Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review

How Medical Students Benefit from Participating in a Longitudinal Resource Stewardship Medical Education Program (STARS): An International Descriptive Evaluation

BACKGROUND

STARS (Students and Trainees Advocating for Resource Stewardship) is a medical student leadership program that promotes integration of resource stewardship (RS) into medical education in at least seven countries. Little is known about how participation affects student leaders.

AIM

To understand how partaking in STARS impacted participants' knowledge, skills, and influenced career plans, and aspirations.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with STARS participants (n = 27) from seven countries.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

STARS was designed to facilitate grassroots efforts that embed RS principles into medical education. STARS programs globally share common features: participation from several medical schools, centralized organizing hubs and leadership summits, and support from faculty mentors. Students take lessons learnt from centralized programming to implement changes that advance RS initiatives at their schools.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Students finished STARS with better RS knowledge, enhanced change management skills (leadership, advocacy, collaboration), and a commitment to incorporate RS into future practice. Nearly all respondents hoped to pursue leadership activities in medicine, but most were unclear if they would focus efforts to advance RS.

DISCUSSION

STARS participants gained knowledge as it relates to RS, change management skills, and catalyzed a commitment to incorporate high-value care into future practice. Medical education initiatives should be leveraged as a key strategic approach to build RS capacity.

Graham I, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact

Knowledge translation and implementation science have made many advances in the last two decades. However, research is still not making expedient differences to practice, policy, and service delivery. It is time to evolve our approach to knowledge production and implementation. In this editorial we advance research coproduction as a neglected pathway to impact. Our starting point is that research impact is a function of how research is done and who is involved, arguing that researchers and non-researchers have an equal voice and role to play. We outline principles of coproduction including sharing power, valuing different sources of knowledge and viewpoints, equality, open communication, inclusivity, and mutuality. We consider implications at micro, meso, and macro system levels. In calling for this shift in the way knowledge is produced and applied, we anticipate it leading to inclusive research that more rapidly translates to better, more equitable health and care for all.

Physician Variation and the Impact of Payment Model in Cardiac Imaging

BACKGROUND

The influence of fee-for-service reimbursement on cardiac imaging has not been compared with other payment models. Furthermore, variation in ordering practices is not well understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from Alberta, Canada included adults with chronic heart disease (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure) seen by cardiac specialists for a new outpatient consultation April 2012 to December 2018. Generalized linear mixed-effects models estimated the association of payment model (including the ability to bill to interpret imaging tests) and the use of cardiac imaging and quantified variation in cardiac imaging. Among 31 685 adults seen by 308 physicians at 136 sites, patients received an observed mean of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.67-0.68) imaging tests per consultation. After adjustment, patients seeing fee-for-service physicians had 2.07 (95% CI, 1.68-2.54) and fee-for-service physicians with ability to interpret had 2.87 (95% CI, 2.16-3.81) times the rate of receiving a test than those seeing salaried physicians. Measured patient, physician, and site effects accounted for 31% of imaging variation and, following adjustment, reduced unexplained site-level variation 40% and physician-level variation 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified substantial variation in the use of outpatient cardiac imaging related to physician and site factors. Physician payment models have a significant association with imaging use. Our results raise concern that payment models may influence cardiac imaging practice. Similar methods could be applied to identify the source and magnitude of variation in other health care processes and outcomes.

Knowledge translation strategies to support the sustainability of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge translation (KT) strategies are widely used to facilitate the implementation of EBIs into healthcare practices. However, it is unknown what and how KT strategies are used to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aimed to consolidate the current evidence on (i) what and how KT strategies are being used for the sustainability of EBIs in institutional healthcare settings; (ii) the reported KT strategy outcomes (e.g., acceptability) for EBI sustainability, and (iii) the reported EBI sustainability outcomes (e.g., EBI activities or component of the intervention continue).

