[Comments on the 3rd MDS report on nursing quality. Much noise about little change].

G. Meyer,K. Balzer,S. Köpke

2012-07-01

Pflegezeitschrift

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Sophie Béland,Mireille Lambert,Alannah Delahunty-Pike,Dana Howse,Charlotte Schwarz,Maud-Christine Chouinard,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Fred Burge,Shelley Doucet,Alya Danish,Olivier Dumont-Samson,Mathieu Bisson,Alison Luke,Marilyn Macdonald,André Gaudreau,Judy Porter,Donna Rubenstein,Véronique Sabourin,Cathy Scott,Mike Warren,Linda Wilhelm,Catherine Hudon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13542

Abstract:Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or public contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.
Facilitating Integration Through Team-Based Primary Healthcare: A Cross-Case Policy Analysis of Four Canadian Provinces

Alexandra Lukey,Sharon Johnston,Stephanie Montesanti,Catherine Donnelly,Paul Wankah,Mylaine Breton,Isabelle Gaboury,Simone Parniak,Caille Pritchard,Shannon Berg,Karin Maiwald,Sara Mallinson,Lee A. Green,Nelly D. Oelke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5680

2021-11-08

International Journal of Integrated Care

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Team-based care can improve integrated health services by increasing comprehensiveness and continuity of care in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Collaborative models involving providers from different professions can help to achieve coordinated, high-quality person-centred care. In Canada, there has been variation in both the timing/pace of adoption and approach to interprofessional PHC (IPHC) policy. Provinces are at different stages in the development, implementation, and evaluation of team-based PHC models. This paper describes how different policies, contexts, and innovations across four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec) facilitate or limit integrated health services through IPHC teams.METHODS: Systematic searches identified 100 policy documents across the four provinces. Analysis was informed by Walt and Gilson's Policy Triangle (2008) and Suter et al.'s (2009) health system integration principles. Provincial policy case studies were constructed and used to complete a cross-case comparison.RESULTS: Each province implemented variations of an IPHC based model. Five key components were found that influenced IPHC and integrated health services: patient-centred care; team structures; information systems; financial management; and performance measurement.CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity of the implementation of PHC teams across Canadian provinces provides an opportunity to learn and improve interprofessional care and integrated health services across jurisdictions.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Exploring Context and the Factors Shaping Team-Based Primary Healthcare Policies in Three Canadian Provinces: A Comparative Analysis

Renée Misfeldt,Esther Suter,Sara Mallinson,Omenaa Boakye,Sabrina Wong,Louise Nasmith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2017.25190

2017-08-31

Healthcare Policy | Politiques de Santé

Abstract:This paper discusses findings from a high-level scan of the contextual factors and actors that influenced policies on team-based primary healthcare in three Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The team searched diverse sources (e.g., news reports, press releases, discussion papers) for contextual information relevant to primary healthcare teams. We also conducted qualitative interviews with key health system informants from the three provinces. Data from documents and interviews were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. We then wrote narrative summaries highlighting pivotal policy and local system events and the influence of actors and context. Our overall findings highlight the value of reviewing the context, relationships and power dynamics, which come together and create "policy windows" at different points in time. We observed physician-centric policy processes with some recent moves to rebalance power and be inclusive of other actors and perspectives. The context review also highlighted the significant influence of changes in political leadership and prioritization in driving policies on team-based care. While this existed in different degrees in the three provinces, the push and pull of political and professional power dynamics shaped Canadian provincial policies governing team-based care. If we are to move team-based primary healthcare forward in Canada, the provinces need to review the external factors and the complex set of relationships and trade-offs that underscore the policy process.
Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis

Candan Kendir,Michael van den Berg,Janika Bloemeke-Cammin,Oliver Groene,Frederico Guanais,Andree Rochfort,Jose M Valderas,Niek Klazinga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01170-2

2024-07-04

Abstract:Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.
Evaluating engagement with equity in Canadian provincial and territorial primary care policies: Results of a jurisdictional scan

Sarah Spencer,Tai Hollingbery,Aidan Bodner,Lindsay Hedden,David Rudoler,Erin Christian,M Ruth Lavergne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.104994

