Search

Background: The COVID-19 (C19) pandemic shocked primary care systems around the world. Those systems responded by supporting patients in the community, and acute care facilities in crisis. In Canada, the Patient Medical Home (PMH) is a widely adopted care model that aims to operationalize the tenets and principles of Primary Health Care (PHC) as developed since the Alma-Ata Declaration. This paper describes how personnel working in and with Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Alberta, Canada deployed the PMH model and its underlying PHC principles to frame and respond to the C19 shock. Methods: Using purposive and snowball sampling techniques, we interviewed 57 participants who worked in public health and primary care, including community-based family physicians. We used interpretive description to analyze the interviews. Results: PCN staff and physicians described how the PMH model was foundational to normal operations, and how C19 responses were framed by the patient-centric, team-delivered, and continuous care principles the model shares with PHC. Specifically, participants described ensuring access to care, addressing the social determinants of health, being patient centered, and redeploying and expanding PHC teams to accomplish these goals. Discussion: Delivering PHC through the PMH allowed physicians and allied health staff to deliver patient-centered, team-based, holistic bio-medical services to Albertans. In tailoring services to meet the specific social and health needs of the populations served by each PCN, healthcare providers were able to ensure relevant support remained available and accessible.

Abstract Background The integration of Primary Care (PC) into broader health systems has been a goal in jurisdictions around the world. Efforts to achieve integration at the meso-level have drawn particular attention, but there are few actionable recommendations for how to enact a ‘pro-integration culture’ amongst government and PC governance bodies. This paper describes pragmatic integration activity undertaken by meso-level participants in Alberta, Canada, and suggests ways this activity may be generalizable to other health systems. Methods 11 semi-structured interviews with nine key informants from meso-level organizations were selected from a larger qualitative study examining healthcare policy development and implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selected interviews focused on participants’ experiences and efforts to ‘do’ integration as they responded to Alberta’s first wave of the Omicron variant in September 2021. An interpretive descriptive approach was used to identify repeating cycles in the integration context, and pragmatic integration activities. Results As Omicron arrived in Alberta, integration and relations between meso-level PC and central health system participants were tense, but efforts to improve the situation were successfully made. In this context of cycling relationships, staffing changes made in reaction to exogenous shocks and political pressures were clear influences on integration. However, participants also engaged in specific behaviours that advanced a pro-integration culture. They did so by: signaling value through staffing and resource choices; speaking and enacting personal and group commitments to collaboration; persevering; and practicing bi-directional communication through formal and informal channels. Conclusions Achieving PC integration involves not just the reactive work of responding to exogenous factors, but also the proactive work of enacting cultural, relationship, and communication behaviors. These behaviors may support integration regardless of the shocks, staff turnover, and relational freeze-thaw cycles experienced by any health system.

BackgroundCultural adaptations of digital health innovations are a growing field. However, digital health innovations can increase health inequities. While completing exploratory work for the cultural adaptation of the Ned Clinic virtual survivorship app, we identified structural considerations that provided a space to design digitally connected and collective care. ObjectiveThis study used a community-based participatory research and user-centered design process to develop a cultural adaptation of the Ned Clinic app while designing to intervene in structural inequities. MethodsThe design process included primary data collection and qualitative analysis to explore and distill design principles, an iterative design phase with a multidisciplinary team, and a final evaluation phase with participants throughout the design process as a form of member checking and validation. ResultsParticipants indicated that they found the final adapted prototype to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their use. The changes made to adapt the prototype were not specifically culturally Chinese. Instead, we identified ways to strengthen connections between the survivor and their providers; improve accessibility to resources; and honor participants’ desires for relationality, accountability, and care. ConclusionsWe grounded the use of user-centered design to develop a prototype design that supports the acts of caring through digital technology by identifying and designing to resist structures that create health inequities in the lives of this community of survivors. By designing for collective justice, we can provide accessible, feasible, and relational care with digital health through the application of Indigenous and Black feminist ways of being and knowing.

BackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer for Canadian men and has one of the highest 5-year survival rates, straining systems to provide care. Virtual care can be one way to relieve this strain, but survivors’ care needs and technology use are influenced by intersecting social and cultural structures. Cultural adaptation has been posited as an effective method to tailor existing interventions to better serve racialized communities, including Chinese men. However, cultural adaptations may inadvertently draw attention away from addressing structural inequities. ObjectiveThis study used qualitative methods to (1) explore the perceptions and experiences of Chinese Canadian PCa survivors with follow-up and virtual care, and (2) identify implications for the cultural adaptation of a PCa follow-up care app, the Ned (no evidence of disease) Clinic. MethodsAn axiology of relational accountability and a relational paradigm underpinned our phenomenologically informed exploratory-descriptive qualitative study design. A community-based participatory approach was used, informed by cultural safety and user-centered design principles, to invite Chinese Canadian PCa survivors and their caregivers to share their stories. Data were inductively analyzed to explore their unmet needs, common experiences, and levels of digital literacy. ResultsUnmet needs and technology preferences were similar to broader trends within the wider community of PCa survivors. However, participants indicated that they felt uncomfortable, unable to, or ignored when expressing their needs. Responses spoke to a sense of isolation and reflected a reliance on culturally informed coping mechanisms, such as “eating bitterness,” and familial assistance to overcome systemic barriers and gaps in care. Moreover, virtual care was viewed as “better than nothing;” it did not change a perceived lack of focus on improving quality of life or care continuity in survivorship care. Systemic changes were identified as likely to be more effective in improving care delivery and well-being rather than the cultural adaptation of Ned for Chinese Canadians. Participants’ desires for care reflected accessibility issues that were not culturally specific to Chinese Canadians. ConclusionsChinese Canadian survivors are seeking to strengthen their connections in a health care system that provides privacy and accessibility, protects relationality, and promotes transparency, accountability, and responsibility. Designing “trickle-up” adaptations that address structural inequities and emphasize accessibility, relationality, and privacy may be more effective and efficient at improving care than creating cultural adaptations of interventions.

Introduction Many Canadians struggle to access the primary care they need while at the same time primary care providers report record levels of stress and overwork. There is an urgent need to understand factors contributing to the gap between a growing per-capita supply of primary care providers and declines in the availability of primary care services. The assumption of responsibility by primary care teams for services previously delivered on an in-patient basis, along with a rise in administrative responsibilities may be factors influencing reduced access to care.Methods and analysis In this mixed-methods study, our first objective is to determine how the volume of services requiring primary care coordination has changed over time in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We will collect quantitative administrative data to investigate how services have shifted in ways that may impact administrative workload in primary care. Our second objective is to use qualitative interviews with family physicians, nurse practitioners and administrative team members providing primary care to understand how administrative workload has changed over time. We will then identify priority issues and practical response strategies using two deliberative dialogue events convened with primary care providers, clinical and system leaders, and policy-makers.We will analyse changes in service use data between 2001/2002 and 2021/2022 using annual total counts, rates per capita, rates per primary care provider and per primary care service. We will conduct reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes and to compare and contrast participant responses reflecting differences across disciplines, payment and practice models, and practice settings. Areas of concern and potential solutions raised during interviews will inform deliberative dialogue events.Ethics and dissemination We received research ethics approval from Nova Scotia Health (#1028815). Knowledge translation will occur through dialogue events, academic papers and presentations at national and international conferences.

In this paper, we engage with claims of expert identities within the field of patient engagement. We do so through analysis of a subset of data collected as part of a 2020 pan-Canadian survey of patient partners. Our analysis is based on 446 qualitative responses to one target question: “Do you think the lived experience you bring to your patient partner role makes you an expert? Please explain in the box below”. Most respondents answered “yes” (n = 253 comments), a sizeable minority answered “no” (n = 161 comments) or declined to answer the target question while still providing comments (n = 32 comments). Through a discursive analysis of the comments, we explore the meanings ascribed to concepts of expert, expertise, and experience. Ultimately, we find nuanced and sometimes contradictory understandings. Thus, dilemmas of expertise in the patient engagement field may not be entirely about claims to specialized knowledge. Instead, discourses seem to be mobilized in response to the thorny, political question: “who is authorized to speak on behalf of patients”? To meaningfully advance the conversation within patient engagement research and practice, we argue for more sociological and political understandings of forms of expertise, objects of expertise, and deployments of expert status in different kinds of knowledge spaces.

