Clinical Performance Feedback Research Articles

Adoption, acceptance, and use of a decision support tool to promote timely investigations for cancer in primary care.

The complexities of diagnosing cancer in general practice has driven the development of quality improvement (QI) interventions, including clinical decision support (CDS) and auditing tools. Future Health Today (FHT) is a novel QI tool, consisting of CDS at the point-of-care, practice population-level auditing, recall, and the monitoring of QI activities. Explore the acceptability and usability of the FHT cancer module, which flags patients with abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer. Interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs), from practices participating in a randomized trial evaluating the appropriate follow-up of patients. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was used to analyse and interpret the data. The majority of practices reported not using the auditing and QI components of the tool, only the CDS which was delivered at the point-of-care. The tool was used primarily by GPs; GPNs did not perceive the clinical recommendations to be within their role. For the CDS, facilitators for use included a good workflow fit, ease of use, low time cost, importance, and perceived knowledge gain. Barriers for use of the CDS included accuracy, competing priorities, and the patient population. The CDS aligned with the clinical workflow of GPs, was considered non-disruptive to the consultation and easy to implement into usual care. By applying the CP-FIT theory, we were able to demonstrate the key drivers for GPs using the tool, and what limited the use by GPNs.

Process evaluation of two large randomized controlled trials to understand factors influencing family physicians’ use of antibiotic audit and feedback reports

BackgroundUnnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care are common and contribute to antimicrobial resistance in the population. Audit and feedback (A&F) on antibiotic prescribing to primary care can improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, but the optimal approach is uncertain. We performed two pragmatic randomized controlled trials of different approaches to audit and feedback. The trial results showed that A&F was associated with significantly reducing antibiotic prescribing. Still, the effect size was small, and the modifications to the A&F interventions tested in the trials were not associated with any change. Herein, we report a theory-informed qualitative process evaluation to explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects.MethodsOntario family physicians in the intervention arms of both trials who were sent A&F letters were invited for one-on-one interviews. Purposive sampling was used to seek variation across interested participants in personal and practice characteristics. Qualitative analysis utilized inductive and deductive techniques informed by the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.ResultsModifications to the intervention design tested in the trial did not alter prescribing patterns beyond the changes made in response to the A&F overall for various reasons. Change in antibiotic prescribing in response to A&F depended on whether it led to the formation of specific intentions and whether those intentions translated to particular behaviours. Those without intentions to change tended to feel that their unique clinical context was not represented in the A&F. Those with intentions but without specific actions taken tended to express a lack of self-efficacy for avoiding a prescription in contexts with time constraints and/or without an ongoing patient relationship. Many participants noted that compared to overall prescribing, A&F on antibiotic prescription duration was perceived as new information and easily actionable.ConclusionOur findings indicate that contextual factors, including the types of patients and the setting where they are seen, affect how clinicians react to audit and feedback. These results suggest a need to test tailored feedback reports that reflect the context of how, where, and why physicians prescribe antibiotics so that they might be perceived as more personal and more actionable.Trial registrationClinical Trial registration IDs: NCT04594200, NCT05044052.

How to Design Effective Audit and Feedback Interventions With Nurses: A Set of Hypotheses Based on Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence.

To propose practical hypotheses on audit and feedback that support the effectiveness with nurses. Audit and feedback interventions have been mainly studied with physicians; however, the processes have been practiced by nurses for years. Nurses' response may differ from that of physicians and other healthcare disciplines because of their roles, power, and the configuration of nursing activities. A comparative analysis of the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory was conducted using nursing-specific empirical data from: 1) a mixed-methods systematic review and 2) a pilot study of audit and feedback with a team of primary care nurses. Researchers hypothesize that audit and feedback interventions are more effective when: 1) feedback emphasizes how it relates to the relational aspect of nursing; 2) indicators are measured and reported at team level; and 3) feedback is provided in a way that highlights benefits to nurses' practice, such as the potential to reduce workload. These proposed hypotheses provide concrete guidance to researchers and managers for an effective use of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy with nurses.

