Search

Objective: Dental regulatory bodies aim to ensure the health and safety of dentists, dental staff patients and the public. An important responsibility during a pandemic is to communicate risk and guidelines for patient care. Limited data exist on the perceptions and experiences of dentists navigating new guidelines for mitigating risk in dental care during the pandemic. The objective of this study was to use a qualitative approach to explore how dentists in Canada experienced and perceived their regulatory bodies' communication about COVID‐19 risks and guidelines during the pandemic. Methods: Participants were Canadian dentists (N = 644) recruited through the email roster of nine provincial dental associations or regulatory bodies. This qualitative analysis was nested within a prospective longitudinal cohort study in which data were collected using online questionnaires at regular intervals from August 2020 to November 2021. To address the objective reported in this paper, a conventional qualitative content analysis method was applied to responses to three open‐ended questions included in the final questionnaire. Results: Participants encountered challenges and frustrations amid the COVID‐19 pandemic, grappling with diverse regulations and communications from dental bodies. While some bodies offered helpful guidance, many participants felt the need for improved communication on guidelines. Dentists urged for expedited, clearer and more frequent updates, expressing difficulty in navigating overwhelming information. Negative views emerged on the vague and unclear communication of COVID‐19 guidelines, contributing to confusion and frustration among participants. Conclusion: As COVID‐19 persists and in planning for future pandemics, these experiential findings will help guide regulatory bodies in providing clear, timely and practical guidelines to protect the health and safety of dentists, dental staff, patients and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Best practice guidelines for the recovery and return to work (RTW) of people with mental disorders recommend access to the services of an interdisciplinary team combining pharmacological, psychological and work rehabilitation interventions. In the Canadian context, primary healthcare services are responsible for providing these services for people with common mental disorders, such as depressive or anxiety disorders. However, not everyone has easy access to these recommended primary healthcare services, and previous studies suggest that multiple personal, practice‐related and organizational factors can influence the patient's journey. Moreover, previous studies documented that family physicians often work in silos and lack the knowledge and time needed to effectively manage by themselves patients' occupational health. Thus, the care and service trajectories of these patients are often suboptimal and can have important consequences on the person's recovery and RTW. Objective and Population Studied: Our study aimed to gain a better understanding of the patient journeys and the factors influencing their access to and experience with primary healthcare services while they were on sick leave due to a common mental disorder. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research design was used to understand and describe these factors. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the verbatim. Results: Five themes describe the main factors that influenced the patient's journey of the 14 participants of this study: (1) the fragmented interventions provided by family physicians; (2) patients' autonomy in managing their own care; (3) the attitude and case management provided by the insurer, (4) the employer's openness and understanding and (5) the match between the person's needs and their access to psychosocial and rehabilitation services. Conclusions: Our findings highlight important gaps in the collaborative practices surrounding the management of mental health‐related sick leave, the coordination of primary healthcare services and the access to work rehabilitation services. Occupational therapists and other professionals can support family physicians in managing sick leaves, strengthen interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration and ensure that patients receive needed services in a timelier manner no matter their insurance coverage or financial needs. Patients of Public Contribution: This study aimed at looking into the perspective of people who have lived or are currently experiencing a sick leave related to a mental health disorder to highlight the factors which they feel hindered their recovery and RTW. Additionally, two patient partners were involved in this study and are now engaged in the dissemination of the research results and the pursuit of our team research programme to improve services delivered to this population. [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: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]