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of five electronic databases. We included studies describing the use of specific KT strategies to facilitate the sustainability of EBIs (more than 1-year post-implementation). We coded KT strategies using the clustered ERIC taxonomy and AIMD framework, we coded KT strategy outcomes using Tierney et al.'s measures, and EBI sustainability outcomes using Scheirer and Dearing's and Lennox's taxonomy. We conducted descriptive numerical summaries and a narrative synthesis to analyze the results.

RESULTS

The search identified 3776 studies for review. Following the screening, 25 studies (reported in 27 papers due to two companion reports) met the final inclusion criteria. Most studies used multi-component KT strategies for EBI sustainability (n = 24). The most common ERIC KT strategy clusters were to train and educate stakeholders (n = 38) and develop stakeholder interrelationships (n = 34). Education was the most widely used KT strategy (n = 17). Many studies (n = 11) did not clearly report whether they used different or the same KT strategies between EBI implementation and sustainability. Seven studies adapted KT strategies from implementation to sustainability efforts. Only two studies reported using a new KT strategy for EBI sustainability. The most reported KT strategy outcomes were acceptability (n = 10), sustainability (n = 5); and adoption (n = 4). The most commonly measured EBI sustainability outcome was the continuation of EBI activities or components (n = 23), followed by continued benefits for patients, staff, and stakeholders (n = 22).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides insight into a conceptual problem where initial EBI implementation and sustainability are considered as two discrete time periods. Our findings show we need to consider EBI implementation and sustainability as a continuum and design and select KT strategies with this in mind. Our review has emphasized areas that require further research (e.g., KT strategy adaptation for EBI sustainability). To advance understanding of how to employ KT strategies for EBI sustainability, we recommend clearly reporting the dose, frequency, adaptations, fidelity, and cost of KT strategies. Advancing our understanding in this area would facilitate better design, selection, tailored, and adapted use of KT strategies for EBI sustainability, thereby contributing to improved patient, provider, and health system outcomes.

Optimization of Care Pathways Through Technological, Clinical, Organizational and Social Innovations: A Qualitative Study

Numerous calls at national and international level are leading some countries to seek to redesign the provision of healthcare and services. Care pathways have the potential to improve outcomes by providing a mechanism to coordinate care and reduce fragmentation and ultimately costs. However, their implementation still shows variable results, resulting in them being considered as complex interventions in complex systems. By mobilizing an emerging approach combining action research and grounded theory methodology, we conducted a pilot project on care pathways. We used a strongly inductive process, to mobilize comparison and continuous theoretical sampling to produce theories. Forty-two interviews were conducted, and participant observations were made throughout the project, including 60 participant observations at meetings, workshops and field observations. The investigators kept logbooks and recorded field notes. Thematic analysis was used with an inductive approach. The present model explains the factors that positively or negatively influence the implementation of innovations in care pathways. The model represents interactions between facilitating factors, favourable conditions for the emergence of innovation adoption, implementation process enablers and challenges or barriers including those related specifically to the local context. What seems to be totally new is the embodiment of the mobilizing shared objective of active patient-partner participation in decision-making, data collection and analysis and solution building. This allows, in our opinion, to transcend professional perspectives for the benefit of patient-oriented results. Finally, the pilot project has created expectations in terms of spread and scaling. Future research on care pathway implementation should go further in the evaluation of the multifactorial impacts and develop a methodological framework of care pathway implementation, as the only existing proposition seems limited. Furthermore, from a social science perspective, it would be interesting to analyse the modes of social valuation of the different actors to understand what allows the transformation of collective action.

