Matulis, John C.

Introduction There is a considerable implementation gap in managing early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care despite the high prevalence and risk for increased morbidity and mortality associated with CKD. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of efficacy of implementation interventions aimed at primary care practitioners (PCPs) to improve CKD identification and management. We further aim to describe the interventions’ behavioural change components. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of studies from 2000 to October 2017 that evaluate implementation interventions targeting PCPs and which include at least one clinically meaningful CKD outcome. We will search several electronic data bases and conduct reference mining of related systematic reviews and publications. An interdisciplinary team will independently and in duplicate, screen publications, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes will include all clinically meaningful medical management outcomes relevant to CKD management in primary care such as blood pressure, chronic heart disease and diabetes target achievements. Quantitative evidence synthesis will be performed, where possible. Planned subgroup analyses include by (1) study design, (2) length of follow-up, (3) type of intervention, (4) type of implementation strategy, (5) whether a behavioural or implementation theory was used to guide study, (6) baseline CKD severity, (7) patient minority status, (8) study location and (9) academic setting or not. Ethics and dissemination Approval by research ethics board is not required since the review will only include published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a future trial of an intervention to promote uptake of CKD diagnosis and treatment guidelines in our primary care setting and the development of complementary tools to support its successful adoption and implementation. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop accessible summaries of the results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018102441.

Background: If a patient presents for an acute care visit and sees their assigned primary care provider (PCP), they may be more likely to receive preventive and other services than a patient not seeing their assigned PCP. Methods: After exclusion of 2 visits with insufficient information, we reviewed 98 consecutive, outpatient internal medicine 15-minute acute care visits comparing patients seeing their assigned PCP with those seeing a non-PCP provider. The primary outcome, preventive service ordering, was measured in 2 ways: percentage of patient visits with any preventive service ordered and the total number of preventive services ordered as a proportion of all preventive service items due for each entire cohort. The secondary outcome of other work completed was assessed by comparing tests and consults ordered, and by counting the number of physical examination elements and discrete medical diagnoses documented. Results: The PCPs were significantly more likely than non-PCPs to order any preventive service 45% versus 17% ( P = .005; odds ratio [OR]: 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-12.0). The PCP cohort ordered a higher proportion of the total number of preventive services due compared with the non-PCP cohort (30% vs 11%; P = .002; OR: 3.4, CI: 1.5-7.7). The PCPs also addressed more medical diagnoses (2.3 vs 1.4; P = .008) and more frequently ordered tests outside the reason for that visit (40% vs 13%; P = .003; OR: 4.27, CI: 1.5-11.8). Conclusion: Patients seeing their assigned PCP in brief, acute visits have higher rates of preventive and other service ordering compared to those not seeing their assigned PCP.

Background: There are numerous recommendations from expert sources that help guide primary care providers in cancer screening, infectious disease screening, metabolic screening, monitoring of drug levels, and chronic disease management. Little is known about the potential effort needed for a healthcare system to address these recommendations, or the patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. Methods: For 73 recommended population healthcare items, we examined each of 28,742 patients in a primary care internal medicine practice to determine whether they were up-to-date on recommended screening, immunizations, counseling, and chronic disease management goals. We used a rule-based software tool that queries the medical record for diagnoses, dates, laboratory values, pathology reports, and other information used in creating the individualized recommendations. We counted the number of uncompleted recommendations by age groups and examined the healthcare staff needed to address the recommendations and the potential patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. Results: For the 28,742 patients, there were 127,273 uncompleted recommendations identified for population health management (mean recommendations per patient 4.36, standard deviation of 2.65, range of 0–17 recommendations per patient). The age group with the most incomplete recommendations was age of 50–65 years with 5.5 recommendations per patient. The 18–35 years age group had the fewest incomplete recommendations with 2.6 per patient. Across all age groups, initiation of these recommendations required high-level input (physician, nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant) in 28%. To completely adhere to recommended services, a 1000-patient cross-section cohort would require a total of 464 procedures and 1956 lab tests. Conclusion: Providers and patients face a daunting number of tasks necessary to meet guideline-generated recommendations. We will need new approaches to address the burgeoning numbers of uncompleted recommendations.