IF: 3.255

2024-01-20

Health Policy

Abstract:Equitable access to primary care is essential to achieving more equitable health outcomes, yet evidence suggests that structurally marginalized populations are less likely to have benefited from varied primary care reforms in Canada. Our objective is to determine how equity is incorporated in public primary care policy and strategy documents across Canada. We conducted string term and snowball searches for provincial/territorial primary care policy documents published between 01 January 2018 and 30 June 2022, extracted the policy objective, and applied a rubric to evaluate each document's engagement with equity. We performed content analysis of the documents which acknowledged inequities and articulated a related policy response. Of the 224 identified documents that discussed primary care policy: 63 (28 %) identified one or more structurally marginalized group(s) experiencing inequities related to primary care, 64 (29 %) identified a structurally marginalized group and articulated a policy response, and 16 (7 %) articulated a detailed policy response to address inequities. Even where policy responses were articulated, in most cases these did not directly address the acknowledged inequities. The absence of measurable goals, meaningful community consultation, and tenuous connections between the policy response and inequities mentioned may help explain persistent inequities in primary care across Canada.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Building Engagement‐Capable Environments for Health System Transformation: Development and Early Implementation of a Capability Framework for Patient, Family and Caregiver Engagement in Ontario Health Teams

Julia Abelson,Laura Tripp,Reham Abdelhalim,Lotje Hives,Betty‐Lou Kristy,Maureen Smith,Laura Tenhagen,Lindsay Wingham‐Smith,the Engagement Capable OHT Working Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70083

2024-11-05

Health Expectations

Abstract:Introduction Despite widespread calls to involve patients, families and caregivers (PFCs) as partners at all levels of health system planning and design, there is unevenness in how engagement efforts are supported across these settings. The concept of 'engagement‐capable environments' offers a way forward to uncover the key requirements for sustainable, high‐quality engagement, but more work is needed to identify the specific competencies required to create these environments. We addressed this gap by developing a capability framework for Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), a newly established structure for planning, designing, organizing and delivering care in Ontario, Canada. Methods The framework was co‐developed by a Working Group of OHT staff and leaders, PFC partners, researchers and government personnel. Project activities occurred over four phases: (1) planning, (2) evidence review and surveying of intended users to identify key competencies, (3) framework design and (4) implementation. Results An evidence review identified more than 90 potential competencies for this work. These results were contextualized and expanded through a survey of OHT stakeholders to brainstorm potential competencies, supports and enablers for engagement. Surveys were completed by 69 individuals; 689 knowledge and skill competency statements, 462 attitude and behaviour competency statements and 250 supports and enablers were brainstormed. The statements were analysed and organized into initial competency categories, which were reviewed, discussed and iteratively refined by Working Group members and through broader consultations with the OHT community. The final framework includes six competency domains and four support and enabler domains, each with sub‐domain elements, mapped across a three‐stage maturity model. The framework has been disseminated across OHTs, and its adoption and implementation are now requirements within OHT agreements. Conclusion The framework combines a strong conceptual foundation with actionable elements informed by the literature and consultations with the intended users of the framework. Although developed for OHTs, the framework should be broadly applicable to other health system organizations seeking similar health system transformation goals. Patient Contribution Patient, family and caregiver partners were involved at all stages and in all aspects of the work. As end users of the framework, their perspectives, knowledge and opinions were critical.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Patient advocates' views of patient roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: A constructivist grounded theory study

Alexandra R. Davidson,Mark Morgan,Lauren Ball,Dianne P. Reidlinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.14009