Implementation model for a national learning health system (IMPLEMENT-National LHS): a concept analysis and systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite efforts and repeated calls to improve the organisation and quality of healthcare and services, and in view of the many challenges facing health systems, the results and capacity to adapt and integrate innovations and new knowledge remain suboptimal. Learning health systems (LHS) may be an effective model to accelerate the application of research for real quality improvement in healthcare. However, while recognising the enormous potential of LHS, the literature suggests the model remains more of an aspiration than a reality.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To reach a fine understanding of the implementation of the concepts involved in LHS, we will use a hybrid method which combines concept analyses with systematic review methodology. We will use a two-step analysis, a content analysis to analyse the definitions, uses and attributes of the concept and a systematic review to analyse the concept's implementation mechanisms. We will search eight databases and grey literature and present a broad synthesis of the available evidence regarding design, implementation and evaluation of LHS in a multilevel perspective. We will follow the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement for conducting and reporting a systematic review. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria followed by full-text screening of potentially relevant articles for final inclusion decision. Conflicts will be resolved with a senior author. We will include published primary studies that use qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. The assessment of risk of bias will be made using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review is exempt from ethics approval. The results formulated will highlight evidence-based interventions that support the implementation of a national LHS. They will be of particular interest to decision makers, researchers, managers, clinicians and patients allowing finally to implement the promising proposal of LHSs at national scale.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023393565.

Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step.

RESULTS

Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Indicators to measure implementation and sustainability of nursing best practice guidelines: A mixed methods analysis

Background

The use of best practice guidelines (BPGs) has the potential to decrease the gap between best evidence and nursing and healthcare practices. We conducted an exploratory mixed method study to identify strategies, processes, and indicators relevant to the implementation and sustainability of two Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) BPGs at Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® (BPSOs).

Methods

Our study had four phases. In Phase 1, we triangulated two qualitative studies: a) secondary analysis of 126 narrative reports detailing implementation progress from 21 BPSOs spanning four sectors to identify strategies and processes used to support the implementation and sustainability of BPGs and b) interviews with 25 guideline implementers to identify additional strategies and processes. In Phase 2, we evaluated correlations between strategies and processes identified from the narrative reports and one process and one outcome indicator for each of the guideline. In Phase 3, the results from Phases 1 and 2 informed indicator development, led by an expert panel. In Phase 4, the indicators were assessed internally by RNAO staff and externally by Ontario Health Teams. A survey was used to validate proposed indicators to determine relevance, feasibility, readability, and usability with knowledge users and BPSO leaders.

Results

Triangulation of the two qualitative studies revealed 46 codes of implementation and sustainability of BPGs, classified into eight overarching themes: Stakeholder Engagement, Practice Interventions, Capacity Building, Evidence-Based Culture, Leadership, Evaluation & Monitoring, Communication, and Governance. A total of 28 structure, process, or outcome indicators were developed. End users and BPSO leaders were agreeable with the indicators according to the validation survey.

Conclusions

Many processes and strategies can influence the implementation and sustainability of BPGs at BPSOs. We have developed indicators that can help BPSOs promote evidence-informed practice implementation of BPGs.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines: a guideline development protocol

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive diagnostic imaging referral guidelines are an important tool to assist referring clinicians and radiologists in determining the safest and best-clinical-value diagnostic imaging study for their patients; the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) last produced its diagnostic imaging referral guidelines in 2012. In partnership with several national organizations, referring clinicians, radiologists, and patient and family advisors from across Canada, the association is redoing its referral guidelines using a new methodology for guideline development, and these guideline recommendations will be suited for integration into clinical decision support systems.

METHODS

Expert panels of radiologists, referring clinicians and a patient advisor will work with epidemiologists at the CAR to create guidelines across 13 clinical sections. The expert panel for each section will first create a comprehensive list of clinical and diagnostic scenarios to include in the guidelines. Canadian Association of Radiologists epidemiologists will then conduct a systematic rapid scoping review to identify systematically produced guidelines from other guideline groups. The corresponding expert panel will develop diagnostic imaging recommendations for each clinical and diagnostic scenario using the recommendations identified from the scoping review and contextualize them to the Canadian health care systems. The expert panels will accomplish this using an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, which reflects the benefits and harms, values and preferences, equity, accessibility, resources and cost.

INTERPRETATION

Freely available, up-to-date, comprehensive Canadian-specific diagnostic imaging referral guidelines are needed. A transparent and structured guideline-development approach will aid the CAR and its partners in producing guidelines across its 13 sections.