The idea of ‘integration’ comes up frequently in health and social care contexts, but how do you actually go about making it happen?

Abstract Background With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities. Methods A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as “partner” or “advisor”. Results A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare. Conclusions There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

Abstract Background The first wave of COVID-19 in Calgary, Alberta accelerated the integration of primary care with the province’s centrally managed health system. This integration aimed to deliver wraparound in-community patient care through two interventions that combined to create the COVID-19 Integrated Pathway (CIP). The CIP’s interventions were: 1) a data sharing platform that ensured COVID-19 test results were directly available to family physicians (FPs), and 2) a clinical algorithm that supported FPs in delivering in-community follow up to improve patient outcomes. We describe the CIP function and its capacity to facilitate FP follow-up with COVID-19 patients and evaluate its impact on Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalization. Method We generated descriptive statistics by analyzing data from a Calgary Zone hub clinic called the Calgary COVID-19 Care Clinic (C4), provincially maintained records of hospitalization, ED visits, and physician claims. Results Between Apr. 16 and Sep. 27, 2020, 7289 patients were referred by the Calgary Public Health team to the C4 clinic. Of those, 48.6% were female, the median age was 37.4 y. 97% of patients had at least one visit with a healthcare professional, where follow-up was conducted using the CIP’s algorithm. 5.1% of patients visited an ED and 1.9% were hospitalized within 30 days of diagnosis. 75% of patients had a median of 4 visits with their FP. Discussion Our data suggest that information exchange between Primary Care (PC) and central systems facilitates primary care-based management of patients with COVID-19 in the community and has potential to reduce acute care visits.

As the effectiveness of antibiotics wanes and fewer new drugs are being developed, patterns in the way primary care teams prescribe these medications have important policy implications.

Abstract Background Community-based health care (CBHC) is a shift towards healthcare integration and community services closer to home. Variation in system approaches harkens the need for a conceptual framework to evaluate outcomes and impacts. We set out to develop a CBHC-specific evaluation framework in the context of a provincial ministry of health planning process in Canada. Methods A multi-step approach was used to develop the CBHC evaluation framework. Modified Delphi informed conceptualization and prioritization of indicators. Formative research identified evaluation framework elements (triple aim, global measures, and impact), health system levels (tiers), and potential CBHC indicators (n = 461). Two Delphi rounds were held. Round 1, panelists independently ranked indicators on CBHC relevance and health system tiering. Results were analyzed by coding agreement/disagreement frequency and central tendency measures. Round 2, a consensus meeting was used to discuss disagreement, identify Tier 1 indicators and concepts, and define indicators not relevant to CBHC (Tier 4). Post-Delphi, indicators and concepts were refined, Tier 1 concepts mapped to the evaluation framework, and indicator narratives developed. Three stakeholder consultations (scientific, government, and public/patient communities) were held for endorsement and recommendation. Results Round 1 Delphi results showed agreement for 300 and disagreement for 161 indicators. Round 2 consensus resulted in 103 top tier indicators (Tier 1 = 19, Tier 2 = 84), 358 bottom Tier 3 and 4 indicators, non-CBHC measure definitions, and eight Tier 1 indicator concepts—Mortality/Suicide; Quality of Life, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Global Patient Reported Experience Measures; Cost of Care, Access to Integrated Primary Care; Avoidable Emergency Department Use; Avoidable Hospitalization; and E-health Penetration. Post Delphi results refined Tier 3 (n = 289) and 4 (n = 69) indicators, and identified 18 Tier 2 and 3 concepts. When mapped to the evaluation framework, Tier 1 concepts showed full coverage across the elements. ‘Indicator narratives’ depicted systemness and integration for evaluating CBHC. Stakeholder consultations affirmed endorsement of the approach and evaluation framework; refined concepts; and provided key considerations to further operationalize and contextualize indicators, and evaluate CBHC as a health system approach. Conclusions This research produced a novel evaluation framework to conceptualize and evaluate CBHC initiatives. The evaluation framework revealed the importance of a health system approach for evaluating CBHC.

