radial growth and epicormic frequency on sprouting.

METHODS

In order to test the effect of radial growth, ten forked individuals were sampled, with a dominant and a dominated fork of almost equal length for every individual. To test the effects of primary growth and epicormic frequency, on the last 17 annual shoots of each fork arm, the number of axillary buds, shoot length, ring width profiles, epicormic shoots and other epicormics were carefully recorded.

KEY RESULTS

The distribution of annual shoot length, radial growth profiles and parallel frequencies of all epicormics are presented. The latter frequencies were parallel to the annual shoot lengths, nearly equivalent for both arms of each tree, and radial growth profiles included very narrow rings in the lowest annual shoots and even missing rings in the dominated arms alone. The location of the latent buds and the epicormics was mainly at branch base, while epicormic shoots, bud clusters and spheroblasts were present mainly in the lowest annual shoots investigated. Using a zero-inflated mixed model, sprouting was shown to depend positively on epicormic frequency and negatively on radial growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for a trade-off between cambial activity and sprouting is put forward. Sprouting mainly depends on the frequency of epicormics. Between- and within-tree variability of the epicormic composition in a given species may thus have fundamental and applied implications.

Obstructive sleep apnea and multimorbidity

Background

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is becoming increasingly prevalent in North America and has been described in association with specific chronic diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases. In primary care, where the prevalence of co-occurring chronic conditions is very high, the potential association with OSA is unknown. The purpose of this study was to explore the association between OSA and 1) the presence and severity of multimorbidity (multiple co-occurring chronic conditions), and 2) subcategories of multimorbidity.

Methods

A cluster sampling technique was used to recruit 120 patients presenting with OSA of various severities from the records of a sleep laboratory in 2008. Severity of OSA was based on the results of the polysomnography. Patients invited to participate received a mail questionnaire including questions on sociodemographic characteristics and the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (DBMA). They also consented to give access to their medical records. The DBMA was used to provide an overall multimorbidity score and sub-score of diseases affecting various systems.

Results

Bivariate analysis did not demonstrate an association between OSA and multimorbidity (r = 0.117; p = 0.205). However, severe OSA was associated with multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio = 7.33 [1.67-32.23], p = 0.05). OSA was moderately correlated with vascular (r = 0.26, p = 0.01) and metabolic syndrome (r = 0.26, p = 0.01) multimorbidity sub-scores.

Conclusions

This study showed that severe OSA is associated with severe multimorbidity and sub-scores of multimorbidity. These results do not allow any causal inference. More research is required to confirm these associations. However, primary care providers should be aware of these potential associations and investigate OSA when deemed appropriate.

Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.

DATA SELECTION

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.

RESULTS

10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients with multimorbidity and to develop cost effective and specifically targeted interventions that can improve health outcomes.

Patient-centered care in chronic disease management: a thematic analysis of the literature in family medicine

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to provide a synthesis of the results of the research and discourse lines on main dimensions of patient-centered care in the context of chronic disease management in family medicine, building on Stewart et al.'s model.

METHODS

We developed search strategies for the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases, from 1980 to April 2009. All articles addressing patient-centered care in the context of chronic disease management in family medicine were included. A thematic analysis was performed using mixed codification, based on Stewart's model of patient-centered care.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included. Six major themes emerged: (1) starting from the patient's situation; (2) legitimizing the illness experience; (3) acknowledging the patient's expertise; (4) offering realistic hope; (5) developing an ongoing partnership; (6) providing advocacy for the patient in the health care system.

CONCLUSION

The context of chronic disease management brings forward new dimensions of patient-centered care such as legitimizing the illness experience, acknowledging patient expertise, offering hope and providing advocacy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Chronic disease management calls for the adaptation of the family physician's role to patients' fluctuating needs. Literature also suggests the involvement of the family physician in care transitions as a component of patient-centered care.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings

BACKGROUND

Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions for multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CAB Health, AMED, HealthStar, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the EPOC Register and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the EPOC Register in April 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. The outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health, psychosocial status including quality of life outcomes, well-being, and measures of disability or functional status. We also included measures of patient and provider behaviour including measures of medication adherence, utilisation of health services, and acceptability of services and costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis of results was not possible so we carried out a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies examining a range of complex interventions for patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were RCTs and there was low risk of bias. Two of the nine studies focused on specific co-morbidities. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple elements. In six of the ten studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, the interventions were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed with a trend towards improved prescribing and medication adherence. The results indicate that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors or functional difficulties in patients with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity may be more effective. Cost data were limited with no economic analyses included, though the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies provided potentially significant cost savings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the paucity of research into interventions to improve outcomes for multimorbidity with the focus to date being on co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity in older patients. The limited results suggest that interventions to date have had mixed effects but have shown a tendency to improve prescribing and medication adherence, particularly if interventions can be targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties in people with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity. There is a need for clear definitions of participants, consideration of appropriate outcomes, and further pragmatic studies based in primary care settings.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings

BACKGROUND

Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions for multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CAB Health, AMED, HealthStar, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the EPOC Register and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the EPOC Register in April 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. The outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health, psychosocial status including quality of life outcomes, well-being, and measures of disability or functional status. We also included measures of patient and provider behaviour including measures of medication adherence, utilisation of health services, and acceptability of services and costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analysis of results was not possible so we carried out a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies examining a range of complex interventions for patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were RCTs and there was low risk of bias. Two of the nine studies focused on specific co-morbidities. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple elements. In six of the ten studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, the interventions were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed with a trend towards improved prescribing and medication adherence. The results indicate that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors or functional difficulties in patients with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity may be more effective. Cost data were limited with no economic analyses included, though the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies provided potentially significant cost savings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the paucity of research into interventions to improve outcomes for multimorbidity with the focus to date being on co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity in older patients. The limited results suggest that interventions to date have had mixed effects but have shown a tendency to improve prescribing and medication adherence, particularly if interventions can be targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties in people with co-morbid conditions or multimorbidity. There is a need for clear definitions of participants, consideration of appropriate outcomes, and further pragmatic studies based in primary care settings.

A systematic review of prevalence studies on multimorbidity: toward a more uniform methodology

PURPOSE

We sought to identify and compare studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity and to suggest methodologic aspects to be considered in the conduct of such studies.

METHODS

We searched the literature for English- and French-language articles published between 1980 and September 2010 that described the prevalence of multimorbidity in the general population, in primary care, or both. We assessed quality of included studies with a modified version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Results of individual prevalence studies were adjusted so that they could be compared graphically.

RESULTS

The final sample included 21 articles: 8 described studies conducted in primary care, 12 in the general population, and 1 in both. All articles were of good quality. The largest differences in prevalence of multimorbidity were observed at age 75 in both primary care (with prevalence ranging from 3.5% to 98.5% across studies) and the general population (with prevalence ranging from 13.1% to 71.8% across studies). Apart from differences in geographic settings, we identified differences in recruitment method and sample size (primary care: 980-60,857 patients; general population: 1,099-316,928 individuals), data collection, and the operational definition of multimorbidity used, including the number of diagnoses considered (primary care: 5 to all; general population: 7 to all). This last aspect seemed to be the most important factor in estimating prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Marked variation exists among studies of the prevalence of multimorbidity with respect to both methodology and findings. When undertaking such studies, investigators should carefully consider the specific diagnoses included and their number, as well as the operational definition of multimorbidity.

Validation of the disease burden morbidity assessment by self-report in a French-speaking population

Background

The Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (DBMA) is a self-report questionnaire used to estimate the disease burden experienced by patients. The aim of this study was to test and to measure the properties of the French translation of the DBMA (DBMA-Fv).

Methods

The original version of the DBMA was translated into French (Canadian) and first assessed during cognitive interviews. In the validation study, patients recruited during consecutive consultation periods completed the DBMA-Fv questionnaire while they were in the waiting room of a primary care setting (T1). Participants completed the same questionnaire mailed to their home two weeks later (T2). Concomitant validity of the DBMA-Fv was assessed using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS). Patient medical records were reviewed to verify chronic diseases and past medical history.

Results

Ninety-seven patients were recruited and 85 (88%) returned the mailed questionnaires; 5 (5.9%) were incomplete. DBMA-Fv scores of the 80 participants with a complete questionnaire at T2 ranged from 0 to 30 (median 5.5, mean 7.7, SD = 7.0). Test-retest reliability of the DBMA-Fv was high (ICC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.92). The DBMA-Fv and the CIRS correlated moderately at T1 (r = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.62, p < 0.01) and T2 (r = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.38 - 0.70, p < 0.01). The mean (SD) sensitivity of patient reports of a condition in relation to chart review at T2 was 73.9 (8.4) (range 62.5% to 90%). The overall mean (SD) specificity was 92.2 (6.7) (range 77.6% to 98.6%).

