Search

Case management (CM) is an intervention for improving integrated care for patients with complex care needs. The implementation of this complex intervention often raises opportunities for change and collective leadership has the potential to optimize the implementation. However, the application of collective leadership in real-world is not often described in the literature. This commentary highlights challenges faced during the implantation of a CM intervention in primary care for people with complex care needs, including stakeholders' buy-in and providers' willingness to change their practice, selection of the best person for the case manager position and staff turnover. Based on lessons learned from PriCARE research program, this paper encourages researchers to adopt collective leadership strategies for the implementation of complex interventions, including promoting a collaborative approach, fostering stakeholders' engagement in a trusting and fair environment, providing a high level of communication, and enhancing collective leadership attitudes and skills. The learnings from the PriCARE program may help guide researchers for implementing complex healthcare interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient‐centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. Aim: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. Methods: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. Results: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six‐step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. Conclusion: This six‐step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. Patient or Public Contribution: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six‐step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context. There is growing evidence supporting patients' engagement (PE) in primary care research to improve the quality, relevance, and uptake of research. However, guidance is still needed to plan and operationalize this engagement during the research process. Objective. To develop a logic model illustrating empirically the causal links between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes of PE in an implementation research program in primary care. Study design. Instrumental case study. Setting. A research program (PriCARE) aiming to implement and evaluate a case management intervention (CMI) in primary care clinics across five provinces in Canada. Population studied. Research team members. Methods. Data collection. Participant observation and in-depth interviews (n=22) conducted by two independent research assistants with research team members: principal investigators (n=5); co-investigators (n=2); research coordinators and assistants (n=8); and patient partners (n=7). Analysis. Deductive thematic analysis using components of the logic model as coding categories. All data were coded using NVivo 12 software. Data were reduced and organized in a first logic model version. Team meetings helped to refine the logic model. The final version was validated by all research team members. Results. The logic model provides an empirical illustration of the relationship between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes for PE. Mobilized resources (human, financial, organizational, and communicational) allow research team members to be involved in many activities related to PE: recruitment, training, and support of patient partners; development of a governance structure; participation in research activities; agreement on decision-making processes; training and support of clinicians; development of tools for patients' involvement in the CMI. These activities lead to the following benefits for health research: improved communication amongst all team members, results and knowledge translation; development of a PE culture; capacity building; democratization of health research; and for healthcare: improved implementation of the intervention; improved patient engagement in their care; better health outcomes and resource utilization; support of decision-makers and clinicians; and better practices. Conclusions. The logic model may be useful for the planning, operationalization and evaluation of PPE in primary care research programs., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Context. Case management interventions (CMIs) are recognized to improve patients' experience of integrated care, to promote better utilization of healthcare resources, and to reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations and health care costs. However, contextual factors influencing implementation of CMIs in primary care settings in Canada still need to be studied. Objective. To examine facilitators and barriers influencing implementation planning, engagement of key actors and the start-up phases of a CMI led by nurse case managers for frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs. Study design. Qualitative multiple case study design. Setting. Six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. Population studied. Frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs. Intervention. A CMI led by nurse case managers that included four main components: 1) patient needs assessment; 2) care planning, including an individual services plan (ISP); 3) coordination of services among health and social services partners; 4) self-management support for patients and families. Methods. Data collection: in-depth interviews with nurse case managers (n=10), clinic managers (n=5), and other healthcare professionals (n=5); six focus groups with family physicians (n=20), and other healthcare professionals (n=8); and field notes by research coordinators. Analysis: Mixed descriptive thematic analysis; intra-case histories; systematic comparison among cases by means of a descriptive and interpretative matrix; investigator and patient partners triangulation. Outcome Measures. Factors influencing the implementation of the CMI in primary care settings. Results. Difficulty of access to patient hospital information is a common barrier to all cases, as well as identification and recruitment of patients with the greatest needs of a CMI. Nurse case managers need extra time in the short term, especially when preparing and conducting the ISP. On the other hand, a culture of patient-centredness and collaboration; managerial and clinical leadership and support; and a positive perception of the CMI alongside provider engagement helps to overcome these barriers. Conclusions. This study may help researchers, decision-makers and clinicians plan the implementation of CMIs in primary care settings for frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Context: Health researchers are increasingly engaging patients and their families as partners in the research process, from inception to knowledge translation. The trend toward 'patient-oriented' research is encouraged by a growing view that studies which integrate the patient perspective will make better use of resources to produce more relevant evidence that can be more easily translated to clinical settings. While there is an emerging literature on best practices, challenges, and learnings related to patient engagement (PE), few studies consider the experiences of patient partners (PP) and researchers in the same project. This presentation will present PP and researcher experiences of PE, highlighting important similarities and differences and proposing recommendations. Objectives: To characterize PE experience from the perspective of researchers and PP working together on the same research program, PriCARE; to identify successes and challenges; to ascertain contributions of PE in health research. Study Design: Qualitative. Setting or Dataset: This study was conducted within the larger 5-province PriCARE study examining a nurse-led case management intervention for primary care patients with complex needs. Population studied: 22 members of the study team (7 PP, 8 coordinators, 2 co-investigators, 5 principal investigators). Methods: Data collection: In-depth interviews using guides co-created by researchers and PP covering topics such as PE-related training and knowledge, and reflections on PE processes and impact. Research assistants external to the PriCARE study conducted interviews, transcribed researcher interviews, and generated a summary of PP interviews. Analysis: Data were analyzed thematically using a coding framework that was co-developed with PP. Outcome Measures: Researcher and patient experiences of PE, PP contributions to health research. Results: All team members need PE training at the beginning of and throughout the research process. Evolving trust and flexibility helped team members to navigate different experiences and priorities. PP make integral contributions to study and instrument design, data analysis, and knowledge translation. Clear expectations about the degree and nature of PE and team members' roles are critical. Conclusions: Meaningful PE requires patient-researcher partnership and clear expectation setting at the outset and throughout the research process, and ongoing flexibility to adapt., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objectives: This study examines the issue of living environments for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI), with the aim of identifying factors that enable or act as barriers to appropriate living environments., Methods: A qualitative study involving 31 semi-structured interviews conducted with 56 key informants representing various relevant sectors: institutional, community, residential and non-residential, consumer/advocacy and government/policy from six regions in the province of Ontario, Canada., Results: The study identified such barriers as lack of ABI-specific facilities, beds and trained staff and a poorly coordinated system in many areas, with long wait lists for specialized residential settings. Clients with ABI need individualized treatment, making development of a standardized model of care difficult, particularly for those with co-morbid conditions. Solutions such as more flexible options for clients and better trained staff emerged., Conclusions: The study presents solutions to challenges and limitations in addressing appropriate living environments for persons with ABI.