Search

The unequal social and economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic is evident in racialized and low-income communities across Canada. Importantly, social inequities have not been adequately addressed and current public policies are not reflective of the needs of diverse populations. Public participation in decision-making is crucial and there is, therefore, a pressing need to increase diversity of representation in patient partnerships in order to prevent the further exclusion of socially marginalized groups from research and policy making. Deliberate effort and affirmative action are needed to meaningfully engage and nurture diverse patient partnerships by broadening the scope of the patient community to include excluded or underrepresented individuals or groups. This will help us co-develop ways to enhance access and equity in healthcare and prevent the systematic reproduction of structural inequalities that have already been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionLearn from patient partners how we developed our roles and contributed recommendations by incorporating a peer-led patient partner working group. We will demonstrate scalability and sustainability of this joint ownership model co-developed and fostered by a healthcare organization and a community of patient partners.Key to success is the creation of a continuous learning environment (the working group) where patient partners share experiences and gain diverse perspectives from one another, thereby strengthening their role and project contributions, while improving overall engagement satisfaction. The projects benefit from the increased depth of contribution and subsequent decisions made.Aims Objectives Theory or MethodsWe will demonstrate how experienced patient partners worked with the Centre for Digital Health Evaluation (CDHE) to co-design a partnership structure that supports the CDHE and creates a learning environment within the patient partner community. The structure is based on the principles of integrated leadership, defined accountabilities and mutually supportive relationships. The patient partner community includes a peer-based working group that supports patient partner capacity and expertise development. Overall, while this approach was developed to nurture trust and support more substantive contributions in increasingly complex projects, it has also increased the meaningfulness of the engagements for the patient partners.Highlights or Results or Key FindingsThe Patient Partner Community (PPC) began with two experienced patient partners working with the CDHE as leads for the engagement co-design. Additional patient partners were selected based on project needs. As the PPC grew, a peer-led working group evolved into a collaborative learning community and created deeper connections among members. In this model, the PPC also supports the development of project plans and budgets. This integrated approach moves a traditional Patient Family Advisory Council to a more active engagement model. The PPC gives patient partners the opportunity to develop their knowledge, skills and confidence resulting in a greater depth of contribution within their projects. This model has been in place for over 2 years, covering a range of projects from initial planning and research through to published reports. Patient Partners are experiencing more meaningful engagement because they see their viewsConclusionsWe have experienced the success of the patient partner-led working group model and believe it can be applied to most patient engagement frameworks. This peer-led collaboration creates a continuous learning community that supports ongoing patient partner needs and increases the value they bring to the organization. Implications for applicability/transferability sustainability and limitations Most organizations with patient engagement staff and patient partners could support the introduction of a peer-led working group and the joint ownership model. For sustainability, adjustments to an existing patient engagement framework would need to be made. Trusted relationships are the basis for success.

Equity-Mobilizing Partnerships in Community (EMPaCT) is a novel approach to patient engagement that centres diverse lived experiences and promotes equity-oriented and inclusive partnerships. As an independent community table, EMPaCT is made up primarily of patients/diverse members of community. Researchers and other decision makers come to this table with their projects to learn how to make their project more inclusive and equitable. In this paper, we detail how we used participatory co-design to define, build and grow EMPaCT as an innovative and scalable patient partnership model that promotes bottom-up action for health equity.