Assessment of Effectiveness of 2 Medication-Use Process Quality Audit Tools Using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.

Assessment of Effectiveness of 2 Medication-Use Process Quality Audit Tools Using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.

Burnout and the role of mentorship for radiology trainees and early career radiologists

Burnout is a widespread issue among physicians, including radiologists and radiology trainees. Long hours, isolation, and substantial stress levels contribute to healthcare workers experiencing a substantially higher rate of burnout compared with other professionals. Resident physicians, continuously exposed to stressors such as new clinical situations and performance feedback, are particularly susceptible. Mentorship has proven to be an effective strategy in mitigating burnout. Various mentorship delivery models exist, all aiming to have mentors serve as role models to mentees, thereby alleviating stress and anxiety. Physician groups and healthcare enterprises have actively implemented these programs, recognizing them as both successful and cost-effective. This article explores different mentorship models, their implementation processes, and the effectiveness of these programs as a standard component of academic departments.

Practice Facilitation and Clinical Performance Feedback Using the Electronic Health Record Improved Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Management in Small Primary Care Practices in New York City.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) disproportionately affects people of color and those with lower household income. Improving blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol management for those with or at risk for CVD can improve health outcomes. The New York City Department of Health implemented clinical performance feedback with practice facilitation (PF) in 134 small primary care practices serving on average over 84% persons of color. Facilitators reviewed BP and cholesterol management data on performance dashboards and guided practices to identify and outreach to patients with suboptimal BP and cholesterol management. Despite disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, practices demonstrated significant improvements in BP (68%-75%, P <.001) and cholesterol management (72%-78%, P =.01). Prioritizing high-need neighborhoods for impactful resource investment, such as PF and data sharing, may be a promising approach to reducing CVD and hypertension inequities in areas heavily impacted by structural racism.

Developing a questionnaire to evaluate an automated audit & feedback intervention: a Rand-modified Delphi method

BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to evaluate and improve medical practice. The optimal design of an A&F system is uncertain and structured process evaluations are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate the use of automated A&F systems.MethodsBased on the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) and the REFLECT-52 (REassessing audit & Feedback interventions: a tooL for Evaluating Compliance with suggested besT practices) evaluation tool a questionnaire was designed for the purpose of evaluating automated A&F systems. A Rand-modified Delphi method was used to develop the process evaluation and obtain validation. Fourteen experts from different domains in primary care consented to participate and individually scored the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Afterwards, the questions were discussed in a consensus meeting. After approval, the final questionnaire was compiled.ResultsA 34-question questionnaire composed of 57 items was developed and presented to the expert panel. The consensus meeting resulted in a selection of 31 questions, subdivided into 43 items. A final list of 30 questions consisting of 42 items was obtained.ConclusionA questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was drawn up for the assessment and improvement of automated A&F systems, based on CP-FIT and REFLECT-52 theory and approved by experts. Next steps will be piloting and implementation of the questionnaire.

Implementing a Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor Module With a Software Tool (Future Health Today): Qualitative Study.

Primary care plays a key role in the management of type 2 diabetes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been demonstrated to reduce hospitalization and cardiac and renal complications. Tools that optimize management, including appropriate prescribing, are a priority for treating chronic diseases. Future Health Today (FHT) is software that facilitates clinical decision support and quality improvement. FHT applies algorithms to data stored in electronic medical records in general practice to identify patients who are at risk of a chronic disease or who have a chronic disease that may benefit from intensification of management. The platform continues to evolve because of rigorous evaluation, continuous improvement, and expansion of the conditions hosted on the platform. FHT currently displays recommendations for the identification and management of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer risk. A new module will be introduced to FHT focusing on SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The study aims to explore the barriers and enablers to the implementation of an SGLT2 inhibitor module within the Future Health Today software. Clinic staff were recruited to participate in interviews on their experience in their use of a tool to improve prescribing behavior for SGLT2 inhibitors. Thematic analysis was guided by Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. In total, 16 interviews were completed. Identified enablers of use included workflow alignment, clinical appropriateness, and active delivery of the module. Key barriers to use were competing priorities, staff engagement, and knowledge of the clinical topic. There is a recognized benefit to the use of a clinical decision support tool to support type 2 diabetes management, but barriers were identified that impeded the usability and actionability of the module. Successful and effective implementation of this tool could support the optimization of patient management of type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Process and Implementation Elements of Measurement Feedback Systems: A Systematic Review.

