BackgroundObserved breast, cervical and colon cancer screening rates are below provincial targets for the province of Ontario, Canada. The populations who are under- or never-screened for these cancers have not been described at the Ontario provincial level. Our objective was to use qualitative methods of inquiry to explore who are the never- or under-screened populations of Ontario.MethodsQualitative data were collected from two rounds of focus group discussions conducted in four communities selected using maps of screening rates by dissemination area. The communities selected were archetypical of the Ontario context: urban, suburban, small city and rural. The first phase of focus groups was with health service providers. The second phase of focus groups was with community members from the under- and never- screened population. Guided by a grounded theory methodology, data were collected and analyzed simultaneously to enable the core and related concepts about the under- and never-screened to emerge.ResultsThe core concept that emerged from the data is that the under- and never-screened populations of Ontario are characterized by diversity. Group level characteristics of the under- and never- screened included: 1) the uninsured (e.g., Old Order Mennonites and illegal immigrants); 2) sexual abuse survivors; 3) people in crisis; 4) immigrants; 5) men; and 6) individuals accessing traditional, alternative and complementary medicine for health and wellness. Under- and never-screened could have one or multiple group characteristics.ConclusionThe under- and never-screened in Ontario comprise a diversity of groups. Heterogeneity within and intersectionality among under- and never-screened groups adds complexity to cancer screening participation and program planning.
Objective
eCTAS is a real‐time electronic decision‐support tool designed to standardize the application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). This study addresses the variability of CTAS score distributions across institutions pre‐ and post‐eCTAS implementation.
Methods
We used population‐based administrative data from 2016–2018 from all emergency departments (EDs) that had implemented eCTAS for 9 months. Following a 3‐month stabilization period, we compared 6 months post‐eCTAS data to the same 6 months the previous year (pre‐eCTAS). We included triage encounters of adult (≥17 years) patients who presented with 1 of 16 pre‐specified, high‐volume complaints. For each ED, consistency was calculated as the absolute difference in CTAS distribution compared to the average of all included EDs for each presenting complaint. Pre‐eCTAS and post‐eCTAS change scores were compared using a paired‐samples
t‐test
. We also assessed if eCTAS modifiers were associated with triage consistency.
Results
There were 363,214 (183,231 pre‐eCTAS, 179,983 post‐eCTAS) triage encounters included from 35 EDs. Triage scores were more consistent (
P
< 0.05) post‐eCTAS for 6 (37.5%) presenting complaints: chest pain (cardiac features), extremity weakness/symptoms of cerebrovascular accident, fever, shortness of breath, syncope, and hyperglycemia. Triage consistency was similar pre‐ and post‐eCTAS for altered level of consciousness, anxiety/situational crisis, confusion, depression/suicidal/deliberate self‐harm, general weakness, head injury, palpitations, seizure, substance misuse/intoxication, and vertigo. Use of eCTAS modifiers was associated with increased triage consistency.
Conclusions
eCTAS increased triage consistency across many, but not all, high‐volume presenting complaints. Modifier use was associated with increased triage consistency, particularly for non‐specific complaints such as fever and general weakness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.