scholarly journals A Qualitative Study of Increased Pediatric Reutilization After a Postdischarge Home Nurse Visit

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 518-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah W Riddle ◽  
Susan N Sherman ◽  
Margo J Moore ◽  
Allison M Loechtenfeldt ◽  
Heather L Tubbs-Cooley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Home Visit ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Medicine ◽  
Warning Sign ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Hospital To Home ◽  
Home Nurse

BACKGROUND: The Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) trial was a 2-arm, randomized controlled trial that assessed the effects of a nurse home visit after a pediatric hospital discharge. Children randomized to the intervention had higher 30-day postdischarge reutilization rates compared with those with standard discharge. We sought to understand perspectives on why postdischarge home nurse visits resulted in higher reutilization rates and to elicit suggestions on how to improve future interventions. METHODS: We sought qualitative input using focus groups and interviews from stakeholder groups: parents, primary care physicians (PCP), hospital medicine physicians, and home care registered nurses (RNs). A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using an inductive, iterative approach. RESULTS: Thirty-three parents participated in interviews. Three focus groups were completed with PCPs (n = 7), 2 with hospital medicine physicians (n = 12), and 2 with RNs (n = 10). Major themes in the explanation of increased reutilization included: appropriateness of patient reutilization; impact of red flags/warning sign instructions on family’s reutilization decisions; hospital-affiliated RNs “directing traffic” back to hospital; and home visit RNs had a low threshold for escalating care. Major themes for improving design of the intervention included: need for improved postdischarge communication; individualizing home visits—one size does not fit all; and providing context and framing of red flags. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders questioned whether hospital reutilization was appropriate and whether the intervention unintentionally directed patients back to the hospital. Future interventions could individualize the visit to specific needs or diagnoses, enhance postdischarge communication, and better connect patients and home nurses to primary care.

scholarly journals What are the opportunities for cancer care and related research in primary care? A qualitative study of the views of patients, carers, and practice staff

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp19X703505
Author(s):  
Joseph Clark ◽  
Elvis Amoakwa ◽  
John Blenkinsopp ◽  
Florence Reedy ◽  
Miriam Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Trial Participation

BackgroundResearch to identify the role of primary care in cancer care is important. However, trials in primary care are difficult.AimTo understand how patients, families, and primary care clinicians view their role in cancer care and identify opportunities for cancer primary care research.MethodQualitative study embedded within a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a primary care based needs assessment intervention. The Supportive Cancer Needs Survey (SCNS) was the main outcome. In-depth interviews with patients/carers and focus groups with primary care staff explored views on cancer care and trial participation. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically by three independent researchers.ResultsFifteen cancer patients and three carers were interviewed and four focus groups (n = 11) were conducted. Three themes were generated satisfaction with current care; key time-points for improved cancer care; and information and research. Satisfaction with current care among patients was high in spite of 72% reporting at least one moderate-high unmet need at baseline. Most patients undergoing cancer treatment were unsure when to access primary care. Patients and carers highly valued proactive contact from their practice following diagnosis though this was uncommon. Post-oncology discharge was a key time-point for information needs and support for patients. Patients were reluctant to consider palliative care in spite of palliative care needs. Some felt therapeutic benefit from completing study measures.ConclusionPatients are satisfied with cancer primary care despite unmet needs. Palliative care is poorly understood by many who may benefit. Research participation may benefit some patients.

scholarly journals Internet-based patient– primary care physician–cardiologist integrated management model of hypertension in China: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e039447
Author(s):  
Runyu Ye ◽  
Rufeng Shi ◽  
Kai Liu ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Si Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Management Model ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Treatment Of Hypertension ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe control rate of hypertension is low in China, especially in rural, western and minority areas. This is related to poor medical skills among physicians in primary care institutions and low levels of trust among patients. However, primary healthcare institutions are the main battleground for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. It is worth exploring how to most effectively integrate patients, primary care physicians and cardiologists in tertiary hospitals, to build a long-term mechanism for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. In this study, we aim to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and conduct a health economic evaluation of an internet-based patient–primary care physician–cardiologist integrated management model of hypertension in areas of China with different socioeconomic levels.Methods and analysisThis is a 12-month, multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving patients with hypertension in urban communities and rural areas of Sichuan Province, China. Each primary healthcare institution will cooperate with their tertiary hospital through the Red Shine Chronic Disease Management System (RSCDMS). Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to two groups: (1) a traditional care group; (2) an intervention group in which primary care physicians and cardiologists can share patient data and manage patients together through the RSCDMS. Patients can upload their blood pressure (BP) values and communicate with physicians using the system. The primary outcome is the change in systolic BP over a 12-month period. Secondary outcomes are changes in diastolic BP, BP control rate, values of 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, difference in cost-effectiveness between the groups, patient satisfaction, medication adherence and home BP monitoring compliance. All data will be recorded and stored in the RSCDMS and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26.0.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University in Sichuan, China (No. 2020-148). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of this study will be disseminated to the public through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000030677.