Abstract Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic has had an impact on all aspects of the health system. Little is known about how the activities and experiences of patient, family and caregiver partners, as a large group across a variety of settings within the health system, changed due to the substantial health system shifts catalysed by the pandemic. This paper reports on the results of a survey that included questions about this topic. Methods Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey in the Fall of 2020. A virtual snowballing approach to recruitment was used. Survey invitations were shared on social media and emailed to health system and governmental organizations with the request that they share the survey with patient partners. This paper focuses on responses to two questions related to patient partner experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results The COVID‐19 questions were completed by 533 respondents. Over three quarters of respondents (77.9%, n = 415) indicated their patient engagement activities had been impacted by COVID‐19. The majority (62.5%, n = 230) experienced at least a temporary or partial reduction in their patient engagement activities. Some respondents did see increases in their patient engagement activities (11.4%, n = 42). Many respondents provided insights into their experience with virtual platforms for engagement (n = 194), most expressed negative or mixed experiences with this shift. Conclusions This study provides a snapshot of Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners' perspectives on the impact of COVID‐19 on their engagement activities. Understanding how engagement unfolded during a crisis is critical for our future planning if patient engagement is to be fully integrated into the health system. Identifying how patient partners were engaged and not engaged during this time period, as well as the benefits and challenges of virtual engagement opportunities, offers instructive lessons for sustaining patient engagement, including the supports needed to engage with a more diverse set of patient, family and caregiver partners. Patient Contribution Patient partners were important members of the Canadian Patient Partner Study research team. They were engaged from the outset, participating in all stages of the research project. Additional patient partners were engaged to develop and pilot test the survey, and all survey respondents were patient, family or caregiver partners. The manuscript is coauthored by two patient partners.

Abstract Background While family caregivers provide 70-90% of care for people living in the community and assist with 10-30% of the care in congregate living, most healthcare providers do not meaningfully involve family caregivers as partners in care. Recent research recommends that the healthcare workforce receive competency-based education to identify, assess, support, and partner with family caregivers across the care trajectory. Objective This paper reports a mixed-methods evaluation of a person-centered competency-based education program on Caregiver-Centered Care for the healthcare workforce. Methods This foundational education was designed for all healthcare providers and trainees who work with family caregivers and is offered free online (caregivercare.ca). Healthcare providers from five healthcare settings (primary, acute, home, supportive living, long-term care) and trainees in medicine, nursing, and allied health were recruited via email and social media. We used the Kirkpatrick-Barr health workforce training evaluation framework to evaluate the education program, measuring various healthcare providers’ learner satisfaction with the content (Level 1), pre-post changes in knowledge and confidence when working with family caregivers (Level 2), and changes in behaviors in practice (Level 3). Results Participants were primarily healthcare employees (68.9%) and trainees (21.7%) and represented 5 healthcare settings. Evaluation of the first 161 learners completing the program indicated that on a 5-point Likert scale, the majority were satisfied with the overall quality of the education (Mean(M) = 4.69; SD = .60). Paired T-tests indicated that out of a score of 50, post-education changes in knowledge and confidence to work with family caregivers was significantly higher than pre-education scores (pre M = 38.90, SD = 6.90; post M = 46.60, SD = 4.10; t(150) = − 16.75, p