2022-09-23

Abstract:Interprofessional collaborative practice has been shown to be an appropriate model of care for chronic disease management in primary care. However, how patients play a role in this model is relatively unknown. The aim of this constructivist grounded theory focus group study was to explore the perceptions of patient advocates regarding the role of patients in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care. Primary data were collected from patient advocates, from public and private Australian organisations and who represent patients with chronic disease in primary care, through focus groups in July–August 2020. Videoconference focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively, thematically analysed using the five‐step approach by Charmaz: (1) initial line‐by‐line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation and (5) theme and sub‐theme development. Three focus groups comprising 17 patient advocates with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds participated. Two themes and five sub‐themes relating to interprofessional collaborative practice teams were constructed from the data. In theme 1, patients 'shifted across the spectrum of roles' from 'relinquishing control to the team', 'joining the team' to 'disengaging from the team'. The second theme was the need for 'juggling roles' by 'integrating patient role with life roles', and 'learning about the patient role'. The diversity and variability of patient roles as described by patient advocates highlight the challenges of working with people with chronic conditions. The diverse patient roles described by advocates are an important finding that may better inform communication between patients and health professionals when managing chronic conditions. From the health professional perspective, identification of the role of a patient may be challenging. Therefore, future research should explore the development of a tool to assist both patients and health professionals to identify patient roles as they move across the spectrum, with the support of policy makers. This tool should aim to identify and promote patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care settings.

public, environmental & occupational health,social work
Patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: a constructivist grounded theory study

Alexandra R. Davidson,Mark Morgan,Lauren Ball,Dianne P. Reidlinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1463423624000148

2024-05-11

Primary Health Care Research & Development

Abstract:Aim: This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to (1) explore patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care and (2) consider the relevance and alignment of an existing theoretical framework on patients' roles and based on the experiences of patient advocates. Background: High-quality management of chronic conditions requires an interprofessional collaborative practice model of care considering an individual's mental, physical, and social health situation. Patients' experiences of this model in the primary care setting are relatively unknown. Methods: A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken. Interview data were collected from primary care patients with chronic conditions across Australia in August 2020 – February 2022. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed by (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation, and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Themes and sub-themes were mapped against an existing theoretical framework to expand and confirm the results from a previous study with a similar research aim. Findings: Twenty adults with chronic conditions spanning physical disability, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune, and mental health conditions participated. Two themes were developed: (1) Adapting to Change with two sub-themes describing how patients adapt to interprofessional team care and (2) Shifting across the spectrum of roles, with five sub-themes outlining the roles patients enact while receiving care. The findings suggest that patients' roles are highly variable and fluid in interprofessional collaborative practice, and further work is recommended to develop a resource to support greater patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice.

primary health care
Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

Anna Maria Chudyk,Roger Stoddard,Nicola McCleary,Todd A Duhamel,Carolyn Shimmin,Serena Hickes,Pan-Canadian group of patient and public advisors,Annette S H Schultz,Sandra Dalziel,Delane Linkiewich,Lesley Norris,Kurt Schreiner,Kathy Smith,Janice Sumpton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00511-9

2023-11-28

Abstract:Background: The re-conceptualization of patients' and caregivers' roles in research from study participants to co-researchers ("patient partners") has led to growing pains within and outside the research community, such as how to effectively engage patients in research and as part of interdisciplinary teams. To support the growth of more successful research partnerships by developing a shared understanding of how patient partners conceptualize and contribute to their role, this study aimed to explore patient partners' motivations for engagement and understanding of their role. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants (n = 13) of an online survey of activities and impacts of patient engagement in Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research projects. Eligibility criteria included being a patient partner that indicated interest in interview participation upon survey completion, the ability to read/write in English and provide informed consent. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis. Results: Illuminating the lived/living patient and caregiver experience was central to how most patient partners conceptualized the role in terms of its definition, purpose, value, and responsibilities. Participants also identified four additional categories of motivations for becoming a patient partner and contributions that patient partners make to research that build upon and are in addition to sharing their lived/living experiences. Lastly, participants highlighted important connotations of the term patient partner, including temporal and context-specific considerations for the term "patient" and what "partner" may imply about the nature of the research relationship. Conclusions: At the onset of partnership, academic researchers and patient partners must create the space necessary to discuss and understand each other's underlying motivations for partnering and their perspectives on the purpose, value, and responsibilities of the patient partner role. These early conversations should help unearth what research partners hope to get out of and feel that they are able to contribute to engaging, and in such contribute to the development of reciprocal relationships that work towards shared and valued goals. Trial registration Not applicable.
Establishing patient-partner priorities within the primary and integrated health care innovations network in Canada

Jamie DeMore,Roger Stoddard,Gilian Bartlett-Esquilant,Brenda Andreas,Kent Cadogan Loftsgard,Mpho Begin,Annick Beaudry,Karina Prevost,Ghislaine Rouly,Alanna Baldwin,Joan Cranston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.2765

