Search

Introduction: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care nurses were often redeployed to areas outside of primary care to mitigate staffing shortages. Despite this, there is a scarcity of literature describing their perceptions of and experiences with redeployment during the pandemic. Objectives: This paper aims to: 1) describe the perspectives of primary care nurses with respect to redeployment, 2) discuss the opportunities/challenges associated with redeployment of primary care nurses, and 3) examine the nature (e.g., settings, activities) of redeployment by primary care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care nurses (i.e., Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, and Licensed/Registered Practical Nurses), from four regions in Canada. These include the Interior, Island, and Vancouver Coastal Health regions in British Columbia; Ontario Health West region in Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Data related to redeployment were analyzed thematically. Results: Three overarching themes related to redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified: (1) Call to redeployment, (2) Redeployment as an opportunity/challenge, and (3) Scope of practice during redeployment. Primary care nurses across all regulatory designations reported variation in the process of redeployment within their jurisdiction (e.g., communication, policies/legislation), different opportunities and challenges that resulted from redeployment (e.g., scheduling flexibility, workload implications), and scope of practice implications (e.g., perceived threat to nursing license). The majority of nurses discussed experiences with redeployment being voluntary in nature, rather than mandated. Conclusions: Redeployment is a useful workforce strategy during public health emergencies; however, it requires a structured process and a decision-making approach that explicitly involves healthcare providers affected by redeployment. Primary care nurses ought only to be redeployed after other options are considered and arrangements made for the care of patients in their original practice area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public health systems in Canada have undergone significant policy renewal over the last decade in response to threats to the public's health, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome. There is limited research on how public health policies have been implemented or what has influenced their implementation. This paper explores policy implementation in two exemplar public health programs -chronic disease prevention and sexually-transmitted infection prevention - in Ontario, Canada. It examines public health service providers', managers' and senior managements' perspectives on the process of implementation of the Ontario Public Health Standards 2008 and factors influencing implementation.Methods: Public health staff from six health units representing rural, remote, large and small urban settings were included. We conducted 21 focus groups and 18 interviews between 2010 (manager and staff focus groups) and 2011 (senior management interviews) involving 133 participants. Research assistants coded transcripts and researchers reviewed these; the research team discussed and resolved discrepancies. To facilitate a breadth of perspectives, several team members helped interpret the findings. An integrated knowledge translation approach was used, reflected by the inclusion of academics as well as decision-makers on the team and as co-authors.Results: Front line service providers often were unaware of the new policies but managers and senior management incorporated them in operational and program planning. Some participants were involved in policy development or provided feedback prior to their launch. Implementation was influenced by many factors that aligned with Greenhalgh and colleagues' empirically-based Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations Framework. Factors and related components that were most clearly linked to the OPHS policy implementation were: attributes of the innovation itself; adoption by individuals; diffusion and dissemination; the outer context - interorganizational networks and collaboration; the inner setting - implementation processes and routinization; and, linkage at the design and implementation stage.Conclusions: Multiple factors influenced public health policy implementation. Results provide empirical support for components of Greenhalgh et al's framework and suggest two additional components - the role of external organizational collaborations and partnerships as well as planning processes in influencing implementation. These are important to consider by government and public health organizations when promoting new or revised public health policies as they evolve over time. A successful policy implementation process in Ontario has helped to move public health towards the new vision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence (HSE), which is a comprehensive database of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. Our goal was to evaluate whether, how and why a 'full-serve' evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service.Methods: We attempted to conduct a two-arm, 10-month randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process evaluation, but we terminated the RCT when we failed to reach our recruitment target. For the qualitative process evaluation we modified the original interview guide to allow us to explore the (1) factors influencing participation in the trial; (2) usage of HSE, factors explaining usage patterns, and strategies to increase usage; (3) participation in training workshops and use of other supports; and (4) views about and experiences with key HSE features.Results: We terminated the RCT given our 15% recruitment rate. Six factors were identified by those who had agreed to participate in the trial as encouraging their participation: relevance of the study to participants' own work; familiarity with the researchers; personal view of the importance of using research evidence in policymaking; academic background; support from supervisors; and participation of colleagues. Most reported that they never, infrequently or inconsistently used HSE and suggested strategies to increase its use, including regular email reminders and employee training. However, only two participants indicated that employee training, in the form of a workshop about finding and using research evidence, had influenced their use of HSE. Most participants found HSE features to be intuitive and helpful, although registration/sign-in and some page formats (particularly the advanced search page and detailed search results page) discouraged their use or did not optimize the user experience.Conclusions: The qualitative findings informed a re-design of HSE, which allows users to more efficiently find and use research evidence about how to strengthen or reform health systems or in how to get cost-effective programs, services and drugs to those who need them. Our experience with RCT recruitment suggests the need to consider changing the unit of allocation to divisions instead of individuals within divisions, among other lessons.Trial Registration: This protocol for this study is published in Implementation Science and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( HHS/FHS REB 10-267 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]