Browsing by Author "de Grood, Chloe"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A qualitative study of physician perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of resource strain during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic
    (2021-04-22) Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Kemp, Laryssa G; de Grood, Chloe; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; Stelfox, Henry T; Ng-Kamstra, Josh S; Fiest, Kirsten M
    Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global shortages in the resources required to care for critically ill patients and to protect frontline healthcare providers. This study investigated physicians’ perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of actual or anticipated resource strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, and explored implications for the healthcare workforce and the delivery of patient care. Methods We recruited a diverse sample of critical care physicians from 13 Canadian Universities with adult critical care training programs. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews between March 25–June 25, 2020 and used qualitative thematic analysis to derive primary themes and subthemes. Results Fifteen participants (eight female, seven male; median age = 40) from 14 different intensive care units described three overarching themes related to physicians’ perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients during the pandemic: 1) Conditions contributing to resource strain (e.g., continuously evolving pandemic conditions); 2) Implications of resource strain on critical care physicians personally (e.g., safety concerns) and professionally (e.g. practice change); and 3) Enablers of resource sufficiency (e.g., adequate human resources). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has required health systems and healthcare providers to continuously adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances. Participants’ uncertainty about whether their unit’s planning and resources would be sufficient to ensure the delivery of high quality patient care throughout the pandemic, coupled with fear and anxiety over personal and familial transmission, indicate the need for a unified systemic pandemic response plan for future infectious disease outbreaks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study
    (2022-04-06) Leigh, Jeanna P.; Sypes, Emma E.; Straus, Sharon E.; Demiantschuk, Danielle; Ma, Henry; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; de Grood, Chloe; FitzGerald, Emily A.; Mizen, Sara; Stelfox, Henry T.; Niven, Daniel J.
    Abstract Background There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation. Methods This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). ‘Raw text’ determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews. Results In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included ‘lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation’ (n = 90, 21%), ‘entrenched norms and clinicians’ resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and ‘patient demands and preferences’ (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included ‘stakeholder collaboration and communication’ (n = 43, 15%), and ‘availability of credible evidence’ (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care. Conclusions The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives. Trial registration The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2020-05-08) Sypes, Emma E; de Grood, Chloe; Whalen-Browne, Liam; Clement, Fiona M; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Niven, Daniel J; Stelfox, Henry T
    Abstract Background Many decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care. Results From 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66–0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy. Conclusions De-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care. Registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm)
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Exploring the influence of behavioural, normative and control beliefs on intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview based study
    (2023-03-10) Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Moss, Stephana J.; Mizen, Sara J.; FitzGerald, Emily A.; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; de Grood, Chloe; Dodds, Alexandra; Stelfox, Henry T.; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Perceived severity and susceptibility of disease are predictors of individual behaviour during health crises. Little is known about how individual beliefs influence intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during periods of health crises, and how access to and consumption of information influence these intentions. This study investigated behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs, and their influence on behavioural intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Participants were recruited from a related COVID-19 study conducted by our team, and through snowball sampling in subsequent. Using a maximum variation sampling technique, we recruited a diverse group of participants representing six major regions in Canada. Participants took part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews from February 2021 to May 2021. Data were analyzed independently in duplicate by thematic analysis. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was the conceptual framework used to organize dominant themes. Results We conducted a total of 60 individual interviews (137 eligible individuals contacted, 43.8% response rate) and identified six themes organized according to the three constructs of behavioural, normative and control beliefs as described in the TPB: (1) Behavioural: My “New Normal,” Individual Rights and Perceived Pandemic Severity, Fatigue with COVID-19, (2) Normative: COVID-19 Collective, (3) Control: Practicality of Public Health Guidelines, and (6) Conflicting Public Health Messages. Most (n = 43, 71.7%) participants perceived individuals in their geographic community to be following public health guidelines adequately. Several participants (n = 15, 25.0%) commented on the unequal impact of restrictions based on socioeconomic factors (i.e., class, race, age). Conclusion Individual perceptions of risk, loss of control, access to resources (i.e., childcare), and societal expectations, shaped intentions to engage in disease preventative behaviours (i.e., social distancing) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study
    (2022-04-07) de Grood, Chloe; Sypes, Emma E.; Niven, Daniel J.; Clement, Fiona; FitzGerald, Emily A.; Kupsch, Shelly; King-Hunter, Shelly; Stelfox, Henry T.; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna
    Abstract Background Patients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour. Methods Three phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions “would this change your health behaviour” and “would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider”. Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis. Results From the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question “would this change your health behaviour” two patient partners agreed ‘yes’ on 27% of patient resources. Conclusions Opportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Understanding the public’s role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review
    (2020-04-07) Sypes, Emma E; de Grood, Chloe; Clement, Fiona M; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Whalen-Browne, Liam; Stelfox, Henry T; Niven, Daniel J
    Abstract Background Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care. Methods Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public’s perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making). Results The 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making. Conclusions Efforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable. Trial registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm)