Search

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examines the perceptions of the Australian public canvassed in 2021 during the COVID‐19 pandemic about their health system compared to four previous surveys (2008, 2010, 2012 and 2018). Methods: In 2021, a nationwide online survey was conducted with a representative sample of Australians (N = 5100) recruited via market research panels. The results were compared to previous nationwide Australian survey samples from 2018 (N = 1024), 2012 (N = 1200), 2010 (N = 1201) and 2008 (N = 1146). The survey included questions consistent with previous polls regarding self‐reported health status and overall opinions of, and confidence in, the Australian health system. Results: There was an increase in the proportion of respondents reporting positive perceptions at each survey between 2008 and 2021, with a significantly higher proportion of respondents expressing a more positive view of the Australian healthcare system in 2021 compared to previous years (χ2(8, N = 9645) = 487.63, p < 0.001). In 2021, over two‐thirds of respondents (n = 3949/5100, 77.4%) reported that following the COVID‐19 pandemic, their confidence in the Australian healthcare system had either remained the same (n = 2433/5100, 47.7%) or increased (n = 1516/5100, 29.7%). Overall, respondents living in regional or remote regions, younger Australians (< 45 years) and women held less positive views in relation to the system. In 2021, the most frequently identified area for urgent improvement was the need for more healthcare workers (n = 1350/3576, 37.8%), an area of concern particularly for Australians residing in regional or remote areas (n = 590/1385, 42.6%). Conclusions: Irrespective of disruptions to the Australian healthcare system caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic, Australians' perceptions of their healthcare system were positive in 2021. However, concerns were raised about inadequate workforce capacity and the cost of healthcare, with differences identified by age groups and geographical location. Patient or Public Contribution: Health consumer representatives from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the co‐design, deployment, analysis and interpretation of the results of this survey. J.A. and L.W. from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the development of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many speech sound disorder (SSD) interventions with a long‐term evidence base are 'new' to clinical practice, and the role of services in supporting or constraining capacity for practice change is underexplored. Innovations from implementation science may offer solutions to this research–practice gap but have not previously been applied to SSD. Aim: To explain variation in speech and language therapy service capacity to implement new SSD interventions. Methods & Procedures: We conducted an intensive, case‐based qualitative study with 42 speech and language therapists (SLTs) in three NHS services (n = 39) and private practice (n = 3) in Scotland. We explored therapists' diverse experiences of SSD practice change through individual interviews (n = 28) or self‐generated paired (n = 2) or focus groups (n = 3). A theoretical framework (Normalization Process Theory) helped us understand how the service context contributed to the way therapists engaged with different practice changes. Outcomes & Results: We identified six types ('cases') of practice change, two of which involved the new SSD interventions. We focus on these two cases ('Transforming' and 'Venturing') and use Normalization Process Theory's Cognitive participation construct to explain implementation (or not) of new SSD interventions in routine practice. Therapists were becoming aware of the new interventions through knowledge brokers, professional networks and an intervention database. In the Transforming case, new SSD interventions for selected children were becoming part of local routine practice. Transforming was the result of a favourable service structure, a sustained and supported 'push' that made implementation of the new interventions a service priority, and considerable collective time to think about doing it. 'Venturing' happened where the new SSD interventions were not a service priority. It involved individual or informal groups of therapists trying out or using one or more of the new interventions with selected children within the constraints of their service context. Conclusions & implications: New, evidence‐based SSD interventions may be challenging to implement in routine practice because they have in common a need for therapists who understand applied linguistics and can be flexible with service delivery. Appreciating what it really takes to do routine intervention differently is vital for managers and services who have to make decisions about priorities for implementation, along with realistic plans for resourcing and supporting it. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Many SSD interventions have an evidence base but are not widely adopted into routine clinical practice. Addressing this is not just about individual therapists or education/training, as workplace pressures and service delivery models make it difficult to change practice. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This paper applies innovations from implementation science to help explain how what is going on in services can support or constrain capacity for implementing evidence‐based SSD interventions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Service managers and therapists will have a clearer idea of the time and support they may realistically have to invest for new SSD interventions to be used routinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Dysphagia affects up to 70% of care home residents, increasing morbidity and hospital admissions. Speech and language therapists make recommendations to support safe nutrition but have limited capacity to offer ongoing guidance. This study aimed to understand if recommendations made to support safe and effective care are implemented and how these relate to the actual care delivered. Methods: Eleven mealtimes with residents with dysphagia were observed during 2020 using a tool capturing 12 elements of expected practice. Staff actions during mealtimes were compared with adherence to residents' care plans and speech and language therapist recommendations. Results: Written recommendations predominantly focused on food and fluid modification. Observations (n = 66) revealed food texture, posture, and alertness were adhered to on 90% of occasions, but alternating food and drink, prompting and ensuring swallow completed adherence was less than 60%. Thickened fluids frequently did not align with required International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative levels. Nutrition care provided in the dining room was less safe due to a lack of designated supervision. Conclusion: Care homes need to be supported to establish a safe swallowing culture to improve residents' safety and care experience. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject?: Dysphagia is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and has been identified as an independent risk factor for mortality in nursing home residents.There is evidence that compensatory swallowing strategies, safe feeding advice and dietary modifications can reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia.Care for nursing home residents at mealtimes is often task‐centred and delegated to those with limited training and who lack knowledge of useful strategies to support the nutrition and hydration needs of residents with dysphagia. What this study adds?: Written advice from speech and language therapists on safe nutrition and hydration for residents with dysphagia is focused mainly on food and fluid modification.Nurses and healthcare assistants have limited understanding of International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative levels or safe swallowing strategies and recommended practices to support safe nutrition care for residents with dysphagia are inconsistently applied especially when residents are eating in dining areas.Care homes are not aware of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists guidance on how safe nutrition care of residents with dysphagia should be supported. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Care homes need to prioritise a safe swallowing culture that ensures that residents with swallowing difficulties are assisted to eat and drink in a way that enhances their mealtime experience and minimises adverse events that may result in hospital admission.Speech and language therapists could play an important role in training and supporting care home staff to understand and use safe swallowing strategies with residents with dysphagia.The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists could provide more assistance to care homes to support and guide them in how to implement safe feeding routines.Care home staff have limited knowledge about how to implement safe feeding routines and need more guidance from speech and language specialists on how they can support residents with dysphagia to eat safely.Creating a safe swallowing culture within care homes could help to improve nutrition care and enhance patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigated healthcare access and quality for people who are transgender and gender‐diverse (PTGD) in Saskatchewan (SK), Canada, to inform a larger project that was piloting two peer health navigators for PTGD. Methods: Two online focus groups were held. Nineteen participants were recruited to represent a broad range in age, gender and location in SK. Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: The core theme that was identified was participants' desire for culturally safe healthcare. This core theme had two component themes: (1) systemic healthcare factors and (2) individual healthcare provider (HCP) factors. The healthcare system primarily acted as a barrier to culturally safe healthcare. HCPs could be either barriers or facilitators of culturally safe care; however, negative experiences outweighed positive ones. Conclusions: PTGD in SK face discrimination, with delays and barriers to care at all levels of the healthcare system. Peer health navigators can address some of these discrepancies; however, greater support is required for PTGD to be able to access culturally safe healthcare. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience/PTGD were involved in all stages of this project. They were included on the team as community researchers and co‐developed the research project, conducted the focus groups, participated in the analyses and are co‐authors. As well, both navigators and all the participants in the focus groups were also PTGD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is a growing role for patients, family members and caregivers as consultants, collaborators and partners in health system settings in Canada. However, compensation for this role is not systematized. When offered, it varies in both type (e.g., one‐time honorarium, salary) and amount. Further, broad‐based views of patient partners on compensation are still unknown. We aimed to describe the types and frequency of compensation patient partners have been offered and their attitudes towards compensation. Methods: This study uses data from the Canadian Patient Partner Study (CPPS) survey. The survey gathered the experiences and perspectives of those who self‐identified as patient partners working across the Canadian health system. Three questions were about compensation, asking what types of compensation participants had been offered, if they had ever refused compensation, and whether they felt adequately compensated. The latter two questions included open‐text comments in addition to menu‐based and scaled response options. Basic frequencies were performed for all questions and open‐text comments were analyzed through inductive qualitative content analysis. Results: A total of 603 individuals participated in the CPPS survey. Most respondents were never or rarely offered salary (81%), honorarium (64%), gift cards (80%) or material gifts (93%) while half were offered conference registration and expenses at least sometimes. A total of 129 (26%) of 499 respondents reported refusing compensation. Of 511 respondents, half felt adequately compensated always or often, and half only sometimes, rarely or never. Open‐text comments revealed positive, ambivalent and negative attitudes towards compensation. Attitudes were framed by perceptions about their role, sentiments of giving back to the health system, feelings of acknowledgement, practical considerations, values of fairness and equity and accountability relationships. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that compensation is not standardized in Canada. Half of survey respondents routinely feel inadequately compensated. Patient partners have diverse views of what constitutes adequate compensation inclusive of personal considerations such as a preference for volunteering, and broader concerns such as promoting equity in patient partnership. Organizations should attempt to ensure that compensation practices are clear, transparent and attentive to patient partners' unique contexts. Patient Contribution: Two patient partners are members of the CPPS research team and have been fully engaged in all study phases from project conception to knowledge translation. They are co‐authors of this manuscript. The survey was co‐designed and pilot tested with patient partners and survey participants were patient partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor quality sleep in hospitals may be problematic for patients, negatively impacting their recovery and wellbeing. This project aimed to investigate the effectiveness of codesign in addressing key issues affecting sleep disruption in the healthcare setting. Methods: Codesign with patients, staff and consumer representatives was conducted in an acute metropolitan tertiary public hospital in Sydney, Australia. Through a four‐stage process, a multimodal intervention to address and reduce the impact of sleep disruptions among hospital inpatients was created. Pre‐ and post‐intervention evaluation was used to determine changes in patient‐reported sleep disruption. Results: 'The HUSH Project' (Help Us Support Healing) intervention resulted from the codesign process, which included the provision of HUSH Sleep Packs (with earplugs, eye masks and herbal tea), patient information resources, and ward‐based Sleep Champions. Survey data from 210 patients revealed a statistically significant decrease in patient‐reported noise disturbances for patients in shared rooms following the 4‐week intervention period of the HUSH program. Conclusion: The HUSH Project demonstrated that a novel multimodal intervention may be valuable in reducing sleep disruption in hospitals. These findings also indicate the benefits of using codesign methodology to support improvement projects that seek to enhance patient experiences of care. Patient or Public Contribution: This project utilised codesign methodology, which involved significant contributions from patients and consumer representatives, from research conceptualisation into intervention design, implementation and project evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]