2022-04-01

Abstract:Background: Many experienced primary care researchers have seen the benefits of meaningful engagement with patients and community members in their research, elevating them to a research partner status. The research questions and agendas, however, are often initiated and determined by the researchers. Increasingly, research teams, organizations and networks actively engage with patient-partners to better understand what their research priorities would look like, bringing patient-partners into the research process much earlier. Among many other initiatives within the Strategy for Patient Oriented Research program, a Primary and Integrated Health Care Innovations Network (PIHCIN) was established in Canada, which includes 11 geographically distributed research networks. As part of PIHCIN, a Pan-Canadian Patient Council (the Council) was established with representatives from each provincial site. To ensure their voices were being heard, the Council decided to establish their own research priorities for consideration by the PIHCI network. Objective: To establish patient-partner priorities in the Canadian primary health care context Methods: The main goal of the Council was to submit research priorities to identify what was important from a patient-partner perspective. Through consensus building and prioritization voting, the Council developed and presented a draft of their research priorities to the PIHCI Network Leadership Council. In a second step, the Council decided that the process was missing from the document. Subsequently, with the use of the SMART goal framework, the Council engaged in a process to establish how research priorities could be accomplished. Results: The initial research priorities comprised 11 items, including priorities concerning patient's access to data, integrated health teams, patient initiated collaborative research, virtual care, broader definition of health, etc. The initial priorities eventually evolved into a set of principles, strategic operating goals, and finalized research priorities. Conclusion: Through an iterative process, the Council was able to lead, initiate and differentiate strategic operating goals from the research priorities. This process and results can provide insight for developing critical input from patient-partners for primary health care research.
Narcotic analgesics for dental pain: available products, strengths, and formulations.

R. Wynn

2001-03-01

Abstract:
SINGULARITIES OF THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AN SRB MEASURE IN THE PRESENCE OF STABLE-UNSTABLE TANGENCIES

D. Ruelle

Abstract:Let ρ be an SRB (or “physical”), measure for the discrete time evolution given by a map f , and let ρ(A) denote the expectation value of a smooth function A. If f depends on a parameter, the derivative δρ(A) of ρ(A) with respect to the parameter is formally given by the value of the so-called susceptibility function Ψ(z) at z = 1. When f is a uniformly hyperbolic diffeomorphism, it has been proved that the power series Ψ(z) has a radius of convergence r(Ψ) > 1, and that δρ(A) = Ψ(1), but it is known that r(Ψ) < 1 in some other cases. One reason why f may fail to be uniformly hyperbolic is if there are tangencies between the stable and unstable manifolds for (f, ρ). The present paper gives a crude, nonrigorous, analysis of this situation in terms of the Hausdorff dimension d of ρ in the stable direction. We find that the tangencies produce singularities of Ψ(z) for |z| < 1 if d < 1/2, but only for |z| > 1 if d > 1/2. In particular, if d > 1/2 we may hope that Ψ(1) makes sense, and the derivative δρ(A) = Ψ(1) has thus a chance to be defined. * An early version of this work was presented at the France-Brazil mathematical conference at IMPA in Sep. 2009, at the LAWNP conference in Buzios in Oct. 2009, and at the meeting Progress in Dynamics at the IHP in Nov. 2009. † Math. Dept., Rutgers University, and IHES, 91440 Bures sur Yvette, France. email: ruelle@ihes.fr 1 0. Introduction. Let f be a diffeomorphism of the compact manifold M , and ρ an SRB measure for f . The derivative δXρ(A) of the map f 7→ ρ in the direction of the smooth vector field X, evaluated at the smooth real function A, can be formally computed to be the value at z = 1 of Ψ(z) = ∞
Public experiences and perspectives of primary care in Canada: results from a cross-sectional survey

Tara Kiran,Maryam Daneshvarfard,Ri Wang,Alexander Beyer,Jasmin Kay,Mylaine Breton,Danielle Brown-Shreves,Amanda Condon,Michael E Green,Lindsay Hedden,Alan Katz,Maggie Keresteci,Neb Kovacina,M Ruth Lavergne,Aisha Lofters,Danielle Martin,Goldis Mitra,Sarah Newbery,Katherine Stringer,Peter MacLeod,Clifton van der Linden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.231372

2024-05-20

CMAJ

Abstract:Background: Through medicare, residents in Canada are entitled to medically necessary physician services without paying out of pocket, but still many people struggle to access primary care. We conducted a survey to explore people's experience with and priorities for primary care. Methods: We conducted an online, bilingual survey of adults in Canada in fall 2022. We distributed an anonymous link through diverse channels and a closed link to 122 053 people via a national public opinion firm. We weighted completed responses to mirror Canada's population and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics using regression models. Results: We analyzed 9279 completed surveys (5.9% response rate via closed link). More than one-fifth of respondents (21.8%) reported having no primary care clinician, and among those who did, 34.5% reported getting a same or next-day appointment for urgent issues. Of respondents, 89.4% expressed comfort seeing another team member if their doctor recommended it, but only 35.9%, 9.5%, and 12.4% reported that their practice had a nurse, social worker, or pharmacist, respectively. The primary care attribute that mattered most was having a clinician who "knows me as a person and considers all the factors that affect my health." After we adjusted for respondent characteristics, people in Quebec, the Atlantic region, and British Columbia had lower odds of reporting a primary care clinician than people in Ontario (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.33, and 0.39, respectively; p < 0.001). We also observed large provincial variations in timely access, interprofessional care, and walk-in clinic use. Interpretation: More than 1 in 5 respondents did not have access to primary care, with large variation by province. Reforms should strive to expand access to relationship-based, longitudinal care in a team setting.
“Caring About Me": a pilot framework to understand patient-centered care experience in integrated care - a qualitative study

Alaa Youssef,David Wiljer,Maria Mylopoulos,Robert Maunder,Sanjeev Sockalingam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034970

IF: 3.006

2020-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective The aim of this study is to examine patients’ experiences in integrated care (IC) settings. Design Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Settings Two IC sites in Toronto, Canada: (1) a community-based primary healthcare centre, supporting patients with hepatitis C and comorbid mental health and substance use issues; and (2) an integrated bariatric surgery programme, an academic tertiary care centre. Participants The study included patients (n=12) with co-occurring mental and physical health conditions. Seven participants (58%) were female and five (42%) were male. Methods Twelve indepth semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of patients (n=12) with comorbid mental and physical conditions at two IC sites in Toronto between 2017 and 2018. Data were collected and analysed using grounded theory approach. Results Four themes emerged in our analysis reflecting patients’ perspectives on patient-centred care experience in IC: (1) caring about me; (2) collaborating with me; (3) helping me understand and self-manage my care; and (4) personalising care to address my needs. Patients’ experiences of care were primarily shaped by quality of relational interactions with IC team members. Positive interactions with IC team members led to enhanced patient access to care and fostered personalising care plans to address unique needs. Conclusion This study adds to the literature on creating patient-centredness in IC settings by highlighting the importance of recognising patients’ unique needs and the context of care for the specific patient population.

medicine, general & internal
Interprofessional collaboration regarding patients' care plans in primary care: a focus group study into influential factors

Jerôme Jean Jacques van Dongen,Stephanie Anna Lenzen,Marloes Amantia van Bokhoven,Ramon Daniëls,Trudy van der Weijden,Anna Beurskens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0456-5

2016-05-28

Abstract:Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care. Methods: A qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis. Results: The findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT. Conclusions: Improving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.
Access to primary health care: perspectives of primary care physicians and community stakeholders

Darene Toal-Sullivan,Simone Dahrouge,Johanna Tesfaselassie,Laura Olejnik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02312-9