Objectives To examine the sociodemographic characteristics, activities, motivations, experiences, skills and challenges of patient partners working across multiple health system settings in Canada.Design Online cross-sectional survey of self-identified patient partners.Setting Patient partners in multiple jurisdictions and health system organisations.Participants 603 patient partners who had drawn on their experiences with the health system as a patient, family member or informal caregiver to try to improve it in some way, through their involvement in the activities of a group, organisation or government.Results Survey respondents predominantly identified as female (76.6%), white (84%) and university educated (70.2%) but were a heterogeneous group in the scope (activities and organisations), intensity (number of hours) and longevity (number of years) of their role. Primary motivations for becoming a patient partner were the desire to improve the health system based on either a negative (36.2%) or positive (23.3%) experience. Respondents reported feeling enthusiastic (83.6%), valued (76.9%) and needed (63.3%) always or most of the time; just under half felt they had always or often been adequately compensated in their role. Knowledge of the health system and the organisation they partner with are key skills needed. Two-thirds faced barriers in their role with over half identifying power imbalances. Less than half were able to see how their input was reflected in decisions or changes always or most of the time, and 40.3% had thought about quitting.Conclusions This survey is the first of its kind to examine at a population level, the characteristics, experiences and dynamics of a large sample of self-identified patient partners. Patient partners in this sample are a sociodemographically homogenous group, yet heterogeneous in the scope, intensity and longevity of roles. Our findings provide key insights at a critical time, to inform the future of patient partnership in health systems.

Abstract Background The integration of nurse practitioners (NPs) into primary care health teams has been an object of interest for policy makers seeking to achieve the goals of improving care, increasing access, and lowering cost. The province of Alberta in Canada recently introduced a policy aimed at integrating NPs into existing primary care delivery structures. This qualitative research sought to understand how that policy – the NP Support Program (NPSP) – was viewed by key stakeholders and to draw out policy lessons. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews with NPs and other stakeholders in Alberta’s primary care system were conducted, recorded, transcribed and analyzed using the interpretive description method. Results Stakeholders predominantly felt the NPSP would not change the status quo of limited practice opportunities and the resulting underutilization of primary care NPs in the province. Participants attributed low levels of NP integration into the primary care system to: 1) financial viability issues that directly impacted NPs, physicians, and primary care networks (PCNs); 2) policy issues related to the NPSP’s reliance on PCNs as employers, and a requirement that NPs panel patients; and 3) governance issues in which NPs are not afforded sufficient authority over their role or how the key concept of ‘care team’ is defined and operationalized. Conclusions In general, stakeholders did not see the NPSP as a long-term solution for increasing NP integration into the province’s primary care system. Policy adjustments that enable NPs to access funding not only from within but also outside PCNs, and modifications to allow greater NP input into how their role is utilized would likely improve the NPSP’s ability to reach its goals.

Abstract Background Primary care, and its transformation into Primary Health Care (PHC), has become an area of intense policy interest around the world. As part of this trend Alberta, Canada, has implemented Primary Care Networks (PCNs). These are decentralized organizations, mandated with supporting the delivery of PHC, funded through capitation, and operating as partnerships between the province’s healthcare administration system and family physicians. This paper provides an implementation history of the PCNs, giving a detailed account of how people, time, and culture have interacted to implement bottom up, incremental change in a predominantly Fee-For-Service (FFS) environment. Methods Our implementation history is built out of an analysis of policy documents and qualitative interviews. We conducted an interpretive analysis of relevant policy documents (n = 20) published since the first PCN was established. We then grounded 12 semi-structured interviews in that initial policy analysis. These interviews explored 11 key stakeholders’ perceptions of PHC transformation in Alberta generally, and the formation and evolution of the PCNs specifically. The data from the policy review and the interviews were coded inductively, with participants checking our emerging analyses. Results Over time, the PCNs have shifted from an initial Frontier Era that emphasized local solutions to local problems and featured few rules, to a present Era of Accountability that features central demands for standardized measures, governance, and co-planning with other elements of the health system. Across both eras, the PCNs have been first and foremost instruments and supporters of family physician authority and autonomy. A core group of people emerged to create the PCNs and, over time, to develop a long-term Quality Improvement (QI) vision and governance plan for them as organizations. The continuing willingness of both these groups to work at understanding and aligning one another’s cultures to achieve the transformation towards PHC has been central to the PCNs’ survival and success. Conclusions Generalizable lessons from the implementation history of this emerging policy experiment include: The need for flexibility within a broad commitment to improving quality. The importance of time for individuals and organizations to learn about: quality improvement; one another’s cultures; and how best to support the transformation of a system while delivering care locally.

