Browsing by Author "Berthelot, Simon"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Canadian in-hospital mortality for patients with emergency-sensitive conditions: a retrospective cohort study
    (2019-10-22) Berthelot, Simon; Lang, Eddy S; Quan, Hude; Stelfox, Henry T
    Abstract Background The emergency department (ED) sensitive hospital standardized mortality ratio (ED-HSMR) measures risk-adjusted mortality for patients admitted to hospital with conditions for which ED care may improve health outcomes. This study aimed to describe in-hospital mortality across Canadian provinces using the ED-HSMR. Methods Hospital discharge data were analyzed from April 2009 to March 2012. The ED-HSMR was calculated as the ratio of observed deaths among patients with emergency-sensitive conditions in a hospital during a year (2010–11 or 2011–12) to the expected deaths for the same patients during the reference year (2009–10), multiplied by 100. The expected deaths were estimated using predictive models fitted from the reference year. Aggregated provincial ED-HSMR values were calculated. A HSMR value above or below 100 respectively means that more or fewer deaths than expected occurred within a province. Results During the study period, 1,335,379 patients were admitted to hospital in Canada with an emergency-sensitive condition as the most responsible diagnosis. More in-hospital deaths (95% confidence interval) than expected were respectively observed for the years 2010–11 and 2011–12 in Newfoundland [124.3 (116.3–132.6); & 117.6 (110.1–125.5)] and Nova Scotia [116.4 (110.7–122.5) & 108.7 (103.0–114.5)], while mortality was as expected in Prince Edward Island [99.9 (86.5–114.8) & 100.7 (87.5–115.3)] and Manitoba [99.2 (94.5–104.1) & 98.3 (93.5–103.3)], and less than expected in all other provinces and territories. Conclusions Our study revealed important variation in risk-adjusted mortality for patients admitted to hospital with emergency-sensitive conditions among Canadian provinces. The ED-HSMR may be a useful outcome indicator to complement existing process indicators in measuring ED performance. Trial registration N/A – Retrospective cohort study.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Development of an In‐Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratio for Emergency Department Sensitive Conditions
    (2014-05-02) Berthelot, Simon; Stelfox, H. Tomas; Lang, Eddy; Quan, Hude
    Healthcare systems in developed countries are grappling with emergency department (ED) overcrowding. Although a prominent issue yielding many related metrics, accessibility is only one dimension by which to measure ED performance. To gain a broader understanding of healthcare performance and to adequately measure it in the ED setting, a more comprehensive approach is required. If valuable process and timeline indicators have to be closely linked with patients’ outcomes, the outcomes themselves must also be measured. In direct response to this challenge, this thesis project aimed to develop and validate an in-hospital standardized mortality ratio specific to emergency sensitive conditions as one tool for measuring ED care performance.
  • 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
    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.