scholarly journals Physicians’ experiences of SBIRT training and implementation for SUD management in primary care in the UAE: a qualitative study

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (04) ◽  
pp. 344-354
Author(s):  
Christiane Pflanz-Sinclair ◽  
Catriona Matheson ◽  
Christine M. Bond ◽  
Amna Almarzouqi ◽  
Amanda J. Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Substance Misuse ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Cultural Issues

AimThe objective of this paper is to present a qualitative study of introducing substance misuse screening using the Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model, in primary care in Abu Dhabi.BackgroundSubstance misuse in the UAE is an increasing problem. However religious beliefs and fear of legal consequences have prevented this topic from being openly discussed, risk levels identified through screening and treatment options offered.MethodsA controlled trial was undertaken which included a qualitative process study which is reported here. Qualitative interviews with primary care physicians from two intervention clinics were undertaken to explore their views, experiences and attitudes towards substance misuse management in their clinic. Physicians were trained on SBIRT and on the research project process and documentation. At completion of the project, 10 months after the training, physicians (n=17) were invited to participate in an interview to explore their experiences of training and implementation of SBIRT. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Inductive thematic coding was applied.FindingsIn total, 11 physicians were interviewed and three main themes emerged: (1) The SBIRT screening project, (2) cultural issues and (3) patient follow-up. Findings revealed a general willingness toward the concept of screening and delivering brief interventions in primary care although increased workload and uncertainties about remuneration for the service may be a barrier to future implementation. There was a perceived problem of substance misuse that was not currently being met and a strong perception that patients were not willing to reveal substance use due cultural barriers and fear of police involvement. In conclusion this qualitative process evaluation provided essential insight into implementing SBIRT in the Middle East. In conclusion, despite physician willingness and a clinical need for a substance misuse care pathway, the reluctance among patients to admit to substance use in this culture needs to be addressed to enable successful implementation.

scholarly journals Effect of Recruitment Methods on Response Rate in a Web-Based Study for Primary Care Physicians: Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuhei So ◽  
Kiyomi Shinohara ◽  
Takuya Aoki ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Aya M Suganuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Subject Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Subject

BACKGROUND Low participation rates are one of the most serious disadvantages of Web-based studies. It is necessary to develop effective strategies to improve participation rates to obtain sufficient data. OBJECTIVE The objective of this trial was to investigate the effect of emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email and the day of the week of sending the invitation email on the participation rate in a Web-based trial. METHODS We conducted a 2×2 factorial design randomized controlled trial. We contacted 2000 primary care physicians from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017 and randomly allocated them to 1 of 4 combinations of 2 subject lines (presence or absence of an emphasis on a lottery for an Amazon gift card worth 3000 yen or approximately US $30) and 2 delivery days (sending the invitation email on Tuesday or Friday). The primary outcome was the response rate defined as the number of participants answering the first page of the questionnaire divided by the number of invitation emails delivered. All outcomes were collected between January 17, 2017, and February 8, 2017. RESULTS We analyzed data from 1943 out of 2000 participants after excluding those whose email addresses were invalid. The overall response rate was 6.3% (123/1943). There was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding incentive in the subject line: the risk ratio was 1.12 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.58) and the risk difference was 0.7% (95% CI –1.5% to 2.9%). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding sending the email on Tuesday or Friday: the risk ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.38) and the risk difference was –0.1% (95% CI –2.3% to 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS Neither emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email nor varying the day of the week the invitation email was sent led to a meaningful increase in response rates in a Web-based trial with primary care physicians. CLINICALTRIAL University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000025317; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029121 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation. org/6wOo1jl9t)

scholarly journals How primary care can help survivors of transient ischaemic attack and stroke return to work: focus groups with stakeholders from a UK community

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (693) ◽  
pp. e294-e302
Author(s):  
Chantal Balasooriya-Smeekens ◽  
Andrew Bateman ◽  
Jonathan Mant ◽  
Anna De Simoni
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Transient Ischaemic Attack ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Electronic Record ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Ischaemic Attack

BackgroundEvidence about how primary care can best enable survivors of transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke return to work is limited.AimThis study explored the role of primary care in supporting survivors of transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke return to work with stakeholders from a local UK community.DesignA qualitative study using framework analysis.MethodFour focus groups were carried out in Cambridgeshire, UK, between September and November 2015. The 18 participants included survivors of TIA/stroke, carers, an employer representative, GPs, occupational therapists (OTs), and clinical commissioners.ResultsThere was a mismatch between patient and carer needs and what is provided by primary care. This included: lack of GP awareness of invisible impairments; uncertainty how primary care could help in time-limited consultations; and complexity of return-to-work issues. Primary care physicians were not aware of relevant services they could refer patients to, such as OT support. In addition, there was an overall lack of coordination between different stakeholders in the return-to-work process. Linking with other services was considered important but challenging because of ongoing changes in service structure and the commissioning model. Suggestions for improvement include: a central contact in primary care for signposting to available services; a rehabilitation assessment integrated with the electronic record; and a patient-held shared-care plan at discharge from stroke wards.ConclusionImproving the role for primary care in helping survivors of TIA/stroke return to work is challenging. However, primary care could play a central role in initiating/coordinating vocational rehabilitation. Through focus group discussions with stakeholders from a local community, patients, carers, and clinical commissioners were able to put forward concrete proposals to address the barriers identified.

Cancer survivorship care in rural community: Provider perspective.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 50-50
Author(s):  
Katia Noyes ◽  
David Holub ◽  
Irfan Rizvi ◽  
Alex Swanger ◽  
Coty Reisdorf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Multidisciplinary Team ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Successful Implementation

50 Background: Advances in oncologic sciences have resulted in successful treatments for many cancers with improved survival for millions of patients. Efficient delivery of cancer care now requires not only skills and professionalism of each provider but also well-orchestrated performances of multiple oncology, primary care and social services providers acting as one multidisciplinary team. It is unknown, however, whether providers are prepared for and accept their new roles in patient cancer care teams across region. This study assessed perspectives of providers involved in care for patients with cancer about their changing roles. Methods: We conducted a focus group with a diverse group of stakeholders involved in cancer care (2 primary care physicians, 1 rural surgeon, 2 rural oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 2 cancer patients and a caregiver). The focus group was conducted using ThinkTank software, a collaborative tool that allows participants to communicate virtually in real time, screen share, express preferences and confidentially rank each other responses. We also conducted two traditional focus groups with rural care managers, nurses, social workers and public health providers. Results: The focus groups identified significant differences in attitudes and beliefs toward regional team-based cancer care between various providers. PCPs ranked oncology issues as less important to their practices compared to other chronic conditions associated with performance metrics and financial incentives. APPs ranked care coordination issues as more important compared to PCP rankings from the same practices. Rural providers identified limited staffing, outdated health IT systems, and lack of expertise as major barriers to multidisciplinary team care. Both patients and providers highlighted importance of trust and face-to-face communication in treatment adherence and choice of care setting. Conclusions: Current health information systems, performance metrics and payment models represent significant barriers to integrated care delivery in oncology and survivorship. Successful implementation of efficient and sustainable regional oncology program will require a multi-dimensional intervention to address each of these barriers.

Interventions to Improve Adherence to Preventive Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Yu ◽  
Chamara Basnayake ◽  
William Connell ◽  
Nik Sheng Ding ◽  
Emily Wright ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Preventive health measures reduce treatment and disease-related complications including infections, osteoporosis, and malignancies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although guidelines and quality measures for IBD care highlight the importance of preventive care, their uptake remains variable. This systematic review evaluates interventions aimed at improving the rates of provision and uptake of preventive health measures, including vaccinations, bone density assessment, skin cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and smoking cessation counseling. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for full text articles published until March 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions to improve the provision or uptake of 1 or more preventive health measures in adult IBD patients and if they reported pre- and postintervention outcomes. Results In all, 4655 studies were screened, and a total of 17 studies were included, including 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 cluster-controlled trial, and 15 prospective interventional studies. A variety of interventions were effective in improving the rates of adherence to preventive health measures. The most common interventions targeted gastroenterologists, including education, electronic medical records tools, and audit feedback. Other interventions targeted patients, such as education, questionnaires, and offering vaccine administration at clinic visits. Few interventions involved IBD nurses or primary care physicians. Conclusions A range of interventions—targeted at gastroenterologists, patients, or both—were effective in improving the provision and uptake of preventive care. Future studies should involve randomized controlled trials evaluating multifaceted interventions that target barriers to adherence and involve IBD nurses and primary care physicians.

scholarly journals Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyomi Shinohara ◽  
Takuya Aoki ◽  
Ryuhei So ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Aya M Suganuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Information ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)DesignRCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis.ParticipantsVolunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into ‘without overstatement’ (n=307) and ‘with overstatement’ (n=315) groups.InterventionsWe selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the participants’ evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the ‘without’ group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the ‘with’ group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001).ConclusionThe overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians’ evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported.Trial registration numberUMIN000025317; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document