It can be challenging for Primary Healthcare Providers (PHCPs) to differentiate between IBS and more serious illnesses involving the GI tract, such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or cancer. To help with diagnosis and treatment of IBS, evidence-based guidelines have been developed. However, they are not commonly used in primary care practice and PHCPs and patients often feel that GI specialist evaluation and endoscopy is required. The development of care pathways and clinical practice guidelines is essential to support the investigation and management of digestive diseases, such as IBS. The current pilot study is designed to assess the implementation and early comparative effectiveness of a Clinical Care Pathway for lower GI tract symptoms.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
120
A virtual care delivery and referral support tool for primary healthcare providers.
QEII Health Sciences Centre
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
RECRUITINGNumber of users
Number of users (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 3
Number of users
Number of users (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 6
Number of referrals
Number of referrals from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 3
Number of referrals
Number of referrals from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 6
Number of referrals per week
Number of referrals per week from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 3
Number of referrals per week
Number of referrals per week from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 6
Number of referrals per user
Number of referrals per week from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 3
Number of referrals per user
Number of referrals per week from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 6
Number of clicks per referral
Number of clicks per referral from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 3
Number of clicks per referral
Number of clicks per referral from GPs to GI Department (an indicator of prototype acceptability)
Time frame: month 6
Primary Healthcare Provider Satisfaction
Thematic analysis of interviews of primary care providers will yield key themes related to satisfaction with the intervention.
Time frame: baseline (month 0)
Primary Healthcare Provider Satisfaction
Thematic analysis of interviews of primary care providers will yield key themes related to satisfaction with the intervention.
Time frame: month 6
Number referrals received as per prototype
Number referrals received as per prototype (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 3
Number referrals received as per prototype
Number referrals received as per prototype (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 6
Number of referrals received requiring troubleshooting
Number of referrals received requiring troubleshooting (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 3
Number of referrals received requiring troubleshooting
Number of referrals received requiring troubleshooting (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 6
Number of referrals aborted
Number of referrals aborted (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 3
Number of referrals aborted
Number of referrals aborted (an implementation metric)
Time frame: month 6
Type of consult
Type of consult (Full consult, specialist telephone advice, eConsult)
Time frame: month 3
Type of consult
Type of consult (Full consult, specialist telephone advice, eConsult)
Time frame: month 6
Perceived appropriateness of the SmartPath
Thematic analysis of interviews of primary care providers will yield key themes related to the perceived appropriateness of the intervention
Time frame: month 3
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Perceived appropriateness of the SmartPath
Thematic analysis of interviews of primary care providers will yield key themes related to the perceived appropriateness of the intervention
Time frame: month 6
physician self-efficacy rating
physician self-efficacy rating, measured using the 'New General Self Efficacy Scale' (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath). Min score: 1, max score: 8. A higher score indicates a greater self-efficacy.
Time frame: month 3
physician self-efficacy rating
physician self-efficacy rating, measured using the 'New General Self Efficacy Scale' (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath). Min score: 1, max score: 8. A higher score indicates a greater self-efficacy.
Time frame: month 6
Referral triage priority category
Referral triage priority category will be collected from referrals through the pathway (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath). Referral triage categories to the GI department are: emergent, semi urgent, and non-urgent.
Time frame: month 3
Referral triage priority category
Referral triage priority category will be collected from referrals through the pathway (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath). Referral triage categories to the GI department are: emergent, semi urgent, and non-urgent.
Time frame: month 6
Time from referral to specialist consultation
Time from referral to specialist consultation, in weeks (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath)
Time frame: month 3
Time from referral to specialist consultation
Time from referral to specialist consultation, in weeks (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath)
Time frame: month 6
Time from referral to diagnosis and treatment
Time from referral to diagnosis and treatment, in weeks (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath)
Time frame: month 3
Time from referral to diagnosis and treatment
Time from referral to diagnosis and treatment, in weeks (an effectiveness metric of GUT LINK Smartpath)
Time frame: month 6