Browsing by Author "Clement, Fiona M"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A retrospective observational analysis of red blood cell transfusion practices in stable, non-bleeding adult patients admitted to nine medical-surgical intensive care units(2019-04-04) Soril, Lesley J J; Noseworthy, Tom W; Stelfox, Henry T; Zygun, David A; Clement, Fiona MAbstract Background Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are common procedures performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, conservative transfusion approaches have been recommended to avoid RBC transfusions that are not clinically necessary and to achieve optimal patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and costs of RBC transfusions in medical-surgical ICUs and to compare this information against clinical guideline recommendations for best practice. Methods Retrospective observational analysis of RBC transfusions in stable, non-bleeding adult patients was examined in a geographically-defined, population-based cohort of nine integrated ICUs between April 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. RBC transfusions associated with a pre-transfusion hemoglobin value of 70 g/L or more were examined through linear and logistic regression. The total costs of RBC transfusions, based on the RBC unit cost, were estimated. Results A total of 4632 RBC transfusions (2287 ICU admissions) were included. Pre-transfusion hemoglobin values were identified for 4487 transfusions. On average, 61% occurred at or above a hemoglobin value of 70 g/L (mean 73.4 ± 9.2 g/L). Factors associated with such transfusions included being male, age over 75, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score greater or equal to 10, transfer from operating room, gastrointestinal bleeding, and trauma. A pre-transfusion hemoglobin value at or above 70 g/L was associated with increased odds of ICU mortality; there was no impact on overall hospital mortality. The total estimated cost of RBC transfusions was $2.99M Canadian dollars (CAD), with $1.82M CAD attributed to those with a hemoglobin value at or above 70 g/L. Conclusions Over half of the examined RBC transfusions may not have aligned with recommended best practice; this suggests significant opportunity for improvement. The present findings are an essential step towards optimizing RBC transfusions in the ICU.Item Open Access A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks(2020-02-14) Esmail, Rosmin; Hanson, Heather M; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Brown, Sage; Strifler, Lisa; Straus, Sharon E; Niven, Daniel J; Clement, Fiona MAbstract Background Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).Item Open Access Characteristics of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks for health technology reassessment: expert perspectives through a qualitative exploration(2021-04-29) Esmail, Rosmin; Clement, Fiona M; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Niven, Daniel J; Hanson, Heather MAbstract Background Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a process that systematically assesses technologies that are currently used in the health care system. The process results in four outputs: increase use or decrease use, no change, or de-adoption of a technology. Implementation of these outputs remains a challenge. The Knowledge Translation (KT) field enables to transfer/translate knowledge into practice. KT could help with implementation of HTR outputs. This study sought to identify which characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks could be useful, specifically for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. Methods A qualitative descriptive approach was used to ascertain the perspectives of international KT and HTR experts on the characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and sub-themes were deduced from the data through framework analysis using five distinctive steps: familiarization, identifying an analytic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. Themes and sub-themes were also mapped to existing KT theories, models, and frameworks. Results Thirteen experts from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Sweden participated in the study. Three themes emerged that illustrated the ideal traits: principles that were foundational for HTR, levers of change, and steps for knowledge to action. Principles included evidence-based, high usability, patient-centered, and ability to apply to the micro, meso, macro levels. Levers of change were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative influences for changing behaviour for HTR. Steps for knowledge to action included: build the case for HTR, adapt research knowledge, assess context, select interventions, and assess impact. Of the KT theories, models, and frameworks that were mapped, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research had most of the characteristics, except ability to apply to micro, meso, macro levels. Conclusions Characteristics that need to be considered within a KT theory, model, and framework for implementing HTR outputs have been identified. Consideration of these characteristics may guide users to select relevant KT theories, models, and frameworks to apply to HTR projects.Item Open Access Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis(2020-05-08) Sypes, Emma E; de Grood, Chloe; Whalen-Browne, Liam; Clement, Fiona M; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Niven, Daniel J; Stelfox, Henry TAbstract Background Many decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care. Results From 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66–0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy. Conclusions De-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care. Registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm)Item Open Access Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data(2018-08-15) Soril, Lesley J J; Seixas, Brayan V; Mitton, Craig; Bryan, Stirling; Clement, Fiona MAbstract Background Active management of existing health technologies (e.g., devices, diagnostic, and/or medical procedures) to ensure the delivery of high value care is increasingly recognized around the world. A number of initiatives have raised awareness of technologies that may be overused, mis-used, or potentially harmful by compiling them into lists of low value care. However, despite the growing number of lists, changes to local healthcare practices remain challenging for many systems. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a process, leveraging existing initiatives and data assets, to produce a list of prioritized low value technologies for health technology reassessment (HTR). Methods An expert advisory committee comprised of clinical experts and health system decision-makers was convened to determine key process requirements. Once developed, the process was piloted to assess feasibility in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). Results The expert advisory committee identified five required attributes for the process: data-driven, routine and replicable, actionable, stakeholder collaboration, and high return on investment. Guided by these attributes, a 5-step process was developed. First, over 1300 published low value technologies (i.e., from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] “do not do” recommendations, low value technologies in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, and Choosing Wisely “Top 5” lists) were identified. Using appropriate coding systems for BC’s administrative health data (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD]), the low value technologies were queried to examine frequencies and costs of technology use. This information was used to rank potential candidates for reassessment based on high annual budgetary impact. Lastly, clinical experts reviewed the ranked technologies prior to broad dissemination and stakeholder action. Pilot testing of the process in BC resulted in the prioritization of 9 initial candidate technologies for reassessment. Conclusions This is the first account of a systematic approach to move a collective body of low value technology recommendations into action in a healthcare setting. This work demonstrates the feasibility and strength of using administrative data to identify and prioritize low value technologies for HTR at a population-level.Item Open Access Response to letter to the editor(2020-07-02) Esmail, Rosmin; Hanson, Heather M; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Brown, Sage; Strifler, Lisa; Straus, Sharon E; Niven, Daniel J; Clement, Fiona MItem Open Access Understanding the public’s role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review(2020-04-07) Sypes, Emma E; de Grood, Chloe; Clement, Fiona M; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Whalen-Browne, Liam; Stelfox, Henry T; Niven, Daniel JAbstract Background Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care. Methods Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public’s perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making). Results The 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making. Conclusions Efforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable. Trial registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm)