Search

Background: Health systems in many countries see person‐centred care as a critical component of high‐quality care but many struggle to operationalize it in practice. We argue that models such as adaptive leadership can be a critical lever to support person‐centred care, particularly for people who have multiple complex care needs. Objective: To reflect on two concepts: person‐centred care and adaptive leadership and share how adaptive leadership can advance person‐centred care at the front‐line care delivery level and the organizational level. Findings: The defining feature of adaptive leadership is the separation of technical solutions (ie applying existing knowledge and techniques to problems) from adaptive solutions (ie requiring shifts in how people work together, not just what they do). Addressing adaptive challenges requires identifying key assumptions that may limit motivations for change and the behaviours influenced by these assumptions. Thus, effective care for patients, particularly those with multiple complex care needs, often entails helping care providers and patients to examine their relationships and behaviours not just identifying technical solutions. Addressing adaptive challenges also requires a supportive and enabling organizational context. We provide illustrative examples of how adaptive leadership principles can be applied at both the front line of care and the organization level in advancing person‐centred care delivery. Conclusions: Advancing person‐centred care at both the clinical and organizational levels requires a growth mindset, a willingness to try (and fail) and try again, comfort in being uncomfortable and a commitment to figure things out, in partnership, in iterative ways. Patients, caregivers, care providers and organizational leaders all need to be adaptive leaders in this endeavour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Natural health products (NHPs), such as herbal medicines and vitamins, are widely available over-the-counter and are often purchased by consumers without advice from a healthcare provider. This study examined how consumers respond when they believe they have experienced NHP-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in order to determine how to improve current safety monitoring strategies. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve consumers who had experienced a self-identified NHP-related ADR. Key emergent themes were identified and coded using content analysis techniques. Results Consumers were generally not comfortable enough with their conventional health care providers to discuss their NHP-related ADRs. Consumers reported being more comfortable discussing NHP-related ADRs with personnel from health food stores, friends or family with whom they had developed trusted relationships. No one reported their suspected ADR to Health Canada and most did not know this was possible. Conclusion Consumers generally did not report their suspected NHP-related ADRs to healthcare providers or to Health Canada. Passive reporting systems for collecting information on NHP-related ADRs cannot be effective if consumers who experience NHP-related ADRs do not report their experiences. Healthcare providers, health food store personnel, manufacturers and other stakeholders also need to take responsibility for reporting ADRs in order to improve current pharmacovigilance of NHPs.

Although implementation models broadly recognize the importance of social relationships, our knowledge about applying social network analysis (SNA) to formative, process, and outcome evaluations of health system interventions is limited. We explored applications of adopting an SNA lens to inform implementation planning, engagement and execution, and evaluation. We used Health Links, a province-wide program in Canada aiming to improve care coordination among multiple providers of high-needs patients, as an example of a health system intervention. At the planning phase, an SNA can depict the structure, network influencers, and composition of clusters at various levels. It can inform the engagement and execution by identifying potential targets (e.g., opinion leaders) and by revealing structural gaps and clusters. It can also be used to assess the outcomes of the intervention, such as its success in increasing network connectivity; changing the position of certain actors; and bridging across specialties, organizations, and sectors. We provided an overview of how an SNA lens can shed light on the complexity of implementation along the entire implementation pathway, by revealing the relational barriers and facilitators, the application of network-informed and network-altering interventions, and testing hypotheses on network consequences of the implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]