Measurement feedback systems (MFS) can help guide treatment and improve clinical outcomes. Studies of MFS are heterogeneous both in execution and results, and the effects of MFS seem restricted by limited attention to process and implementation elements and by limited adoption by health professionals. The current systematic review mapped the use of process and implementation elements in MFS studies. An overview of therapists' use of and attitudes toward MFS is provided. Three-level meta-analyses were used to test theoretically informed process and implementation elements as moderators of the effects of MFS. Hypotheses and general propositions from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) were used to organize the elements of the studies and were used as moderator variables. Previous studies on MFS interventions have had a limited focus on implementation efforts and process elements that may increase the effects of MFS and their use among therapists. Efforts have sparsely been made to reduce barriers to MFS use, and several studies have reported limited engagement with MFS among therapists. Therapists' attitudes toward MFS, feedback, or standardized measures were heterogeneously reported, making data synthesis challenging. Identified process and implementation elements were not significantly associated with effect sizes in the studies and the results did not support the propositions of CP-FIT. The lack of statistically significant associations may be due to limited reporting of details about process and implementation aspects. More research designed to test hypotheses regarding process and implementation elements is needed to improve the use and effects of MFS. Future studies should aspire to report findings in a manner that allows for an understanding of the implementation process and therapists' adoption of these systems.

Physician Perceptions of Performance Feedback and Impact on Personal Well-Being: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient Satisfaction Feedback in Neurology.

To understand neurologists' experiences and perspectives on patient satisfaction feedback and its impact on personal well-being and behavior. From May to June 2021, the researchers conducted 19 semistructured interviews with neurologists from a large academic medical center. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory informed a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, which focused on perceptions of current feedback practices, its impact on physician behavior, and recommendations for improvement. Participants tended to be female (n = 12/19, 63.2%), aged 30-39 (n = 8/19, 42.1%), white (n = 9/19, 47.4%), and were 10+ years into clinical practice (n = 18/19, 94.7%). Physicians were receptive to feedback overall, but perceptions varied by feedback type. Physicians preferred informal feedback (delivered unprompted directly by patients), given its tendency toward actionability. They disliked formal feedback (derived from anonymous surveys) due to low actionability, bias and validity issues, lack of contextual considerations, delivery through public reports, and links to financial incentives. Nearly all physicians reported formal feedback programs had the potential to negatively affect well-being and were not beneficial to their practice; a few reported adjusting their clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction performance. Five recommendations to improve patient satisfaction feedback programs emerged: Align on feedback intent, acknowledge survey limitations during program administration, increase actionability of feedback through specificity and control, support direct patient-physician feedback and problem resolution, and support empathetic integration of feedback. Understanding physician perceptions of current approaches to patient satisfaction feedback offers the opportunity to shape subsequent collection and distribution methods to improve physician performance and optimize professional fulfillment.

The Case for Feedback-in-Practice as a Topic of Educational Scholarship.

The importance of clinical performance feedback is well established and the factors relevant to its effectiveness widely recognized, yet feedback continues to play out in problematic ways. For example, learning culture modifications shown to facilitate feedback have not seen widespread adoption, and the learner-educator interactions prescribed by research rarely occur organically. Nevertheless, medical learners achieve clinical competence, suggesting a need to expand educational scholarship on this topic to better account for learner growth. This Scholarly Perspective argues for a more extensive exploration of feedback as an educational activity embedded in clinical practice , where joint clinical work that involves an educator and learner provides a locus for feedback in the midst of performance. In these clinically embedded feedback episodes, learning and performance goals are constrained by the task at hand, and the educator guides the learner in collaboratively identifying problematic elements, naming and reframing the source of challenge, and extrapolating implications for further action. In jointly conducting clinical tasks, educators and learners may frequently engage in feedback interactions that are both aligned with workplace realities and consistent with current theoretical understanding of what feedback is. However, feedback embedded in practice may be challenged by personal, social, and organizational factors that affect learners' participation in workplace activity. This Scholarly Perspective aims to provide a conceptual framework that helps educators and learners be more intentional about and fully participatory in this important educational activity. By topicalizing this feedback-in-practice and exploring its integration with the more commonly foregrounded feedback-on-practice , future educational scholarship may achieve optimal benefit to learners, educators, and clinical practice.