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Attaining expert consensus on diagnostic expectations of primary chronic pain diagnoses for patients referred to interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs: A delphi study with pediatric chronic pain physicians and advanced practice nurses

Objective

Pediatric primary chronic pain disorders come with diagnostic uncertainty, which may obscure diagnostic expectations for referring providers and the decision to accept or re-direct patients into interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs based on diagnostic completeness. We aimed to attain expert consensus on diagnostic expectations for patients who are referred to interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs with six common primary chronic pain diagnoses.

Method

We conducted a modified Delphi study with pediatric chronic pain physicians, nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists to determine degree of importance on significant clinical indicators and diagnostic items relevant to each of the six primary chronic pain diagnoses. Items were identified through point of care databases and complimentary literature and were rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. Our consensus threshold was set at 70%.

Results

Amongst 22 experts across 14 interdisciplinary programs in round one and 16 experts across 12 interdisciplinary programs in round two, consensus was reached on 84% of diagnostic items, where the highest degree of agreement was with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), Type 1 (100%) and the lowest with chronic pelvic pain (67%).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated a general agreement amongst pediatric chronic pain experts regarding diagnostic expectations of patients referred to interdisciplinary chronic pain programs with primary chronic pain diagnoses. Study findings may help to clarify referral expectations and the decision to accept or re-direct patients into such programs based on diagnostic completeness while reducing the occurrence of unnecessary diagnostic tests and subsequent delays in accessing specialized care.

The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Champions have been documented in the literature as an important strategy for implementation, yet their effectiveness has not been well synthesized in the health care literature. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether champions, tested in isolation from other implementation strategies, are effective at improving innovation use or outcomes in health care.

METHODS

The JBI systematic review method guided this study. A peer-reviewed search strategy was applied to eight electronic databases to identify relevant articles. We included all published articles and unpublished theses and dissertations that used a quantitative study design to evaluate the effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations within health care settings. Two researchers independently completed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. We used content analysis and vote counting to synthesize our data.

RESULTS

After screening 7566 records titles and abstracts and 2090 full text articles, we included 35 studies in our review. Most of the studies (71.4%) operationalized the champion strategy by the presence or absence of a champion. In a subset of seven studies, five studies found associations between exposure to champions and increased use of best practices, programs, or technological innovations at an organizational level. In other subsets, the evidence pertaining to use of champions and innovation use by patients or providers, or at improving outcomes was either mixed or scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a small body of literature reporting an association between use of champions and increased instrumental use of innovations by organizations. However, more research is needed to determine causal relationship between champions and innovation use and outcomes. Even though there are no reported adverse effects in using champions, opportunity costs may be associated with their use. Until more evidence becomes available about the effectiveness of champions at increasing innovation use and outcomes, the decision to deploy champions should consider the needs and resources of the organization and include an evaluation plan. To further our understanding of champions' effectiveness, future studies should (1) use experimental study designs in conjunction with process evaluations, (2) describe champions and their activities and (3) rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of champions' activities.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ba3d2 ). Registered on November 15, 2020.

Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions

Healthcare professional (HCP) behaviours are actions performed by individuals and teams for varying and often complex patient needs. However, gaps exist between evidence-informed care behaviours and the care provided. Implementation science seeks to develop generalizable principles and approaches to investigate and address care gaps, supporting HCP behaviour change while building a cumulative science. We highlight theory-informed approaches for defining HCP behaviour and investigating the prevalence of evidence-based care and known correlates and interventions to change professional practice. Behavioural sciences can be applied to develop implementation strategies to support HCP behaviour change and provide valid, reliable tools to evaluate these strategies. There are thousands of different behaviours performed by different HCPs across many contexts, requiring different implementation approaches. HCP behaviours can include activities related to promoting health and preventing illness, assessing and diagnosing illnesses, providing treatments, managing health conditions, managing the healthcare system and building therapeutic alliances. The key challenge is optimising behaviour change interventions that address barriers to and enablers of recommended practice. HCP behaviours may be determined by, but not limited to, Knowledge, Social influences, Intention, Emotions and Goals. Understanding HCP behaviour change is a critical to ensuring advances in health psychology are applied to maximize population health.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.