Abstract Background As global populations age, governments have come to rely heavily on family carers (FCs) to care for older adults and reduce the demands made of formal health and social care systems. Under increasing pressure, sustainability of FC’s unpaid care work has become a pressing issue. Using qualitative data, this paper explores FCs’ care-related work goals, and describes how those goals do, or do not, link to technology. Methods We employed a sequential mixed-method approach using focus groups followed by an online survey about FCs’ goals. We held 10 focus groups and recruited 25 FCs through a mix of convenience and snowball sampling strategies. Carer organizations helped us recruit 599 FCs from across Canada to complete an online survey. Participants’ responses to an open-ended question in the survey were included in our qualitative analysis. An inductive approach was employed using qualitative thematic content analysis methods to examine and interpret the resulting data. We used NVIVO 12 software for data analysis. Results We identified two care quality improvement goals of FCs providing care to older adults: enhancing and safeguarding their caregiving capacity. To enhance their capacity to care, FCs sought: 1) foreknowledge about their care recipients’ changing condition, and 2) improved navigation of existing support systems. To safeguard their own wellbeing, and so to preserve their capacity to care, FCs sought to develop coping strategies as well as opportunities for mentorship and socialization. Conclusions We conclude that a paradigm shift is needed to reframe caregiving from a current deficit frame focused on failures and limitations (burden of care) towards a more empowering frame (sustainability and resiliency). The fact that FCs are seeking strategies to enhance and safeguard their capacities to provide care means they are approaching their unpaid care work from the perspective of resilience. Their goals and technology suggestions imply a shift from understanding care as a source of ‘burden’ towards a more ‘resilient’ and ‘sustainable’ model of caregiving. Our case study findings show that technology can assist in fostering this resiliency but that it may well be limited to the role of an intermediary that connects FCs to information, supports and peers.

OBJECTIVES:. To assess the effectiveness of a chaplain patient navigator in improving outcomes and reducing costs in the ICU setting. DESIGN:. A randomized controlled trial at a large, urban, academic community hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. SETTING/PATIENTS:. All patients admitted to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center Cardiac and Medical ICUs between March 2015 and December 2015. INTERVENTIONS:. Patients in the intervention group were assigned a chaplain patient navigator to facilitate communication, offer support, and setup multidisciplinary family meetings. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:. The primary outcomes were hospital and ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes included total and ICU charges, 60- and 90-day readmission rates, and the number of palliative care consults. For all outcomes, patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses only if they remained in the ICU greater than 24 hours. In total, 1,174 were randomly assigned to “usual care” (n = 573) or to the intervention (n = 601). In the intervention group, 44.8% (269/601) had meetings within 24 hours of admission and, of those patients, 32.8% (88/268) took part in the larger multidisciplinary family meeting 2–3 days later. The intervention group had longer mean adjusted hospital length of stay (7.78 vs 8.63 d; p ≤ 0.001) and mean ICU length of stay (3.65 vs 3.87 d; p = 0.029). In addition, they had greater total and ICU charges. There were no differences in other outcomes. Of note, only differences in total and ICU charges remained when controlling for case-mix index, which were greater in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS:. Although the chaplain patient navigator anecdotally enhanced communication, our study found an increase in hospital and ICU length of stay as well as cost. Since other studies have shown benefits in some clinical outcomes, projects focused on patient navigators may learn lessons from our study in order to better prioritize family meetings, gather indicators of communication quality, and identify the optimal patient navigator operational context.