Optimization of a Quality Improvement Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.

BackgroundThe most common route to a diagnosis of cancer is through primary care. Delays in diagnosing cancer occur when an opportunity to make a timely diagnosis is missed and is evidenced by patients visiting the general practitioner (GP) on multiple occasions before referral to a specialist. Tools that minimize prolonged diagnostic intervals and reduce missed opportunities to investigate patients for cancer are therefore a priority.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the usefulness and feasibility of a novel quality improvement (QI) tool in which algorithms flag abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer. This study allows for the optimization of the cancer recommendations before testing the efficacy in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsGPs, practice nurses, practice managers, and consumers were recruited to participate in individual interviews or focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled as part of a pilot and feasibility study, in which primary care practices were receiving recommendations relating to the follow-up of abnormal test results for prostate-specific antigen, thrombocytosis, and iron-deficiency anemia. The Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was applied to the analysis using a thematic approach.ResultsA total of 17 interviews and 3 focus groups (n=18) were completed. Participant themes were mapped to CP-FIT across the constructs of context, recipient, and feedback variables. The key facilitators to use were alignment with workflow, recognized need, the perceived importance of the clinical topic, and the GPs’ perception that the recommendations were within their control. Barriers to use included competing priorities, usability and complexity of the recommendations, and knowledge of the clinical topic. There was consistency between consumer and practitioner perspectives, reporting language concerns associated with the word cancer, the need for more patient-facing resources, and time constraints of the consultation to address patients’ worries.ConclusionsThere was a recognized need for the QI tool to support the diagnosis of cancer in primary care, but barriers were identified that hindered the usability and actionability of the recommendations in practice. In response, the tool has been refined and is currently being evaluated as part of a randomized controlled trial. Successful and effective implementation of this QI tool could support the detection of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer in primary care and assist in preventing unnecessary delays.

Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis

BackgroundAudit and feedback is widely used in healthcare improvement, with evidence of modest yet potentially important effects upon professional practice. There are approximately 60 national clinical audit programmes in the UK. These programmes often develop and adapt new ways of delivering feedback to optimise impacts on clinical practice. Two such programmes, the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) and the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN), recently introduced changes to their delivery of feedback. We assessed the extent to which the design of these audit programmes and their recent changes were consistent with best practice according to the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT). This comprehensive framework specifies how variables related to the feedback itself, the recipient, and the context operate via explanatory mechanisms to influence feedback success.MethodsWe interviewed 19 individuals with interests in audit and feedback, including researchers, audit managers, healthcare staff, and patient and public representatives. This range of expert perspectives enabled a detailed exploration of feedback from the audit programmes. We structured interviews around the CP-FIT feedback cycle and its component processes (e.g. Data collection and analysis, Interaction). Our rapid analytic approach explored the extent to which both audits applied features consistent with CP-FIT.ResultsChanges introduced by the audit programmes were consistent with CP-FIT. Specifically, the NDA’s increased frequency of feedback augmented existing strengths, such as automated processes (CP-FIT component: Data collection and analysis) and being a credible source of feedback (Acceptance). TARN’s new analytic tool allowed greater interactivity, enabling recipients to interrogate their data (Verification; Acceptance). We also identified scope for improvement in feedback cycles, such as targeting of feedback recipients (Interaction) and feedback complexity (Perception) for the NDA and specifying recommendations (Intention) and demonstrating impact (Clinical performance improvement) for TARN.ConclusionsThe changes made by the two audit programmes appear consistent with suggested best practice, making clinical improvement more likely. However, observed weaknesses in the feedback cycle may limit the benefits of these changes. Applying CP-FIT via a rapid analysis approach helps identify strengths and remediable weaknesses in the design of audit programmes that can be shared with them in a timely manner.