2024-05-06

Abstract:Background: Action on the social determinants of health is important to strengthen primary health care and promote access among underserved populations. We report on findings from stakeholder consultations undertaken at one of the Canadian sites of the Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) program, as part of the development of a best practice intervention to improve access to primary health care. The overarching objective of this qualitative study was to understand the processes, barriers, and facilitators to connect patients to health enabling community resources (HERs) to inform a patient navigation model situated in primary care. Methods: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with primary care physicians, and community health and social service providers to understand their experiences in supporting patients in reaching HERs. Current gaps in access to primary health care and the potential of patient navigation were also explored. We applied Levesque et al., (2013) access framework to code the data and four themes emerged: (1) Approachability and Ability to Perceive, (2) Acceptability and Ability to Seek, (3) Availability and Accommodation, and Ability to Reach, and (4) Appropriateness. Results: Determinants of access included patient and provider awareness of HERs, the nature of the patient-provider relationship, funding of HERs, integration of primary and community care services, and continuity of information. Participants' perspectives about the potential scope and role of a patient navigator provided valuable insight for the development of the Access to Resources in the Community (ARC) navigation model and how it could be embedded in a primary care setting. Conclusion: Additional consultation with key stakeholders in the health region is needed to gain a broader understanding of the challenges in caring for primary care patients with social barriers and how to support them in accessing community-based primary health care to inform the design of the ARC intervention.
Healthcare professionals perspective of the facilitators and barriers to family engagement during patient-and-family-centered-care interdisciplinary rounds in intensive care unit: A qualitative exploratory study

Brigitte Cypress,Rida Gharzeddine,Mei Rosemary Fu,Melanie Ransom,Farley Villarente,Caitlyn Pitman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103636

IF: 5.3

2024-02-02

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing

Abstract:Objectives Family engagement in care for critically ill patients remains an inconsistent practice and an understudied area of nursing science. Rounds for this study is an interdisciplinary activity conducted at the bedside in partnership with patients, their families, and the health care professionals involved in providing the care. We sought to explore and describe the facilitators and barriers to family engagement during patient and family-centered interdisciplinary rounds in the intensive care unit. Research methodology/design This qualitative exploratory study is part of a multisite experimental study (#Pro2020001614; NCT05449990). We analyzed the narrative data from the qualitative questions added in the survey from 52 healthcare professionals involved in a multisite experimental study using Braun and Clarke's (2006) constructionist, contextualist approach to thematic analysis. Setting The study was conducted in the intensive care unit of two medical centers. Main outcome measures The findings presented are themes illuminated from thematic analysis namely communication gaps, family's lack of resources, familial and healthcare providers' characteristics, lack of leadership, interprofessional support, policy, and guidelines . Findings Family engagement in critical care during interdisciplinary rounds occurred within the intersectionality among families, healthcare professionals' practice, and organizational factors. The facilitators for family engagement include supported, championed, and advocated-for family adaptation, teams, and professional practice, and organizational receptivity, and support. Communication and leadership are the precursors to family engagement. Conclusions The findings added new knowledge for exploring the nature and scope of family engagement in critical care. Family engagement must be incorporated into the organizational vision and mission, and healthcare delivery systems. Implications for Clinical Practice There is a need to further investigate the resources, organizational support mechanisms, and systems that affect patients, families, and healthcare professionals, and the establishment of policies that will aid in reducing barriers to family engagement in the intensive care unit.

nursing
Community Care for People with Complex Care Needs: Bridging the Gap between Health and Social Care

Kerry Kuluski,Julia W. Ho,Parminder Kaur Hans,Michelle L.A. Nelson,Michelle LA Nelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2944

2017-07-21

International Journal of Integrated Care

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: A growing number of people are living with complex care needs characterized by multimorbidity, mental health challenges and social deprivation. Required is the integration of health and social care, beyond traditional health care services to address social determinants. This study investigates key care components to support complex patients and their families in the community.METHODS: Expert panel focus groups with 24 care providers, working in health and social care sectors across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were conducted. Patient vignettes illustrating significant health and social care needs were presented to participants. The vignettes prompted discussions on i) how best to meet complex care needs in the community and ii) the barriers to delivering care to this population.RESULTS: Categories to support care needs of complex patients and their families included i) relationships as the foundation for care, ii) desired processes and structures of care, and iii) barriers and workarounds for desired care.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Meeting the needs of the population who require health and social care requires time to develop authentic relationships, broadening the membership of the care team, communicating across sectors, co-locating health and social care, and addressing the barriers that prevent providers from engaging in these required practices.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Shaping Primary Health Care Teams and Integrated Care in Québec: An Overview of Policies (2000-2020)

