Background: Prior to the pandemic, every day approximately 28 long term care (LTC) residents were transferred to an emergency department (ED) in Alberta. This was placing increasing strain on healthcare resources and potentially negatively impacting the health and wellness of residents (e.g., exposure to iatrogenic harms). Many residents’ conditions could be managed within LTC if appropriate supports were provided. Poor communication between LTC and EDs can also lead to long ED lengths of stay, unnecessary resource utilization, sub-optimal health outcomes, and exposure to iatrogenic harms for LTC residents. Two INTERACT® tools (tools for early identification of acute medical issues) and a new care and referral pathway were implemented to help identify and address changes in health status among LTC residents sooner, improve communication between LTC and ED providers, and reduce unnecessary ED transfers. Methods: Between October 2019 and April 2022, 40 LTC homes and 4 EDs within the Calgary zone implemented the standardized LTC-to-ED care and referral pathway supported by a centralized telephone advice and transfer system for healthcare providers, community paramedics, and two INTERACT® tools (Stop and Watch for healthcare aides; Change in Condition Cards for nursing). Using a randomized stepped-wedge design, the pathway was implemented within 9 cohorts of (4-5) LTC facilities every 3 months, supported by an implementation coach. Three-hour train the trainer implementation sessions were conducted in-person or online with over 325 health practitioners in the enrolled LTC homes using strategies adapted to consider local context and barriers, as well as considering pandemic-related challenges. Evaluation Methods: Evaluation of the intervention involved both qualitative and quantitative methods. The primary study outcome is change in transfers from LTC to ED; secondary (quantitative) outcomes include hospital admissions, utilization of the centralized telephone advice and transfer system, and community paramedic visits. Analysis of these quantitative outcomes utilized negative binomial regression to estimate the incident rate with 95% confidence intervals (per 1000 residents), while adjusting for the different cohorts. The quantitative evaluation also included an economic analysis to determine potential cost savings. Interviews with healthcare providers were conducted to provide context to their experience with the intervention and ways it can be improved. These interviews will be interpreted with the involvement of members of our project resident and family advisory council. Results: Quantitative results demonstrate a reduction in the LTC-to-ED transfer rate [1.70 (95%CI 1.61-1.79) post-intervention) vs 1.91 (95%CI 1.84-2.00) pre-intervention], along with reduction in hospital admission rates [0.94 (95%CI 0.88-1.00) vs 1.08 (95%CI 1.03-1.14)]. There was an increase in utilization of the centralized telephone advice and transfer system [0.18 (95%CI 0.16-0.22) vs. 0.13 (95%CI 0.11-0.16)], but no increase in the number of community paramedic visits [2.05 (95%CI 1.94-2.16) vs 2.50 (95%CI 2.39-2.61)]. Cost and qualitative outcome data is pending. Advice and Lessons Learned: LTC staff education and use of early warning tools for identifying a change in resident health status (INTERACT® tools) and/or utilization of a centralized telephone advice and transfer system may have played a role in reducing ED transfers. We did not observe the expected relationship between community paramedic visits and reduced LTC-to-ED transfers, possibly as a result of the pandemic-related facility outbreak restrictions. Teams should tailor implementation sessions and materials to site specific needs and contexts to help address their unique barriers and facilitators. Partnerships with key stakeholders across the care continuum are essential to ensure adequate support and effective uptake and sustainability of the mutli-faceted change intervention.
Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy.To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway.A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model.Eleven NHS hospitals in England.Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy.Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test).Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy.Diagnostic study - a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation - the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer.The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy.Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.
To develop key performance indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of a prescription medication system.A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for a prescription medication system. A broad list of potential KPIs was compiled. A multidisciplinary group composed of 21 experts rated the potential KPIs. A face-to-face meeting was held following the first rating exercise to discuss each potential KPI individually. The expert panel undertook a final rating of KPIs. The final set of KPIs were those indicators where at least 80 percent of experts rated the indicator highly i.e. rating of ≥ 7 on a scale from 1 to 9.292 KPIs were identified from the published literature. After removing duplicates and combining similar indicators 71 KPIs were included. The final ranking resulted in six indicators being ranked 7 or higher by 80% of the respondents and an additional seven indicators being ranked 7 or higher by ≥70 but ≤80% of respondents. The six selected indicators include four specific disease areas, measure structural and process aspects of health service delivery, and assessed three of the domains of healthcare quality: efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.These indicators are recommended as a starting point to assess the current performance of prescription medication systems. Consideration should be given to developing indicators in additional disease areas as well as indicators that measure the domains of timeliness and patient-centeredness. Future work should focus on the feasibility of measuring these indicators.
Introduction: For patients with bifascicular block and syncope of unknown origin, different American Heart Association guidelines give Class 2A recommendations for two treatments: the implantable loop recorder (ILR) and empiric pacemaker insertion (PM). Equipoise reflected in guidelines may contribute to uncertainty in management and inefficient resource use. The objective of this analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of ILR compared to PM in the management of older adults (age>50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope over two years, from the perspective of a Canadian publicly funded health care system, in the Syncope: Pacing or Recording In ThE Later Years (SPRITELY) trial. Methods: Resource utilization data was collected throughout the trial, and unit costs were assigned (2017 Canadian dollars). Utility was measured at baseline and annually with the EQ-5D-3L. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated as area-under-the-curve, and adjusted for baseline imbalances in utility. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost effectiveness ratio were generated with non-parametric bootstrapping. Results: Mean cost in participants randomized to PM was CAD 9,759 (USD 7,400), compared to CAD 13,453 (USD 10,200) in participants randomized to ILR. The ILR strategy resulted in 0.020 QALYs more than the PM strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CAD 186,553 (95% CI: −831,950–1,191,816) (USD 141,900, 95% CI: −632,740–906,440) per additional QALY. In 1,000 bootstrapped replicates, the cost of the ILR strategy was always greater than that of the PM strategy. At the threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 38,000) per additional QALY, the probability that the ILR strategy is the cost effective option is 0.504. Conclusions: ILR costs were greater than PM costs, with little difference in QALY outcomes over two-years. Findings are generalizable to patients similar to SPRITELY participants, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. However, practice pattern variation and payment systems inhibit generalizability to other countries. Future analysis will explore cost and QALY outcomes in countries that participated in the SPRITELY trial.