Conclusions

The DBMA-Fv's properties are similar to its English counterpart as to its median sensitivity and specificity compared to chart reviews. It correlated moderately with an established index of multimorbidity. A high percentage of patients were able to complete the test correctly as a mail questionnaire and it showed high test-retest reliability.

The electronic Cumulative Illness Rating Scale: a reliable and valid tool to assess multi-morbidity in primary care

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The presence of multiple concomitant diseases is an increasing health problem, and prompted by the limitations of the disease count, several indices measuring multi-morbidity or co-morbidity have been described to account for the overall burden of morbidity. The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) is one of those indices. We developed an electronic version of the CIRS (eCIRS) to take advantage of computerized data processing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the eCIRS scored in a primary care setting.

METHODS

Two nurses interviewed 48 adult patients recruited during consecutive consultation periods in a primary care setting and scored the eCIRS in a random order during two sessions of data collection (T1 and T2) 1 month apart. We measured intra- and inter-rater reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)]. We also assessed concomitant validity [(Pearson's correlation (r)] using standard CIRS scored by the attending family doctors.

RESULTS

Intra-rater (ICC: 0.90 and 0.95) and inter-rater reliability (ICC: 0.86 and 0.91) were both excellent. No significant differences between the nurses' scores at T1 and T2 (P = 0.40 for nurse 1, P = 0.73 for nurse 2) were found. The eCIRSs scored by the nurses were highly correlated with the CIRSs scored by the doctors (r = 0.80 and 0.88).

CONCLUSION

Reliable and valid, the eCIRS completed during patient interviews with trained nurses can be used to quantify multi-morbidity in primary care, either for research or clinical use.

Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines have been the subject of much criticism in primary care literature partly due to potential conflicts in their implementation among patients with multiple chronic conditions. We assessed the relevance of selected Canadian clinical guidelines on chronic diseases for patients with comorbidity and examined their quality.

METHODS

We selected 16 chronic medical conditions according to their frequency of occurrence, complexity of treatment, and pertinence to primary care. Recent Canadian clinical guidelines (2004 - 2009) on these conditions, published in English or French, were retrieved. We assessed guideline relevance to the care of patients with comorbidity with a tool developed by Boyd and colleagues. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.

RESULTS

Regarding relevance, 56.2% of guidelines addressed treatment for patients with multiple chronic conditions and 18.8% addressed the issue for older patients. Fifteen guidelines (93.8%) included specific recommendations for patients with one concurrent condition; only three guidelines (18.8%) addressed specific recommendations for patients with two comorbid conditions and one for more than two concurrent comorbid conditions. Quality of the evaluated guidelines was good to very good in four out of the six domains measured using the AGREE instrument. The domains with lower mean scores were Stakeholder Involvement and Applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the Canadian guidelines examined is generally good, yet their relevance for patients with two or more chronic conditions is very limited and there is room for improvement in this respect.

The Patient Enablement Instrument-French version in a family practice setting: a reliability study

Background

Patient enablement can be defined as the extent to which a patient is capable of understanding and coping with his or her health issues. This concept is linked to a number of health outcomes such as self-management of chronic diseases and quality of life. The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) was designed to measure this concept after a medical consultation. The instrument, in its original form and its translations into several languages, has proven to be reliable and valid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the French version of the PEI (PEI-Fv) in a family practice setting.

Methods

One hundred and ten participants were recruited in a family medicine clinic in the Saguenay region of Quebec (Canada). The PEI-Fv was completed twice, immediately after consultation with a physician (T1) and 2 weeks after the consultation (T2). The internal consistency of the tool was assessed with Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient.

Results

The mean score for the PEI-Fv was 5.06 ± 3.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.30-5.81) at T1 and 4.63 ± 3.90 (95% CI: 3.82-5.44) at T2. Cronbach's α was high at T1 (α₁ = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95) and T2 (α₂ = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.48-0.74), indicating a moderate test-retest reliability.

Conclusions

The internal consistency of the PEI-Fv is excellent. Test-retest reliability was moderate to good. Test-retest reliability should be examined in further studies at a less than 2-week interval to reduce maturation bias. This instrument can be used to measure enablement after consultation in a French-speaking family practice setting.

