Search

Introduction: The Chronic Care Model (CCM), the Expanded Chronic Care Model (ECCM) and the eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model (eCCM) focus on how healthcare teams and eHealth support can offer effective care and relevant solutions for patients facing chronic care conditions. However, they do not consider how patients can help these teams in their work, nor do they promote ways in which patients can help themselves. However, in the last decade, three different models have emerged that can complete our capacity to design and deliver integrated care for people with chronic diseases. In this article, we propose a revised version of the model that integrates the patient perspective and patients' experience‐based knowledge. It integrates three different ways of engaging patients that complement the other patient engagement point of view: the experience of care and mediation in healthcare, therapeutic patient education and patient learning pathways, as well as patient–professional partnership. Methodology: For each of the three models, we conducted a review of the literature using CINAHL, Medline, OVID, EMBASE PsychINFO, Science Direct and government reports on patient engagement and partnership with their healthcare providers, to integrate the different components of these models into the ECCM and eCCM. The goal is to create a model that better takes into account the experiential knowledge of patients and citizens throughout its different dimensions. Results: We identified 129 papers based on their framework, design, sample, measures and fit with patient engagement and chronic illness and added our own research when relevant. Integrating the three models provides an opportunity to amplify the role played by the patient perspective in the management of chronic disease. The Expanded Chronic Care Patient–Professional Partnership Model (E2C3PM) is intended to rebalance power relations between healthcare professionals and patients (and their caregivers). This new model is based on recognizing patients' experiential knowledge and their roles as caregivers and as full members of the care team. Integrating patient empowerment into the E2C3PM underscores the importance of coproduction care with patients at the clinical, organizational and system levels within a supportive environment. Conclusion: Applying this new model should make it possible to better take into account the complexity of chronic diseases, improving the integration not only of care, services and eHealth support but also the various determinants of health and reaching a mutually beneficial settlement among all actors involved. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient‐researcher contributed to the development of the protocol, the data collection and the preparation and writing of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Patient and family partners are being increasingly engaged worldwide in processes aimed at the quality improvement (QI) of healthcare services. There is also growing interest in documenting these engagement processes within organizations to share and improve them. To support the provincial implementation of this approach, the Quebec's ministry of health and social services published, in 2018, the "Framework for the partnership approach between patients, their families and health and social service stakeholders". However, while this framework provides guidelines by describing each partner's role and the ways in which patient and family partners should be engaged in QI processes, it remains unclear how these recommendations were actually used and implemented by different healthcare organizations. The aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a multiple case study that is being conducted to document how this approach was implemented in different large healthcare organizations in Quebec. This study is being conducted in partnership with a patient partner/co-researcher. Methods: This qualitative multiple case study will be conducted in four large healthcare organizations in Quebec. Twelve to 15 key respondents will be recruited for each case. Data will be collected from multiple sources: 1) semi-structured individual interviews with the key respondents, 2) non-participant observations of the meetings of the QI committee engaging PFPs and 3) analysis of documents describing the implementation context, vision, structures and/or processes. The framework method will be used to conduct intracase and intercase qualitative data analysis. Discussion: The multiple cases included will allow for comparisons between different ways of engaging PFPs in QI processes within an organization, the factors influencing these practices, their advantages and disadvantages, and their implementation outcomes. The conclusions drawn from this study will allow us to make recommendations regarding PFP engagement in the QI of care and services and to propose implementation examples for other organizations wishing to design and implement PFP engagement initiatives in their context in Quebec or elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]