Search

This paper will identify existing models of professional regulatory reform that could ensure a single licensing process that results in multi-jurisdictional licensure. The paper will also distinguish models or ad hoc arrangements that fail to achieve such a result. This is a timely topic in Canada because its professional regulatory framework is being examined for modernization. The Canadian professional regulatory framework for health care providers is a legacy of the Constitution of 1867. It can be characterized as a Federation of 13 different jurisdictional systems with each province or territory having exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of its health professionals. This results in differing entry to practice requirements, standards of practice, classes or categories of registration and transfer criteria for eligibility from other provinces. The United States nursing state board regulators, the Australian Commonwealth, and their state governments have moved from their original regulatory frameworks to modern ones. Their models are more supportive of mobility, cross-border virtual care, education, and health provider professional development and well-being. Aside from recent discussions in the 4 Canadian Atlantic provinces, there has been little will, effort, or advancement to modernize the regulatory framework in Canada to support multi-jurisdictional licensure. This paper aims to briefly describe 6 existing models that support multijurisdictional licensure. In the fall of 2022, the 4 Atlantic Premiers (akin to state Governors in the US) asked each of their medical regulatory authority (akin to State Medical Boards) to develop a licensing system such that physicians could practice in all 4 Atlantic provinces without the need to acquire multiple licenses. Two models will be discussed that meet this recently stated objective of the Atlantic Premiers while the others do not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cultural competency is often promoted as a strategy to address health inequities; however, there is little evidence linking cultural competency with improved patient outcomes. This article describes the characteristics of recent educational interventions designed to improve cultural competency in healthcare workers for First Nations peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. Methods: In total, 13 electronic databases and 14 websites for the period from January 2015 to May 2021 were searched. Information on the characteristics and methodological quality of included studies was extracted using standardised assessment tools. Results: Thirteen published evaluations were identified; 10 for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The main positive outcomes reported were improvements in health professionals' attitudes and knowledge, and improved confidence in working with First Nations patients. The methodological quality of evaluations and the reporting of methodological criteria were moderate. Conclusions: Cultural competency education programs can improve knowledge, attitudes and confidence of healthcare workers to improve the health of First Nations peoples. Providing culturally safe health care should be routine practice, particularly in places where there are concentrations of First Nations peoples, yet there is relatively little research in this area. There remains limited evidence of the effectiveness of cultural education programs alone on community or patient outcomes. Cultural competency is often promoted as a strategy to address health inequities, although evidence linking cultural competency to patient outcomes is scarce. We conducted a narrative review of the recent literature on cultural education programs and found 13 published evaluations, mainly reporting improvements in health professionals' attitudes and knowledge, and improved confidence in working with First Nations patients. Although cultural education has a positive short-term impact, none of the studies included measured improved patient health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the lives of a majority of the world's population. People have been encouraged to implement social distancing behaviors enforced by governments, and have experienced loss of employment or changes to their usual working environment. In the mental health sector, psychologists and psychiatrists have been forced to alter the standard care of patients without compromising safety. This article documents the experiences of the authors – mental health professionals in four countries, Canada, Russia, Australia and Japan – at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, and offers recommendations on how clinical, training, and research practices may need to be adjusted to deal with lockdown situations. Clinicians adapted their usual best practices by learning new skills and updating their knowledge base. Mental health clinicians noticed that the pandemic led to symptomatic changes in some of their patients. Most clinicians moved towards providing telemental health services, such as conducting assessments and treatments remotely. Those who continued seeing patients in person employed personal protective equipment with various impacts on the clinician–patient relationship. The dilemmas of mass quarantines need to be carefully examined, as their effects on numerous health and psychosocial variables appear to be far-reaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Anxiety is commonly observed in oncology patients but infrequently screened, assessed or addressed. According to psychosocial guidelines, all healthcare professionals, including radiation therapists, are responsible for the psychosocial care of patients. Radiation therapists (RTs) interact with patients daily throughout treatment; however, little research exists to evaluate RTs' ability to identify and manage patients' psychosocial needs. This study aimed to determine if RTs can detect and manage patient anxiety. Method: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey containing two clinically relevant vignettes was developed. Two fictitious patients were presented to elicit responses reflective of RTs' experiences and judgements in the recognition and management of anxiety. Surveys were distributed via email in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sydney (2016/227) and informed consent was obtained from participants. Results: Eligible and complete surveys were received from 582 respondents (240 (41.2%) from Australia; 78 (13.4%) New Zealand; 264 (45.4%) Canada). Almost all respondents endorsed a relevant descriptor of anxiety (vignette 1, 577 (99.1%); vignette 2, 579 (99.5%)). For both vignettes, the most frequently endorsed management strategy was to acknowledge the patients' feelings and encourage them to express their concerns (vignette 1, 548 (94.2%); vignette 2, 455 (78.2%)). Conclusion: RTs in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are able to detect anxiety and endorse a strategy to manage patients experiencing anxiety depicted in written vignettes. Exploring RTs' abilities to detect and manage patient anxiety whilst in the high-pressure clinical environment is an important next step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]