Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched the EvidenceNOW Initiative to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care in smaller primary care practices. AHRQ funded eight grantees (seven regional Cooperatives and one independent national evaluation) to participate in EvidenceNOW. The national evaluation examines quality improvement efforts and outcomes for more than 1500 small primary care practices (restricted to those with fewer than ten physicians per clinic). Examples of external support include practice facilitation, expert consultation, performance feedback, and educational materials and activities. This paper describes the study protocol for the EvidenceNOW national evaluation, which is called Evaluating System Change to Advance Learning and Take Evidence to Scale (ESCALATES). Methods This prospective observational study will examine the portfolio of EvidenceNOW Cooperatives using both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include: online implementation diaries, observation and interviews at Cooperatives and practices, and systematic assessment of context from the perspective of Cooperative team members. Quantitative data include: practice-level performance on clinical quality measures (aspirin prescribing, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and smoking cessation; ABCS) collected by Cooperatives from electronic health records (EHRs); practice and practice member surveys to assess practice capacity and other organizational and structural characteristics; and systematic tracking of intervention delivery. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses will be conducted to examine how Cooperatives organize to provide external support to practices, to compare effectiveness of the dissemination and implementation approaches they implement, and to examine how regional variations and other organization and contextual factors influence implementation and effectiveness. Discussion ESCALATES is a national evaluation of an ambitious large-scale dissemination and implementation effort focused on transforming smaller primary care practices. Insights will help to inform the design of national health care practice extension systems aimed at supporting practice transformation efforts in the USA. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02560428 (09/21/15)

Background To date, epidemiological studies on degenerative mitral valve disease (DMVD) in dogs have largely reported referral caseloads or been limited to predisposed breeds. Analysis of primary‐care data to identify factors associated with DMVD would help clinicians identify high‐risk individuals and improve understanding. Objectives To estimate the prevalence of and identify risk factors for DMVD in dogs attending primary‐care veterinary practices in England. Animals Cases were identified within the electronic patient records of 111,967 dogs attending 93 practices. Four hundred and 5 dogs were diagnosed with DMVD (diagnosed cases) and a further 3,557 dogs had a heart murmur (HM) consistent with DMVD (possible cases). Methods Retrospective cross‐sectional study design. Prevalence was adjusted for the sampling approach. Mixed effects logistic regression models identified factors associated with DMVD. Results Prevalence estimates of diagnosed DMVD and HMs consistent with DMVD (both diagnosed and possible cases) were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–0.45) and 3.54% (95% CI: 3.26–3.84) respectively. In the multivariable analysis, males had higher odds of diagnosed DMVD than did females (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% CI: 1.12–1.74). Insured dogs had increased odds of DMVD compared with noninsured dogs (OR 3.56, 95% CI: 2.79–4.55) and dogs ≥20 kg had approximately half the odds of DMVD diagnosis compared with dogs <20 kg (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36–0.74). Strong associations between a DMVD diagnosis and individual breeds and age were identified. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Degenerative mitral valve disease was a common disorder in practice‐attending dogs. Knowledge of identified risk factors for DMVD could improve clinical diagnosis and direct future research.

IntroductionGeneral practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients.Methods and analysisThe BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients.Trial registration numbersDRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Background As individuals age, they are more likely to experience increasing frailty and more frequent use of hospital services. First, we explored whether initiating home-based primary care in a frail homebound cohort, influenced hospital use. Second, we explored whether initiating regular home care support for personal care with usual primary care, in a second somewhat less frail cohort, influenced hospital use. Methods This was a before-after retrospective cohort study of two frail populations in Vancouver, Canada using administrative data to assess the influence of two different services started in two different cohorts over the same time period. The participants were 246 recipients of integrated home-based primary care and 492 recipients of home care followed between July 1st, 2008 and June 30th, 2013 before and after starting their respective services. Individuals in each group were linked to their hospital emergency department visit and discharge abstract records. The main outcome measures were mean emergency department visit and hospital admission rates per 1000 patient days for 21 months before versus the period after receipt of services, and the adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) on these outcomes post receipt of service. Results Before versus after starting integrated home-based primary care, emergency department visit rates per 1000 patient days (95% confidence intervals) were 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) versus 3.7 (3.3, 4.1), and hospital admissions rates were 2.3 (2.1, 2.5) versus 2.2 (1.9, 2.5). Before versus after starting home care, emergency department visit rates per 1000 patient days (95% confidence intervals) were 3.0 (2.8, 3.2) versus 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) visits and hospital admissions rates were 1.3 (1.2, 1.4) versus 1.9 (1.7, 2.1). Home-based primary care IRRs were 0.91 (0.72, 1.15) and 0.99 (0.76, 1.27) and home care IRRs were 1.34 (1.15, 1.56 ) and 1.46 (1.22, 1.74) for emergency department visits and hospital admissions respectively. Conclusions After enrollment in integrated home-based primary care, emergency department visit and hospital admission rates stabilized. After starting home care with usual primary care, emergency department visit and hospital admission rates continued to rise.

