Evidence is sparse concerning the value of the "educational" materials that physicians receive in the mail. We conducted a randomized trial of a mailed continuing education program on hypertension for primary care physicians. Although formal pretesting documented that the program led to significant improvements in physician knowledge over the short term, the current study showed no lasting effect on physician knowledge (mean scores on an end-of-study questionnaire were 50% and 52% for study and control physicians, respectively) and no influence on performance in lowering the blood pressures of patients referred from screening (mean blood pressure drop for study patients, 12.2/10.4 mm Hg vs 13.0/10.6 mm Hg for control patients). The chance that we missed a difference in diastolic blood pressure as great as 3 mm Hg is less than 5%. Resources spent on instructional materials mailed to physicians may be wasted.

Objectives Accountable care organizations were implemented as a system-level approach to address quality differences and curb increasing healthcare costs in the United States of America, and have garnered the interest of policy makers in other countries to support better management of patients. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify the impacts of accountable care organizations on improving the quadruple aim goals of improving patient experience of care, enhancing population health outcomes, reducing the per capita cost of health care and ensuring positive provider experiences and (2) determine how and why such impacts have been achieved through accountable care organizations. Methods We used a rapid review approach, searching Health Systems Evidence (for systematic reviews) and PubMed (for reviews and studies). Results were reviewed for inclusion independently by two researchers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for consistency by another. Results We identified one recent systematic review and 59 primary studies that addressed the first objective ( n = 54), the second objective ( n = 4) or both objectives ( n = 1). The reviewed studies suggest that accountable care organizations reduce costs without reducing quality. Key findings related to objective 1 include: (1) there are positive trends across the quadruple–aim outcomes for accountable care organizations as compared to Medicare fee-for-service or group physician fee-for-service models; (2) accountable care organizations produced modest cost savings, which are largely attributable to savings in outpatient expenses among the most medically complex patients and reductions in the delivery of low-value services; (3) accountable care organization models met the majority of quality measures and perform better than their fee-for-service counterparts and (4) there is relatively little evidence about the impact of accountable care organizations on provider experience. Qualitative studies related to objective 2 highlighted mechanisms that were important for enabling accountable care organizations, including supplemental staff to enhance coordination and accountable care organization-wide electronic health records. Conclusions General trends and increased adoption of models similar to accountable care organizations outside of the USA suggest that these models outperform traditional fee-for-service models across the quadruple aim goals, although with mixed evidence about health outcomes.

Background With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities. Methods A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as “partner” or “advisor”. Results A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare. Conclusions There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

Objectives: To validate a self administered postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease. To determine whether use of this questionnaire increased the percentage of people at high risk of coronary heart disease and decreased the percentage of people at low risk who had their cholesterol concentration measured. Design: Validation was by review of medical records and clinical assessment. The questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease encouraged those meeting criteria for cholesterol measurement to have a cholesterol test and was tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention group was sent the risk appraisal questionnaire with a health questionnaire that determined risk of coronary heart disease without identifying the risk factors as related to coronary heart disease; the control group was sent the health questionnaire alone. Setting: One capitation funded primary care practice in Canada with an enrolled patient population of about 12 000. Subjects: Random sample of 100 participants in the intervention and control groups were included in the validation exercise. 5686 contactable patients aged 20 to 69 years who on the basis of practice records had not had a cholesterol test performed during the preceding 5 years were included in the randomised controlled trial. 2837 were in the intervention group and 2849 were in the control group. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity of assessment of risk of coronary heart disease with risk appraisal questionnaire. Rate of cholesterol testing during three months of follow up. Results: Sensitivity of questionnaire appraising coronary risk was 87.5% (95% confidence interval 73.2% to 95.8%) and specificity 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%). Of the patients without pre-existing coronary heart disease who met predefined screening criteria based on risk, 45 out of 421 in the intervention group (10.7%) and 9 out of 504 in the control group (1.8%) had a cholesterol test performed during follow up (P < 0.0001). Of the patients without a history of coronary heart disease who did not meet criteria for cholesterol testing, 30 out of 1128 in the intervention group (2.7%) and 18 out of 1099 in the control group (1.6%) had a cholesterol test (P = 0.175). Of the patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease, 1 out of 15 in the intervention group (6.7%) and 1 out of 23 in the control group (4.3%) were tested during follow up (P = 0.851, one tailed Fisher's exact test). Conclusions: Although the questionnaire appraising coronary risk increased the percentage of people at high risk who obtained cholesterol testing, the effect was small. Most patients at risk who received the questionnaire did not respond by having a test.

No abstract