Search

Introduction: First Nations are most at risk of developing end-stage kidney disease. Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for these patients; however, First Nations donors are underrepresented. The aim of this study was to describe and understand barriers and facilitators of culturally safe organ transplantation and donation from the perspective of First Nations and Health Professionals in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Methods/Approach: This was a qualitative descriptive study using the decolonizing Two-Eyed Seeing approach. The sample consisted of First Nations people and health professionals living in Quebec, Canada, who have had an experience of organ transplantation or donation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and September 2021 with 11 people, including 5 healthcare professionals and 6 First Nations people. Findings: This study enrolled 11 participants. Several individual and contextual factors influencing culturally safe organ transplantation and donation among First Nations people were identified: language barrier, impacts of relocation, lack of knowledge about transplantation, mistrust of the healthcare system, family support and accompaniment, and transplant testimonials. Discussion: This study identified several avenues for reinforcing culturally safe transplantation and donation among First Nations, including the presence of a companion in medical consultations, focusing on access to culturally safe accommodation and sharing transplant testimonials. Further work in partnership with First Nations is needed to improve access to culturally safe organ transplantation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (p =.001) and nurses (p <.001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (p =.015) and nurses (p <.001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (p <.001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (p =.003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (p =.003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (p <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare gentrification is the process in which the distribution of healthcare resources within a neighbourhood affects residents' access to healthcare services. To understand the complexity of healthcare access and to consider the socio-structural dimensions affecting equity in access to care, we aim to explore how healthcare gentrification has been described in the scientific literature and to document the reported relations between gentrification and healthcare access., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a scoping review from data published from inception to September 2024 based on the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and improved by Levac et al (2010). We will search the following databases: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (embase.com), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Web of Science and Geobase (Engineering Village). The review will be conducted from February 2024 to September 2024. The search strategy will be elaborated in conjunction with a professional librarian. Screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening will be done in duplicates. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies during the screening process. We will present our results narratively., Ethics and Dissemination: This scoping review does not require ethical approval since it will be collected from publicly available documents. The results of this scoping review will also be presented as a scientific article, scientific conferences, research webinars also in social media, workshops and conferences organised by healthcare organisations or academic institutions or on any appropriate platform., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)