Browsing by Author "Khan, Sobia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How do clinicians use implementation tools to apply breast cancer screening guidelines to practice?
    (2018-06-07) Armson, Heather; Roder, Stefanie; Elmslie, Tom; Khan, Sobia; Straus, Sharon E
    Abstract Background Implementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS). Methods Canadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n = 1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews. Results Seventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients’ expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer. Conclusion This study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Scaling-up implementation in community hospitals: a multisite interrupted time series design of the Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program in Alberta
    (2019-10-25) Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Harris, Charmalee; Hamid, Jemila S; Ewusie, Joycelyne E; Quirk, Jacquelyn; Osiowy, Karen; Moore, Julia E; Khan, Sobia; Liu, Barbara; Straus, Sharon E
    Abstract Background As the population ages, older hospitalized patients are at increased risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. The Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program is an evidence-informed early mobilization intervention that was previously evaluated in Ontario, Canada. The program was effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay in academic hospitals. The aim of this study was to scale-up the program and conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on various units in community hospitals within a different Canadian province. Methods The MOVE program was tailored to the local context at four community hospitals in Alberta, Canada. The study population was patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to medicine, surgery, rehabilitation and intensive care units between July 2015 and July 2016. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. The secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay obtained from hospital administrative data, and perceptions of the intervention assessed through a qualitative assessment. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods (pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention). Results A total of 3601 patients [mean age 80.1 years (SD = 8.4 years)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobilization at the end of the intervention period compared to pre-intervention, with 6% more patients out of bed (95% confidence interval (CI) 1, 11; p-value = 0.0173). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed, where patients on average stayed an estimated 3.59 fewer days (95%CI -15.06, 7.88) during the intervention compared to pre-intervention period. Conclusions MOVE is a low-cost, effective and adaptable intervention that improves mobilization in older hospitalized patients. This intervention has been replicated and scaled up across various units and hospital settings.