Browsing by Author "Moore, Lynne"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Development and usability testing of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care
    (2025-01-07) Bérubé, Mélanie; Lapierre, Alexandra; Sykes, Michael; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Turgeon, Alexis F.; Lauzier, François; Taljaard, Monica; Stelfox, Henry T.; Witteman, Holly; Berthelot, Simon; Mercier, Éric; Gonthier, Catherine; Paquet, Jérôme; Fowler, Robert; Yanchar, Natalie; Haas, Barbara; Lessard-Bonaventure, Paule; Archambault, Patrick; Gabbe, Belinda; Guertin, Jason R.; Ouyang, Yougdong; Moore, Lynne
    Abstract Background Multifaceted interventions that address barriers and facilitators have been shown to be most effective for increasing the adoption of high-value care, but there is a knowledge gap on this type of intervention for the de-implementation of low-value care. Trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care, such as unnecessary diagnostic imaging and the use of specialized resources. The aim of our study was to develop and assess the usability of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care. Methods We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change tool as theoretical foundations to identify barriers and facilitators, and strategies for the reduction of low-value practices. We designed an initial prototype of the intervention using the items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The prototype’s usability was iteratively tested through four focus groups and four think-aloud sessions with trauma decision-makers (n = 18) from seven Level I to Level III trauma centers. We conducted an inductive analysis of the audio-recorded sessions to identify usability issues and other barriers and facilitators to refine the intervention. Results We identified barriers and facilitators related to individual characteristics, including knowledge and beliefs about low-value practices and the de-implementation process, such as the complexity of changing practices and difficulty accessing performance feedback. Accordingly, the following intervention strategies were selected: involving governing structures and leaders, distributing audit & feedback reports on performance, and providing educational materials, de-implementation support tools and educational/facilitation visits. A total of 61 issues were identified during the usability testing, of which eight were critical, 33 were moderately important, and 18 were minor. These issues led to numerous improvements, including the addition of information on the drivers and benefits of reducing low-value practices, changes in the definition of these practices, the addition of proposed strategies to facilitate de-implementation, and the tailoring of educational/facilitation visits. Conclusions We designed and refined a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value injury care using a process that increases the likelihood of its acceptability and sustainability. The next step will be to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this intervention using a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Trial registration This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24th 2023, #NCT05744154, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05744154 ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
    (2023-07-07) Moore, Lynne; Bérubé, Mélanie; Belcaid, Amina; Turgeon, Alexis F.; Taljaard, Monica; Fowler, Robert; Yanchar, Natalie; Mercier, Éric; Paquet, Jérôme; Stelfox, Henry T.; Archambault, Patrick; Berthelot, Simon; Guertin, Jason R.; Haas, Barbara; Ivers, Noah; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Lapierre, Alexandra; Ouyang, Yongdong; Sykes, Michael; Witteman, Holly; Lessard-Bonaventure, Paule; Gabbe, Belinda; Lauzier, François
    Abstract Background While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. Methods We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I–III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Discussion On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. Trial registration This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Impact of trauma system structure on injury outcomes: a systematic review protocol
    (2017-01-21) Moore, Lynne; Champion, Howard; O’Reilly, Gerard; Leppaniemi, Ari; Cameron, Peter; Palmer, Cameron; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M; Gabbe, Belinda; Gaarder, Christine; Yanchar, Natalie; Stelfox, Henry T; Coimbra, Raul; Kortbeek, John; Noonan, Vanessa; Gunning, Amy; Leenan, Luke; Gordon, Malcolm; Khajanchi, Monty; Shemilt, Michèle; Porgo, Valérie; Turgeon, Alexis F
    Abstract Background Injury represents one of the greatest public health challenges of our time with over 5 million deaths and 100 million people temporarily or permanently disabled every year worldwide. The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, the organisation of trauma care varies significantly across trauma systems and we know little about which components of trauma systems contribute to their effectiveness. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically significant outcomes including mortality, function and disability, quality of life, and resource utilization. Methods We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component (e.g. accreditation by a central agency, interfacility transfer agreements) and at least one injury outcome (e.g. mortality, disability, resource use). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE central, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge databases, thesis holdings, key injury organisation websites and conference proceedings for eligible studies. Pairs of independent reviewers will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included articles. Methodological quality will be evaluated using elements of the ROBINS-I tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized and randomized studies, respectively. Strength of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE tool. Discussion We expect to advance knowledge on the components of trauma systems that contribute to their effectiveness. This may lead to recommendations on trauma system structure that will help policy-makers make informed decisions as to where resources should be focused. The review may also lead to specific recommendations for future research efforts. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28-06-2016. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041336 Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016041336 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study
    (2024-04-18) Conombo, Blanchard; Guertin, Jason R.; Hoch, Jeffrey S.; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Bérubé, Mélanie; Malo, Christian; Berthelot, Simon; Lauzier, François; Stelfox, Henry T.; Turgeon, Alexis F.; Archambault, Patrick; Belcaid, Amina; Moore, Lynne
    Abstract Background Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. Methods We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. Results Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. Conclusion A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers’ willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Social determinants of health and disparities in pediatric trauma care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2024-03-22) Gnanvi, Janyce E.; Yanchar, Natalie; Freire, Gabrielle; Beaulieu, Emilie; Tardif, Pier-Alexandre; Bérubé, Mélanie; Macpherson, Alison; Pike, Ian; Zemek, Roger; Gagnon, Isabelle J.; Carsen, Sasha; Gabbe, Belinda; Gnanou, Soualio; Duval, Cécile; Moore, Lynne
    Abstract Background Social determinants of health (SDH), including “the conditions in which individuals are born, grow, work, live and age” affect child health and well-being. Several studies have synthesized evidence about the influence of SDH on childhood injury risks and outcomes. However, there is no systematic evidence about the impact of SDH on accessing care and quality of care once a child has suffered an injury. We aim to evaluate the extent to which access to care and quality of care after injury are affected by children and adolescents’ SDH. Methods Using Cochrane methodology, we will conduct a systematic review including observational and experimental studies evaluating the association between social/material elements contributing to health disparities, using the PROGRESS-Plus framework: place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and care received by children and adolescents (≤ 19 years of age) after injury. We will consult published literature using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier and grey literature using Google Scholar from their inception to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission for publication. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for included studies. The risk of bias will be assessed using the ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools respectively for observational and experimental study designs. We will analyze data to perform narrative syntheses, and if enough studies are identified, we will conduct a meta-analysis using random effects models. Discussion This systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on the association between SDH and pediatric trauma care (access to care and quality of care) that clinicians and policymakers can use to better tailor care systems and promote equitable access and quality of care for all children. We will share our findings through clinical rounds, conferences, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023408467