Preventive health care for children comprises routine well-child visits and immunizations. Women with physical, sensory, or intellectual or developmental disabilities tend to experience more barriers to preventive health care; yet it is unknown whether such barriers are observed among their young children.
Introduction: Preparing primary care providers (PCP) for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about PCPs’ perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians’ (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice and resources and education required. Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada. Response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age 51, 53% male. Results: FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs’ current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%) and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions and 59% were interested in a genetics education website. Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.
The role of the facilitator is known to be important in fostering productive interprofessional education (IPE) in the face-to-face (F2F) environment. Online learning can help surmount some of the logistical challenges in IPE by bringing together diverse professionals in multiple geographical locations. Best practices in F2F IPE facilitation are beginning to emerge, but there is scant literature examining IPE facilitation online. What little research exists has focused on the asynchronous environment and suggests that the skill sets of online and F2F facilitators have considerable overlap, but there are further demands in the online setting. This qualitative study sought to examine online synchronous IPE facilitation through the self-reported experiences of seven trained facilitators during a 12-week online course. Data collected through focus groups and targeted interviews were analyzed by the research team using constant comparison techniques. Four major themes were revealed: technology as a dynamic force, reduction in non-verbal cues, evolution of the online IPE group process over time and the importance of co-facilitation. The foundations of IPE facilitation were seen to carry over to the online setting. This study has implications for the training of IPE facilitators and for the design of online IPE learning experiences.
Abstract Background MyDiabetesPlan is a web-based, interactive patient decision aid that facilitates patient-centred, diabetes-specific, goal-setting and shared decision-making (SDM) with interprofessional health care teams. Objective Assess the feasibility of (1) conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) and (2) integrating MyDiabetesPlan into interprofessional primary care clinics. Methods We conducted a cluster RCT in 10 interprofessional primary care clinics with patients living with diabetes and at least two other comorbidities; half of the clinics were assigned to MyDiabetesPlan and half were assigned to usual care. To assess recruitment, retention, and resource use, we used RCT conduct logs and financial account summaries. To assess intervention fidelity, we used RCT conduct logs and website usage logs. To identify barriers and facilitators to integration of MyDiabetesPlan into clinical care across the IP team, we used audiotapes of clinical encounters in the intervention groups. Results One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven potentially eligible patients were identified through searches of electronic medical records, of which 1113 patients met the eligibility criteria upon detailed chart review. A total of 425 patients were randomly selected; of these, 213 were able to participate and were allocated (intervention: n = 102; control: n = 111), for a recruitment rate of 50.1%. One hundred and fifty-one patients completed the study, for a retention rate of 70.9%. A total of 5745 personnel-hours and $6104 CAD were attributed to recruitment and retention activities. A total of 179 appointments occurred (out of 204 expected appointments—two per participant over the 12-month study period; 87.7%). Forty (36%), 25 (23%), and 32 (29%) patients completed MyDiabetesPlan at least twice, once, and zero times, respectively. Mean time for completion of MyDiabetesPlan by the clinician and the patient during initial appointments was 37 min. From the clinical encounter transcripts, we identified diverse strategies used by clinicians and patients to integrate MyDiabetesPlan into the appointment, characterized by rapport building and individualization. Barriers to use included clinician-related, patient-related, and technical factors. Conclusion An interprofessional approach to SDM using a decision aid was feasible. Lower than expected numbers of diabetes-specific appointments and use of MyDiabetesPlan were observed. Addressing facilitators and barriers identified in this study will promote more seamless integration into clinical care. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: February 11, 2015. Protocol version: Version 1; February 26, 2015.