Paul Wankah,Mylaine Breton,Alexandra Lukey,Isabelle Gaboury,Mélanie Ann Smithman,Marie-Élaine Malo,Nelly Oelke,,,,,,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13162/hro-ors.v10i1.4691

2022-01-27

Abstract:Primary Health Care (PHC) teams are an important component of the health system – particularly in terms of integrating care for vulnerable patients living with complex health and social needs. Over the last two decades, PHC teams have been implemented in different forms across Canadian provinces and territories. This article explores the health care policies that shaped the form and functions of PHC team-based care in Québec over the past 20 years (2002-2022). In Québec, the main model of multidisciplinary PHC teams – Family Medicine Groups or Groupe de médecine de famille (GMFs) – were created in 2002. In 2004, structural reforms led to the creation of local health networks (LHNs). LHNs promoted coordinated and collaborative activities between health and social services providers such as GMFs located in the same geographic regions. This was followed by another structural reform of the health system in 2015, leading to the creation of broader territorial health networks with the aim to heighten coordination and collaboration among provider organizations. Various policies have strengthened the PHC team-based model. For instance, the introduction of nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and social workers with extended scopes of practice shaped the configuration of GMFs while enhancing inter-professional collaborative practices. This article highlights important insights that could advance the understanding and creation of future PHC policy initiatives.
Whose Responsibility Is It? Implementing Patient-Prioritized Healthcare System Change in Oncology

Holly Etchegary,John King,Sevtap Savas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31110538

2024-11-27

Current Oncology

Abstract:This brief commentary describes the reflections on a fundamental question by the Public Interest Group on Cancer Research, a successful academic-community partnership focused on cancer research, education, public engagement, and advocacy in Canada's Eastern province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Group has achieved some success in a short time with very limited funding. It has successfully created public spaces for conversations about cancer care and priorities for research and regularly advocated for health service change prioritized by input from patients and family members. However, we remain challenged in our understanding of how to truly implement change within oncology care contexts that is informed by patients and families affected by cancer. In this short reflection, we hope to raise awareness of this important issue and question whose responsibility it is to work with patients and families and follow through on prioritized healthcare issues and services. We suggest this may be a matter of integrated knowledge translation and a better understanding of where patients and families fit in this space. We hope to encourage reflection and conversation among all relevant stakeholders about how best to implement patient-prioritized change in oncology care and policy.

oncology

[Comments on the 3rd MDS report on nursing quality. Much noise about little change].

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Facilitating Integration Through Team-Based Primary Healthcare: A Cross-Case Policy Analysis of Four Canadian Provinces

Exploring Context and the Factors Shaping Team-Based Primary Healthcare Policies in Three Canadian Provinces: A Comparative Analysis

Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis

Evaluating engagement with equity in Canadian provincial and territorial primary care policies: Results of a jurisdictional scan

Building Engagement‐Capable Environments for Health System Transformation: Development and Early Implementation of a Capability Framework for Patient, Family and Caregiver Engagement in Ontario Health Teams

Patient advocates' views of patient roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: A constructivist grounded theory study

Patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: a constructivist grounded theory study

Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

Establishing patient-partner priorities within the primary and integrated health care innovations network in Canada

Narcotic analgesics for dental pain: available products, strengths, and formulations.

SINGULARITIES OF THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AN SRB MEASURE IN THE PRESENCE OF STABLE-UNSTABLE TANGENCIES

Public experiences and perspectives of primary care in Canada: results from a cross-sectional survey

“Caring About Me": a pilot framework to understand patient-centered care experience in integrated care - a qualitative study

Interprofessional collaboration regarding patients' care plans in primary care: a focus group study into influential factors

Access to primary health care: perspectives of primary care physicians and community stakeholders

Healthcare professionals perspective of the facilitators and barriers to family engagement during patient-and-family-centered-care interdisciplinary rounds in intensive care unit: A qualitative exploratory study

Community Care for People with Complex Care Needs: Bridging the Gap between Health and Social Care

Shaping Primary Health Care Teams and Integrated Care in Québec: An Overview of Policies (2000-2020)

Whose Responsibility Is It? Implementing Patient-Prioritized Healthcare System Change in Oncology