No abstract

The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine the impact of a bilingual/bicultural care team on HIV-related health outcomes among Hispanic/Latino adults (N = 43) who received care in an academic HIV specialty clinic. Demographic and health data extracted from medical records from March 2005 to March 2007 were compared over two time periods: 1 year before and 1 year after implementation of the care team. Results indicated that there were more clinic visits per patient and that a higher percentage of individuals had suppressed HIV viral loads to < 50 copies/ml during the year after the team was implemented compared with the previous year. Results from this study suggest that provision of care by health care workers who are bilingual/bicultural, together with the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate patient education materials, may enhance health outcomes among Hispanic adults living with HIV infection.

Introduction: Choosing Wisely Canada® (CWC) launched in April 2012. Since then, the Emergency Medicine (EM) top-10 list of tests, treatments and procedures to avoid has been released and initiatives are on-going. This study explored CWC awareness and support among emergency physicians. Methods: A 60-question online survey was distributed to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) members with valid e-mails. The survey collected information on demographics, awareness/support for CWC as well as physicians’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation. Descriptive statistics were performed in SPSS (Version 24). Results: Overall, 324 surveys were completed (response rate: 18%). Respondents were more often male (64%) and practiced at academic/tertiary care hospitals (56%) with mixed patient populations (74%) with annual ED volumes of &gt;50,000 (70%). Respondents were familiar with campaigns to improve care (90%). Among these respondents, 98% were specifically familiar with CWC and 73% felt these campaigns assisted them in providing high-quality care. Respondents felt that the top-5 EM recommendations were supported by high quality evidence, specifically the first 4 recommendations (&gt;90% each). The most frequently reported barriers to implementation were: patients’ expectations/requests (33%), the possibility of missing severe condition(s) (20%), and requirements of ED consultations (12%). Potential facilitators were identified as: strong evidence-base for recommendations (37%), medico-legal protection for clinicians who adhere to guidelines (13%), and support from institutional leadership (11%). Conclusion: CWC is well-known and supported by emergency physicians. Despite the low response rate, exploring the barriers and facilitators identified here could enhance CWC’s uptake in Canadian emergency departments.

Introduction: Recently, campaigns placing considerable emphasis on improving emergency department (ED) care by reducing unnecessary tests, treatments, and/or procedures have been initiated. This study explored how Canadian emergency physicians (EPs) conceptualize unnecessary care in the ED. Methods: An online 60-question survey was distributed to EP-members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) with valid emails. The survey explored respondents awareness/support for initiatives to improve ED care (i.e., reduce unnecessary tests, treatments and/or procedures) and asked respondents to define “unnecessary care” in the ED. Thematic qualitative analysis was performed on these responses to identify key themes and sub-themes and explore variation among EPs definitions of unnecessary care. Results: A total of 324 surveys were completed (response rate: 18%); 300 provided free-text definitions of unnecessary care. Most commonly, unnecessary ED care was defined as: 1) performing tests, treatments, procedures, and/or consults that were not indicated or potentially harmful (n=169) and/or 2) care that should have been provided within a non-emergent context for a non-urgent patient (n=143). Emergency physicians highlighted the role of system-level factors and system failures that result in ED presentations as definitions of unnecessary care (n=69). They also noted a distinction between providing necessary care for a non-urgent patient and performing inappropriate/non-evidenced based care. Finally, a tension emerged in their description of frustration with patient expectations (n=17) and/or non-ED referrals (n=24) for specific tests, treatments, and/or procedures. These frustrations were juxtaposed by participants who asserted that “in a patient-centred care environment, no care is unnecessary” (Participant 50; n=12). Conclusion: Variation in the definition of unnecessary ED care is evident among EPs and illustrates that EPs’ conceptualization of unnecessary care is more nuanced than current campaigns addressing ED care improvements represent. This may contribute to a perceived lack of uptake or support for these initiatives. Further exploring EPs perceptions of these campaigns has the potential to improve EP engagement and influence the language utilized by these programs.