Study objective Common outcomes of care valued by emergency department (ED) patients who are not hospitalized have been characterized, but no measurement instrument has been developed to date. We developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure for use with adult ED patients who are discharged home (PROM-ED). Methods In previous research, 4 main outcomes of importance to ED patients were defined: symptom relief, understanding, reassurance, and having a plan. We developed a bank of potential questions (phase 1) that were first tested for suitability through cognitive debriefing with patients (phase 2). Revised questions were then tested quantitatively with a large panel of participants who had recently received ED care (phase 3). Informed by these results, a panel of experts used a modified Delphi process to make decisions on item reduction. The resulting instrument (PROM-ED 1.0) was then evaluated for its measurement properties (structural validity, hypothesis testing, and reliability). Results Sixty-seven questions divided among 4 scales (1 for each outcome domain) were assembled. In accordance with cognitive debriefing with 8 patients (phase 2), 15 questions were modified and 13 removed. Testing of these questions with 444 participants (phase 3) identified problematic floor or ceiling effects (n=10), excessive correlations between items (n=11), and low item-total correlations (n=7). The expert panel (22 participants, phase 4) made decisions using this information on the exclusion of items, resulting in 22 questions across 4 scales that together constitute the PROM-ED 1.0. Testing provided good evidence of validity and test-retest reliability (n=200). Conclusion The PROM-ED enables the measurement of patient-centered outcomes of importance to patients receiving care in the ED who are not hospitalized. These data could have important applications in research and care improvement.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on healthcare systems and care delivery, changing the context for patient and family engagement activities. Given the critical contribution of such activities in achieving health system quality goals, we undertook to address the question: What is known about work that has been done on patient engagement activities during the pandemic? Objective To examine peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify the range of patient engagement activities, broadly defined (inclusive of engagement to support clinical care to partnerships in decision-making), occurring within health systems internationally during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as key barriers and facilitators for sustaining patient engagement activities during the pandemic. Methods The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase and LitCOVID; a search for grey literature focused on the websites of professional organizations. Articles were required to be specific to COVID-19, describe patient engagement activities, involve a healthcare organization and be published from March 2020 to September 2020. Data were extracted and managed using Microsoft Excel. A content analysis of findings was conducted. Results Twenty-nine articles were included. Few examples of more genuine partnership with patients were identified (such as co-design and organizational level decision making); most activities related to clinical level interactions (e.g. virtual consultations, remote appointments, family visits using technology and community outreach). Technology was leveraged in almost all reported studies to interact or connect with patients and families. Five main descriptive categories were identified: (1) Engagement through Virtual Care; (2) Engagement through Other Technology; (3) Engagement for Service Improvements/ Recommendations; (4) Factors Impacting Patient Engagement; and (5) Lessons Learned though Patient Engagement. Conclusions Evidence of how healthcare systems and organizations stayed connected to patients and families during the pandemic was identified; the majority of activities involved direct care consultations via technology. Since this review was conducted over the first six months of the pandemic, more work is needed to unpack the spectrum of patient engagement activities, including how they may evolve over time and to explore the barriers and facilitators for sustaining activities during major disruptions like pandemics.

Background: Characterization of the mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) safety profile is important as this novel therapy continues to be evaluated in clinical trials for various inflammatory conditions. Due to an increase in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2012–2019, we performed an updated systematic review to further characterize the MSC safety profile. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science (to May 2018) were searched. RCTs that compared intravascular delivery of MSCs to controls in adult populations were included. Pre-specified adverse events were grouped according to: (1) immediate, (2) infection, (3) thrombotic/embolic, and (4) longer-term events (mortality, malignancy). Adverse events were pooled and meta-analyzed by fitting inverse-variance binary random effects models. Primary and secondary clinical efficacy endpoints were summarized descriptively. Findings: 7473 citations were reviewed and 55 studies met inclusion criteria (n = 2696 patients). MSCs as compared to controls were associated with an increased risk of fever (Relative Risk (RR) = 2·48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1·27–4·86; I2 = 0%), but not non-fever acute infusional toxicity, infection, thrombotic/embolic events, death, or malignancy (RR = 1·16, 0·99, 1·14, 0·78, 0·93; 95% CI = 0·70–1·91, 0·81–1·21, 0·67–1·95, 0·65–0·94, 0·60–1·45; I2 = 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%). No included trials were ended prematurely due to safety concerns. Interpretations: MSC therapy continues to exhibit a favourable safety profile. Future trials should continue to strengthen study rigor, reporting of MSC characterization, and adverse events. Funding: Stem Cell Network, Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Ontario Research Fund Keywords: Mesenchymal stem cells, Safety, Adverse events, Systematic review

KEY POINTS Emergency departments are a major point of access to timely care for Canadians, and yet little is known on the outcome of the care provided. Patients’ perspectives on the outcomes of their care could provide an untapped source of information for improvement. Past attempts at

Background There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Methods We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. Discussion This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018093495 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0948-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

KEY POINTS To help health providers identify and close the gaps between ideal evidence-based practices and the care routinely received by patients, health systems often use audit and feedback, which involves reporting to health providers on their performance to highlight where improvement efforts

Introduction0.9% saline and Ringer’s lactate are the two most common resuscitation crystalloid fluids. 0.9% saline may lead to hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis and may be associated with impaired kidney function and death. Few large multicentre randomised trials have been conducted to evaluate the effect of these two fluids on clinically important outcomes.MethodsFLUID is a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised crossover trial in which four hospitals will be randomised to normal saline or Ringer’s lactate for 14 weeks, then crossover to the alternative fluid for the subsequent 14 weeks after 1 to 3 week transition. With waiver of informed consent, all adult and paediatric patients admitted to participating sites will be included in the FLUID trial except for neonates. Primary feasibility outcome is study fluid protocol adherence (target:≥80%). Secondary feasibility outcomes include time to research ethics board (REB) approval and readiness to trial initiation (≤3 months from REB submission and approval). Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes for the future large FLUID trial will be described. Protocol adherence will be collected by site at specified time points. All clinical data will be obtained at patient level through provincial health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Event rates for the primary and secondary outcomes will be described using frequencies and proportions with 95% CIs. Intracluster and interperiod correlation coefficients will be calculated from population-level data available at ICES.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board. The FLUID pilot will determine feasibility, and ICES data across all potential sites in Ontario will allow calculation of sample size parameter estimates to inform the design and implementation of the large trial.Trial registration numberNCT02721485; Pre-results.

Plain English summary The paper discusses engaging older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers. Frailty is a state that puts an individual at a higher risk for poor health outcomes and death. Understanding whether a person is frail is important because treatment and health care choices for someone living with frailty may be different from someone who is not (i.e., who is fit). In this review, we discuss strategies and hurdles for engaging older adults living with frailty across three settings: research, health and social care, and policy. We developed this review using published literature, expert opinion, and stakeholder input (including citizens). Engaging frail older individuals will be challenging because of their vulnerable health state - but it can be done. Points of consideration specific to engaging this vulnerable population include:In any setting, family caregivers (defined to include family, friends, and other social support systems) play an important role in engaging and empowering older adults living with frailtyEngagement opportunities need to be flexible (e.g., location, time, type)Incentivizing engagement for researchers and citizens (financial and otherwise) may be necessaryThe education and training of citizens, health and social care providers, and researchers on engagement practicesPatient-centered care approaches should consider the specific needs of individuals living with frailty including end-of-life care and advanced care planningInfluencing policy can occur in many ways including participating at institutional, regional, provincial or national committees that relate to health and social care. Abstract Older adults are the fastest growing segment of Canada’s population resulting in an increased number of individuals living with frailty. Although aging and frailty are not synonymous the proportion of those who are frail increases with age. Frailty is not defined by a single condition, but rather a health state characterized by an increased risk of physical, mental, or social decline, deterioration of health status, and death. Recognizing frailty is important because earlier detection allows for program implementation focused on prevention and management to reduce future hospitalization, improve outcomes, and enhance vitality and quality of life. Even though older adults living with frailty are significant users of health care resources, their input is under-represented in research, health care decision making, and health policy formulation. As such, engaging older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers is not only an ethical imperative, but their input is particularly important as health and social care systems evolve from single-illness focused to those that account for the complex and chronic needs that accompany frailty. In this review, we summarize existing literature on engaging older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers across three settings: research, health and social care, and policy. We discuss strategies and barriers to engagement, and ethical and cultural factors and implications. Although this review is mainly focused on Canada it is likely to be broadly applicable to many of the health systems in the developed world where aging and frailty pose important challenges.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are questionnaires that can be used to elicit care outcome information from patients. We sought to develop and validate the first PROM for adult patients without a primary mental health or addictions presentation receiving emergency department (ED) care and who were not hospitalized. Methods: PROM development used a multi-phase process based on national and international guidance (FDA, NQF, ISPOR). Phase 1: ED outcome conceptual framework qualitative interviews with ED patients post-discharge informed four core domains (previously published). Phase 2: Item generation scoping review of the literature and existing instruments identified candidate questions relevant for each domain for inclusion in tool. Phase 3: Cognitive debriefing existing and newly written questions were tested with ED patients post-discharge for comprehension and wording preference. Phase 4: Field and validity testing revised tool pilot tested on a national online survey panel and then again at 2 weeks (test-retest). Phase 5: Final item reduction using a Delphi process involving ED clinicians, researchers, patients and system administrators. Phase 6: Validation - psychometric testing of PROM-ED 1.0. Results: Four core outcome domains were defined in Phase 1: (1) understanding; (2) symptom relief; (3) reassurance and (4) having a plan. The domains informed a review of existing relevant questionnaires and instruments and the writing of additional questions creating an initial long-form questionnaire. Eight patients participated in cognitive debriefing of the long-form questionnaire. Expert clinicians, researchers and patient partners provided input on item refinement and reduction. Four hundred forty-four patients completed a second version of the long-form questionnaire (add in retest numbers) which informed the final item reduction process by a modified Delphi method involving 21 diverse contributors. The questionnaire was validated and underwent final revisions to create the 21 questions that constitute PROM-ED 1.0. Conclusion: Using accepted PROM instrument development methodology, we developed the first outcome questionnaire for use with adult ED patients who are not hospitalized. This questionnaire can be used to systematically gather patient-reported outcome information that could support and inform improvement work in ED care.