Delays in accessing care for malaria and other diseases can lead to disease progression, and user fees are a known barrier to accessing health care. Governments are introducing free health care to improve health outcomes. Free health care affects treatment seeking, and it is therefore assumed to lead to improved health outcomes, but there is no direct trial evidence of the impact of removing out-of-pocket payments on health outcomes in developing countries. This trial was designed to test the impact of free health care on health outcomes directly. 2,194 households containing 2,592 Ghanaian children under 5 y old were randomised into a prepayment scheme allowing free primary care including drugs, or to a control group whose families paid user fees for health care (normal practice); 165 children whose families had previously paid to enrol in the prepayment scheme formed an observational arm. The primary outcome was moderate anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] < 8 g/dl); major secondary outcomes were health care utilisation, severe anaemia, and mortality. At baseline the randomised groups were similar. Introducing free primary health care altered the health care seeking behaviour of households; those randomised to the intervention arm used formal health care more and nonformal care less than the control group. Introducing free primary health care did not lead to any measurable difference in any health outcome. The primary outcome of moderate anaemia was detected in 37 (3.1%) children in the control and 36 children (3.2%) in the intervention arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.67). There were four deaths in the control and five in the intervention group. Mean Hb concentration, severe anaemia, parasite prevalence, and anthropometric measurements were similar in each group. Families who previously self-enrolled in the prepayment scheme were significantly less poor, had better health measures, and used services more frequently than those in the randomised group. In the study setting, removing out-of-pocket payments for health care had an impact on health care-seeking behaviour but not on the health outcomes measured.

Cinq cent soixante-quatre mille Canadiens sont actuellement atteints de démence. Ce nombre continuera de s’accroître avec le vieillissement de la population. Les médecins de famille jouent un rôle important dans le diagnostic et la gestion des patients avec démence. Bien que des recherches aient montré les perspectives des médecins de famille dans les soins liés à la démence en milieu urbain, les connaissances associées aux défis dans les régions rurales sont encore très limitées. Cette étude visait à explorer les expériences des médecins de famille qui dispensent des soins à des patients avec démence dans des régions rurales en Alberta (Canada). Trois groupes de discussion semi-structurés comprenant 16 médecins de famille ont été organisés afin d’évaluer les barrières et les facilitateurs dans la prestation de soins à des personnes avec démence de trois communautés rurales. Les questions des groupes de discussion ont été élaborées selon le modèle du Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) et ont été analysées selon cette approche-cadre. Les compétences des médecins, leurs opportunités et leur motivation semblent jouer des rôles majeurs dans les soins destinés à ces patients. Ces résultats de recherche pourraient être utilisés pour améliorer la qualité des soins en milieu rural pour les patients atteints de démence. Currently, 564,000 Canadians are living with dementia. This number will continue to rise as the population ages. Family physicians play an integral role in the diagnosis and management of dementia patients. Although studies have looked at family physician perspectives on dementia care in the urban setting, much less is known about challenges in rural areas. This study aimed to explore rural family physicians’ experiences in caring for patients with dementia in rural Alberta, Canada. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups with 16 family physicians to evaluate barriers and facilitators to providing care to persons with dementia in three rural communities. We developed focus group questions based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and analysed them using a framework approach. Physician capabilities, opportunities, and motivations appear to play important roles in caring for these patients. These research findings can be used to advance quality of care for rural dementia patients.

Background Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. Methods PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar’s test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. Results Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group ( p  = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. Conclusions The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012.

Background: Serious shortcomings remain in clinical care in the United States despite widespread use of improvement strategies for enhancing clinical performance based on knowledge transfer approaches. Recent calls to transform primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home present even greater challenges and require more effective approaches. Methods: Our research team conducted a series of National Institutes of Health funded descriptive and intervention projects to understand organizational change in primary care practice settings, emphasizing a complexity science perspective. The result was a developmental research effort that enabled the identification of critical lessons relevant to enabling practice change. Results: A summary of findings from a 15-year program of research highlights the limitations of viewing primary care practices in the mechanistic terms that underlie current or traditional approaches to quality improvement. A theoretical perspective that views primary care practices as dynamic complex adaptive systems with \"agents\" who have the capacity to learn, and the freedom to act in unpredictable ways provides a better framework for grounding quality improvement strategies. This framework strongly emphasizes that quality improvement interventions should not only use a complexity systems perspective, but also there is a need for continual reflection, careful tailoring of interventions, and ongoing attention to the quality of interactions among agents in the practice. Conclusions: It is unlikely that current strategies for quality improvement will be successful in transforming current primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home without a stronger guiding theoretical foundation. Our work suggests that a theoretical framework guided by complexity science can help in the development of quality improvement strategies that will more effectively facilitate practice change.

A gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors. This gap could be narrowed if systematically developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice. We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematically developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practices in two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system. Pharmacists conducted the visits. Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practices during 1 y before and after the intervention. The main outcomes were the proportions of (1) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed, (2) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, and (3) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals. The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug. Thiazides were prescribed to 17% of patients in the intervention group versus 11% in the control group (relative risk 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.49-2.49, adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect). Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals. Our tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care.

There are no consistent data on US primary care clinicians and primary care practices owing to the lack of standard methods to identify them, hampering efforts in primary care improvement. We develop a pragmatic framework that identifies primary care clinicians and practices in the context of the US healthcare system, and applied the framework to the IQVIA OneKey Healthcare Professional database to identify and profile primary care clinicians and practices in the USA. Our framework prescribes sequential steps to identify primary care clinicians by cross-examining clinician specialties and organizational affiliations, and then identify primary care practices based on organization types and presence of primary care clinicians. Applying this framework to the 2021 IQVIA data, we identified 365,751 physicians with a primary specialty in primary care, and after excluding those who further specialized (24%), served as hospitalists (5%), or worked in non-primary care settings (41%), we determined that 179,369 (49%) of them were actually practicing primary care. We identified 287,506 nurse practitioners and 134,083 physician assistants and determined that 88,574 (31%) and 29,781 (22%), respectively, were delivering primary care. We identified 94,489 primary care practices, and found that 45% of them were with one primary care physician, 15% had two physicians, 12% employed nurse practitioners or physician assistants only, and 19% employed both primary care physicians and specialists. Our approach offers a pragmatic and consistent alternative to the diverse methods currently used to identify and profile primary care workforce and organizations in the USA.