Purpose. Monitoring patients' international normalized ratio (INR) within a family medicine setting can be challenging. Novel methods of doing this effectively and in a timely manner are important for patient care. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led point-of-care (POC) INR clinic. Methods. At a community-based academic Family Health Team in Toronto, Canada, charts of patients with atrial fibrillation managed by a pharmacist with usual care (bloodtesting at lab and pharmacist follow up of INR by phone) from February 2008 to April 2008 were compared with charts of patients attending a weekly POC INR clinic from February 2010 to April 2010. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) was measured for both groups. Results. 119 patient charts were reviewed and 114 had TTR calculated. After excluding patients with planned inconsistent Coumadin use (20), such as initiating Coumadin treatment or stopping for a surgical procedure, the mean TTR increased from 64.41% to 77.09% with the implementation of the POC clinic. This was a statistically significant difference of 12.68% (CI: 1.18, 24.18; P = 0.03). Conclusion. A pharmacist-led POC-INR clinic improves control of anticoagulation therapy in patients receiving warfarin and should be considered for implementation in other family medicine settings.
Background: Genetic discoveries increasingly have an impact on clinical medicine. Primary care providers (PCPs) need to be prepared to address patients' concerns about their genetic risks.Aims: To explore family medicine residents' experiences with genetics in medical school and residency training and to understand their educational needs in genetics.Methods: Four focus groups were held with 33 family medicine residents at the University of Toronto, which represented graduates of 9 different Canadian medical schools. Groups were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed independently by 4 reviewers using content analysis. Recurrent themes were identified.Results: Participants described their experiences with genetics in medical school as almost entirely related to rare disorders, so genetics was not perceived to be clinically relevant. There was little awareness of the complex ethical and psychosocial issues that accompany genetics. However, participants felt that genetics would become significant in medical care in the future and PCPs would play an important role. They expressed a need for more knowledge of genetics to fulfill this role and practical teaching in genetics by clinicians.Conclusions: Medical school educational experiences may not be preparing future PCPs to address genetic issues with patients. A change and a broadening of the teaching of genetics are required to fulfill this need.
To evaluate family physicians' enjoyment of and knowledge gained from game-based learning, compared with traditional case-based learning, in a continuing medical education (CME) event on stroke prevention and management.An equivalence trial to determine if game-based learning was as effective as case-based learning in terms of attained knowledge levels. Game questions and small group cases were developed. Participants were randomized to either a game-based or a case-based group and took part in the event.Ontario provincial family medicine conference.Thirty-two family physicians and 3 senior family medicine residents attending the conference.Participation in either a game-based or a case-based CME learning group.Scores on 40-item immediate and 3-month posttests of knowledge and a satisfaction survey.Results from knowledge testing immediately after the event and 3 months later showed no significant difference in scoring between groups. Participants in the game-based group reported higher levels of satisfaction with the learning experience.Games provide a novel way of organizing CME events. They might provide more group interaction and discussion, as well as improve recruitment to CME events. They might also provide a forum for interdisciplinary CME. Using games in future CME events appears to be a promising approach to facilitate participant learning.
BACKGROUND It is possible that patients who are more aware of cancer screening guidelines may be more likely to adhere to them. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether screening knowledge was associated with the documented screening participation. We also assessed the feasibility and acceptability of linking electronic survey data with clinical data in the primary care setting. METHODS We conducted an electronic survey at 2 sites in Toronto, Canada. At one site, eligible patients were approached in the waiting room to complete the survey; at the second site, eligible patients were sent an email inviting them to participate. All participants were asked to consent to the linkage of their survey results with their electronic medical record. RESULTS Overall, 1683 participants responded to the survey—247 responded in the waiting room (response rate, 247/366, 67.5%), whereas 1436 responded through email (response rate, 1436/5779, 24.8%). More than 80% (199/247 and 1245/1436) of participants consented to linking their survey data to their medical record. Knowledge of cancer screening guidelines was generally low. Although the majority of participants were able to identify the recommended tests for breast and cervical screening, very few participants correctly identified the recommended age and frequency of screening, with a maximum of 22% (21/95) of screen-eligible women correctly answering all 3 questions for breast cancer screening. However, this low level of knowledge among patients was not significantly associated with screening uptake, particularly after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS Although knowledge of screening guidelines was low among patients in our study, this was not associated with screening participation. Participants were willing to link self-reported data with their medical record data, which has substantial implications for future research.