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.

Objectives(1) Systematically review the literature on computerized audit and feedback (e-A&F) systems in healthcare. (2) Compare features of current systems against e-A&F best practices. (3) Generate hypotheses on how e-A&F systems may impact patient care and outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco) databases to December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently performed selection, extraction, and quality appraisal (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool). System features were compared with 18 best practices derived from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We then used realist concepts to generate hypotheses on mechanisms of e-A&F impact. Results are reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement.ResultsOur search yielded 4301 unique articles. We included 88 studies evaluating 65 e-A&F systems, spanning a diverse range of clinical areas, including medical, surgical, general practice, etc. Systems adopted a median of 8 best practices (interquartile range 6–10), with 32 systems providing near real-time feedback data and 20 systems incorporating action planning. High-confidence hypotheses suggested that favorable e-A&F systems prompted specific actions, particularly enabled by timely and role-specific feedback (including patient lists and individual performance data) and embedded action plans, in order to improve system usage, care quality, and patient outcomes.Conclusionse-A&F systems continue to be developed for many clinical applications. Yet, several systems still lack basic features recommended by best practice, such as timely feedback and action planning. Systems should focus on actionability, by providing real-time data for feedback that is specific to user roles, with embedded action plans.Protocol RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42016048695.

The association of job demands and resources with burnout among emergency medical services professionals.

ObjectiveAlthough burnout has been linked to negative workplace‐level effects, prior studies have primarily focused on individuals rather than job‐related characteristics. This study sought to evaluate variation in burnout between agencies and to quantify the relationship between burnout and job‐related demands/resources among emergency medical services (EMS) professionals.MethodsAn electronic questionnaire was sent to all licensed, practicing EMS professionals in South Carolina. Work‐related burnout was measured using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for specific job demands and resources while adjusting for confounding variables. Composite scores were used to simultaneously assess the relationship between burnout and job‐related demands and resources.ResultsAmong 1271 EMS professionals working at 248 EMS agencies, the median agency‐level burnout was 35% (interquartile range [IQR]: 13% to 50%). Job‐related demands, including time pressure, were associated with increased burnout. Traditional job‐related resources, including pay and benefits, were associated with reduced burnout. Less tangible job resources, including autonomy, clinical performance feedback, social support, and adequate training demonstrated strong associations with reduced burnout. EMS professionals facing high job demands and low job resources demonstrated nearly a 10‐fold increase in odds of burnout compared with those exposed to low demands and high resources (adjusted OR [aOR]: 9.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.39–14.10). High job resources attenuated the impact of high job demands.ConclusionThe proportion of EMS professionals experiencing burnout varied substantially across EMS agencies. Job resources, including those reflective of organizational culture, were associated with reduced burnout. Collectively, these findings suggest an opportunity to address burnout at the EMS agency level.

Supporting the Transition to Practice for Nurse Residents on a Multispecialty Unit

Supporting the Transition to Practice for Nurse Residents on a Multispecialty Unit

Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care

BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is more effective if it facilitates action planning, but little is known about how best to do this. We developed an electronic A&F intervention with an action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care units (ICUs); the toolbox contained suggested actions for improvement. A head-to-head randomised trial demonstrated that the toolbox moderately increased the intervention’s effectiveness when compared with A&F only.ObjectiveTo understand the mechanisms through which A&F with action implementation toolbox facilitates action planning by ICUs to increase A&F effectiveness.MethodsWe extracted all individual actions from action plans developed by ICUs that received A&F with (n = 10) and without (n = 11) toolbox for 6 months and classified them using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We held semi-structured interviews with participants during the trial. We compared the number and type of planned and completed actions between study groups and explored barriers and facilitators to effective action planning.ResultsICUs with toolbox planned more actions directly aimed at improving practice (p = 0.037) and targeted a wider range of practice determinants compared to ICUs without toolbox. ICUs with toolbox also completed more actions during the study period, but not significantly (p = 0.142). ICUs without toolbox reported more difficulties in identifying what actions they could take. Regardless of the toolbox, all ICUs still experienced barriers relating to the feedback (low controllability, accuracy) and organisational context (competing priorities, resources, cost).ConclusionsThe toolbox helped health professionals to broaden their mindset about actions they could take to change clinical practice. Without the toolbox, professionals tended to focus more on feedback verification and exploring solutions without developing intentions for actual change. All feedback recipients experienced organisational barriers that inhibited eventual completion of actions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02922101. Registered on 26 September 2016.

Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams

BackgroundThe use of clinical performance feedback to support quality improvement (QI) activities is based on the sound rationale that measurement is necessary to improve quality of care. However, concerns persist about the reliability of this strategy, known as Audit and Feedback (A&F) to support QI. If successfully implemented, A&F should reflect an iterative, self-regulating QI process. Whether and how real-world A&F initiatives result in this type of feedback loop are scarcely reported. This study aimed to identify barriers or facilitators to implementation in a team-based primary care context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. At the time of data collection, practices could have received up to three iterations of the voluntary A&F initiative. Interviews explored whether, how, and why practices used the feedback to guide their QI activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to code transcripts and the resulting frameworks were analyzed inductively to generate key themes.ResultsTwenty-five individuals representing 18 primary care teams participated in the study. Analysis of how the A&F intervention was used revealed that implementation reflected an incomplete feedback loop. Participation was facilitated by the reliance on an external resource to facilitate the practice audit. The frequency of feedback, concerns with data validity, the design of the feedback report, the resource requirements to participate, and the team relationship were all identified as barriers to implementation of A&F.ConclusionsThe implementation of a real-world, voluntary A&F initiative did not lead to desired QI activities despite substantial investments in performance measurement. In small primary care teams, it may take long periods of time to develop capacity for QI and future evaluations may reveal shifts in the implementation state of the initiative. Findings from the present study demonstrate that the potential mechanism of action of A&F may be deceptively clear; in practice, moving from measurement to action can be complex.

Study protocol: a cluster-randomized trial implementing Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC trial)

BackgroundExperts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care (“SPARC implementation intervention” hereafter).The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics.Methods/DesignThe SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015–July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies.DiscussionThe SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care—alcohol screening and brief intervention—as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777.

A System-Level Approach to Improve the Uptake of Antiestrogen Preventive Therapy among Women with Atypical Hyperplasia and Lobular Cancer In Situ.

Background: The low uptake of antiestrogen preventive therapy among women at high risk of developing breast cancer remains a challenge. We implemented a performance improvement program to increase the uptake of preventive therapy among women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) and lobular cancer in situ (LCIS).Methods: A performance improvement program was implemented at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX), November 2015 to February 2017, for patients with a new (<6 months) or existing (≥6 months) diagnosis of AH/LCIS. The program consisted of an audit of eligible women who were recommended and prescribed preventive therapy and the provision of clinical performance feedback to providers. The baseline uptake of preventive therapy was estimated from patients enrolled in a high-risk breast cohort.Results: Baseline uptake of preventive therapy was 44%. The program registered 408 patients with a new (n = 87) or existing diagnosis (n = 321) of AH/LCIS; mean age was 57 and 71% were non-Hispanic white. Ninety-eight percent of patients received a recommendation for preventive therapy. The overall prescribing of preventive therapy to patients with a new or existing diagnosis was 82% (monthly range, 40%-100%; Ptrend = 0.76) and 48% (monthly range, 27%-57%; Ptrend < 0.01), respectively. Adherence among patients with a new or existing diagnosis was 76% and 48% (P < 0.01) at 6 months, respectively.Conclusion: A system-level approach improved the uptake of preventive therapy. Identifying women at the time of diagnosis of AH/LCIS and offering a strong recommendation are key components for improving acceptance and adherence with preventive therapy. Cancer Prev Res; 11(5); 295-302. ©2018 AACR.