Search

Introduction: Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme. Methods: The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in‐depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members. Results: The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care. Conclusion: The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Case management is one of the most frequently performed interventions to mitigate the negative effects of high healthcare use on patients, primary care providers and the healthcare system. Reviews have addressed factors influencing case management interventions (CMI) implementation and reported common themes related to the case manager role and activities, collaboration with other primary care providers, CMI training and relationships with the patients. However, the heterogeneity of the settings in which CMI have been implemented may impair the transferability of the findings. Moreover, the underlying factors influencing the first steps of CMI implementation need to be further assessed. This study aimed to evaluate facilitators and barriers of the first implementation steps of a CMI by primary care nurses for people with complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. Methods: A qualitative multiple case study was conducted including six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. In-depth interviews and focus groups with nurse case managers, health services managers, and other primary care providers were conducted. Field notes also formed part of the data. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was carried out. Results: Leadership of the primary care providers and managers facilitated the first steps of the of CMI implementation, as did the experience and skills of the nurse case managers and capacity development within the teams. The time required to establish CMI was a barrier at the beginning of the CMI implementation. Most nurse case managers expressed apprehension about developing an "individualized services plan" with multiple health professionals and the patient. Clinic team meetings and a nurse case managers community of practice created opportunities to address primary care providers' concerns. Participants generally perceived the CMI as a comprehensive, adaptable, and organized approach to care, providing more resources and support for patients and better coordination in primary care. Conclusion: Results of this study will be useful for decision makers, care providers, patients and researchers who are considering the implementation of CMI in primary care. Providing knowledge about first steps of CMI implementation will also help inform policies and best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient‐centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. Aim: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. Methods: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. Results: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six‐step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. Conclusion: This six‐step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. Patient or Public Contribution: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six‐step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Case management (CM) is an intervention adapted to the needs of patients with chronic conditions or complex needs. Factors associated with effectiveness of CM, such as high intervention intensity, can represent challenges to its implementation. Telehealth has the potential to help overcome these challenges, but little work has been done to synthesize available evidence on telehealth CM. The purpose of this scoping review was thus to fill this gap and document which telehealth modalities have been used, summarize perspectives of key users, and discuss evidence on effectiveness of telehealth-delivered CM. Methods:A search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL for articles published between January 2005 and January 2021 was done. Studies in which telehealth was used for patient-case manager interaction and conducted in a population with complex health needs and/or chronic conditions were included. Articles selected for full-text review were independently screened by two reviewers. Data extraction was conducted once and validated by a second reviewer. Results:Of 3,108 articles, 22 were retained for data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Most studies evaluated CM interventions delivered over telephone, yet, literature suggests that face-to-face contact is essential to CM success. Results also indicate that telehealth CM is acceptable and effective, associated with better utilization of health services and favorable clinical outcomes. Conclusions:Lack of research evaluating telehealth CM delivered using modalities other than telephone. Further research should evaluate CM interventions that integrate platforms enabling visual information exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Some people frequently use healthcare services due to complex healthcare needs and are more at risk of incapacity and mortality. Literature supports case management (CM) to improve integrated care, patient experience, and patient-reported outcomes for this clientele. However, challenges remain in the interaction between hospitals and primary care clinics. The aim of the study was to implement and evaluate an intervention where case managers in hospital work closely with primary care nurses to improve integrated care of frequent users of healthcare services. Methods: Study Design Multiple embedded case study. Setting Four hospitals and four primary care clinics in the region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec, Canada. Each clinic was considered as a case. Frequent use was defined as = 4 emergency department (ED) visits and/or = 3 hospitalizations in the previous year. Intervention: Case managers identified frequent users in each clinic within the computerized platform of the hospitals. Primary care nurses worked in close collaboration with case managers to develop an individualized service plan and ensure coordination and self-management support during 6 months. Data collection and analysis The mixed data collection included, at baseline and 6 months: 1) Semi-structured interviews with case managers (n=3), primary care nurses (n=11), programs managers (n=4), and patients (n=19), and focus groups with family physicians (n=36) and other professionals (n=26) to evaluate implementation and outcomes (care access and satisfaction, self-management, well-being and hospital services use); 2) Fieldnotes to complete and validate the qualitative data; 3) Selfadministered questionnaires for sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, marital status, education, occupation, family income and perception of the economic situation, health literacy, and multimorbidity) and quantitative outcomes (patient experience of integrated care and selfmanagement of health) completed by frequent users who received the intervention (n=33); and 4) Services use (ED visits, hospitalizations and primary care utilization) measured in the electronic medical record. For each case, qualitative and quantitative data were first analysed separately, then combined into case stories that were compared. A patient partner was involved in data collection and analysis. Results Implementation of the intervention varied among the 4 clinics, from almost no implementation (the family physician in charge of the clinic decided to stop the implementation) to full implementation (strong leadership and collaboration among all stakeholders - case managers, primary care nurses, family physicians and managers). Qualitative and quantitative outcomes were proportional to the stage of implementation. Discussion This study adds to the literature on CM to improve integrated care by proposing the concept of integrated CM between hospitals and primary care clinics. Conclusions: Integrated CM may have positive impacts on frequent users and services use if all stakeholders engage in practice change. Lessons learned Adressing change management and mobilizing all stakeholders at the onset are mandatory when implementing such complex interventions targeting practices changes. Limitations The study lacked of power for analysis by clinic for outcomes such as self-management and services use. Results are transferable to similar contexts (to be described in the presentation). Suggestions Future research could replicate this study on a larger scale with economic analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]