Measuring patients' perceptions of patient-centered care: a systematic review of tools for family medicine

PURPOSE

Patient-centered care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify and compare instruments, subscales, or items assessing patients' perceptions of patient-centered care in family medicine.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases covering 1980 through April 2009, with a specific search strategy for each database. The search strategy was supplemented with searching by hand and expert suggestions. We looked for articles meeting all of the following criteria: (1) describing self-administered instruments measuring patient perceptions of patient-centered care; (2) reporting quantitative or psychometric results of development or validation; (3) being relevant to an ambulatory family medicine context. The quality of each article retained was assessed using a modified version of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Instrument' items were mapped to dimensions of a patient-centered care conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Of the 3,045 articles identified, 90 were examined in detail, and 26, covering 13 instruments, met our inclusion criteria. Two instruments (5 articles) were dedicated to patient-centered care: the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness and the Consultation Care Measure, and 11 instruments (21 articles) included relevant subscales or items.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 instruments dedicated to patient-centered care address key dimensions but are visit-based, limiting their applicability for the study of care processes over time, such as chronic illness management. Relevant items from the 11 other instruments provide partial coverage of the concept, but these instruments were not designed to provide a specific assessment of patient-centered care.

Assessing enablement in clinical practice: a systematic review of available instruments

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Enablement is an intervention by which the health care provider recognizes, promotes and enhances patients' ability to control their health and life. An abundant health literature suggests that enablement is associated with good outcomes. In this review, we aimed at identifying and comparing instruments that assess enablement in the health care context.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic literature review using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl and PsycINFO databases, 1980 through March 2009, with specific search strategy for each database. Citations were included if they reported: (1) development and/or validation of an instrument; (2) evaluation of enablement in a health care context; and (3) quantitative results following administration of the instrument. The quality of each main retained citation was assessed using a modified version of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 3135 citations identified, 53 were retrieved for detailed evaluation. Four articles were included. Two instruments were found: the Patient Empowerment Scale (PES) and the Empowering Speech Practices Scale (ESPS). Both instruments assessed enablement in hospital setting, one from the inpatient's perspective (PES) and the other from both perspectives (ESPS).

CONCLUSION

Two instruments assess enablement in hospital setting. No instrument is currently available to assess enablement in an ambulatory care context.

What makes primary care effective for people in poverty living with multiple chronic conditions?: study protocol

BACKGROUND

The inverse care law persists: people living in poverty have the greatest needs and face considerable challenges in getting the care they need. Evidence reveals that GPs encounter difficulties in delivering care to poor patients, while many of those patients feel stigmatized by healthcare professionals. Patients living in poverty report negative healthcare experiences and unmet healthcare needs. Indeed, there is a growing recognition in primary care research of the importance of addressing the capabilities and social conditions of the poor when delivering care. Few studies have looked at the factors contributing to effective and "socially responsive" care for people living in poverty.

METHODS/DESIGN

Our study adopts a qualitative ethnographic approach in four healthcare organizations in deprived areas of metropolitan Montreal (Québec, Canada), using patient shadowing techniques and interviews. Data will be collected through fieldwork observations and informal interviews with patients before and after consultations. We will observe medical consultations, care organization activities, and waiting areas and reception of patients. We will conduct a total of 36 individual interviews with 12 GPs and 24 patients. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for purposes of analysis. The analysis consists of debriefing sessions, coding and interpretive analysis.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to investigate how positive healthcare interactions between physicians and patients can improve the management of chronic conditions. We hypothesize that factors related to care organization, to healthcare professionals' experience and to patients may enhance the quality of healthcare interactions, which may have positive impacts for preventing and managing chronic conditions. Our study will provide a unique set of data grounded in the perspectives of healthcare professionals and of patients living in poverty.

Nurses joining family doctors in primary care practices: perceptions of patients with multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

Among the strategies used to reform primary care, the participation of nurses in primary care practices appears to offer a promising avenue to better meet the needs of vulnerable patients. The present study explores the perceptions and expectations of patients with multimorbidity regarding nurses' presence in primary care practices.

METHODS

18 primary (health) care patients with multimorbidity participated in semi-directed interviews, in order to explore their perceptions and expectations in regard to the involvement of nurses in primary care practices. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. After reviewing the transcripts, the principal investigator and research assistants performed thematic analysis independently and reached consensus on the retained themes.

RESULTS

Patients with multimorbidity were open to the participation of nurses in primary care practices. They expected greater accessibility, for both themselves and for new patients. However, the issue of shared roles between nurses and doctors was a source of concern. Many patients held the traditional view of the nurse's role as an assistant to the doctor in his or her various duties. In general, participants said they were confident about nurses' competency but expressed concern about nurses performing certain acts that their doctor used to, notwithstanding a close collaboration between the two professionals.

CONCLUSION

Patients with multimorbidity are open to the involvement of nurses in primary care practices. However, they expect this participation to be established using clear definitions of professional roles and fields of practice.