Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300660›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Improving dementia care: insights from audit and feedback in interdisciplinary primary care sites.

Geneviève Arsenault-Lapierre, Mélanie Le Berre, Laura Rojas-Rozo, Carrie McAiney, Jennifer Ingram, Linda Lee, Isabelle Vedel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Confidence in Dementia Management and Its Associated Factors among Primary Care Doctors in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Geneviève Arsenault-LapierreDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. genevieve.arsenault-lapierre@mail.mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0984-6857
Mélanie Le BerreLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Quebec, Montreal, Canada.
Laura Rojas-RozoDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carrie McAineySchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo and Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer IngramKawartha Centre - Redefining Healthy Aging, and Senior Care Network, Central East Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Linda LeeSchlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Isabelle VedelDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CAResearch Institute for Aging · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

CIHR CNA-137794
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany primary care sites have implemented models to improve detection, diagnosis, and management of dementia, as per Canadian guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the responses of clinicians, managers, and staff of sites that have implemented these models when presented with audit results, their insights on the factors that explain their results, their proposed solutions for improvement and how these align to one another.

methodsOne audit and feedback cycle was carried out in eight purposefully sampled sites in Ontario, Canada, that had previously implemented dementia care models. Audit consisted of a) chart review to assess quality of dementia care indicators, b) questionnaire to assess the physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice toward dementia care, and c) semi-structured interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing these models. Feedback was given to clinicians, managers, and staff in the form of graphic and oral presentations, followed by eight focus groups (one per site). Discussions revolved around: what audit results elicited more discussion from the participants, 2) their insights on the factors that explain their audit results, and 3) solutions they propose to improve dementia care. Deductive content and inductive thematic analyses, grounded in causal pathways models' theory was performed.

findingsThe audit and feedback process allowed the 63 participants to discuss many audit results and share their insights on a) organizational factors (lack of human resources, the importance of organized links with community services, clear roles and support from external memory clinics) and b) clinician factors (perceived competency practice and attitudes on dementia care), that could explain their audit results. Participants also provided solutions to improve dementia care in primary care (financial incentives, having clear pathways, adding tools to improve chart documentation, establish training on dementia care, and the possibility of benchmarking with other institutions). Proposed solutions were well aligned with their insights and further nuanced according to contextual details.

conclusionsThis study provides valuable information on solutions proposed by primary care clinicians, managers, and staff to improve dementia care in primary care. The solutions are grounded in clinical experience and will inform ongoing and future dementia strategies.

Indexed as

DementiaFeedbackFocus GroupsHumansOntarioPrimary Health CareDementiaInterdisciplinary Health TeamMedical AuditPractice GuidelinePrimary CareQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID35300660
PMCPMC8931981
OpenAlexW4220999644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.