Current limitations in the understanding and control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada are described through a comprehensive review focusing on: (1) treatment optimization; (2) surveillance of antimicrobial use and AMR; and (3) prevention of transmission of AMR. Without addressing gaps in identified areas, sustained progress in AMR mitigation is unlikely. Expert opinions and perspectives contributed to prioritizing identified gaps. Using Canada as an example, this review emphasizes the importance and necessity of a One Health approach for understanding and mitigating AMR. Specifically, antimicrobial use in human, animal, crop, and environmental sectors cannot be regarded as independent; therefore, a One Health approach is needed in AMR research and understanding, current surveillance efforts, and policy. Discussions regarding addressing described knowledge gaps are separated into four categories: (1) further research; (2) increased capacity/resources; (3) increased prescriber/end-user knowledge; and (4) policy development/enforcement. This review highlights the research and increased capacity and resources to generate new knowledge and implement recommendations needed to address all identified gaps, including economic, social, and environmental considerations. More prescriber/end-user knowledge and policy development/enforcement are needed, but must be informed by realistic recommendations, with input from all relevant stakeholders. For most knowledge gaps, important next steps are uncertain. In conclusion, identified knowledge gaps underlined the need for AMR policy decisions to be considered in a One Health framework, while highlighting critical needs to achieve realistic and meaningful progress.

Abstract Background With patient and public engagement in many aspects of the healthcare system becoming an imperative, the recruitment of patients and members of the public into service and research roles has emerged as a challenge. The existing literature carries few reports of the methods – successful and unsuccessful – that researchers engaged in user-centred design (UCD) projects are using to recruit participants as equal partners in co-design research. This paper uses the recruitment experiences of a specific UCD project to provide a road map for other investigators, and to make general recommendations for funding agencies interested in supporting co-design research. Methods We used a case study methodology and employed Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Focus Group discussions to collect data. We recruited 25 family caregivers. Results Employing various strategies to recruit unpaid family caregivers in a UCD project aimed at co-designing an assistive technology for family caregivers, we found that recruitment through caregiver agencies is the most efficient (least costly) and effective mechanism. The nature of this recruitment work – the time and compromises it requires – has, we believe, implications for funding agencies who need to understand that working with caregivers agencies, requires a considerable amount of time for building relationships, aligning values, and establishing trust. Conclusions In addition to providing adaptable strategies, the paper contributes to discussions surrounding how projects seeking effective, meaningful, and ethical patient and public engagement are planned and funded. We call for more evidence to explore effective mechanisms to recruit family caregivers into qualitative research. We also call for reports of successful strategies that other researchers have employed to recruit and retain family caregivers in their research.

Family caregivers are a significant unpaid labour force that provides at least 70% of all care to seniors in the community. It was estimated in 2009 that the formal Canadian healthcare system would have to spend $25 billion annually to replace the contributions of family caregivers. More recent estimates have placed the value of family caregiver labour as high as $66.5 billion. While a wide range of public and private services are generally available to support family caregivers, many potential clients have difficulty both gaining access, and navigating those services once they have gained access. In this sense, they experience a highly fragmented ‘system’ of social support provision. As the population of older adults living in the community grows, and with it the demand for family caregivers’ provided support, policy attention has become increasingly focused on integration as a solution to the fragmentation challenge. The family caregiver support sector was singled out by a Special Senate Committee in 2009 as particularly likely to benefit from integration. Integration, the committee found, would allow the sectors to better address the needs of community-dwelling older adults with chronic health conditions, improve the financial sustainability of the formal healthcare system, and make necessary support services more accessible. Beyond the specifics of family caregiving, policy conversations and major reforms around the world have similarly focused on the need for increased integration of care, both in health and social services. Recognizing that integrating fragmented social and healthcare systems is a wicked problem generally, and a particularly urgent matter for the family caregiver support services (FCSS[1]) ‘system,’ the School of Public Policy (SPP) organized a day-long event drawing stakeholders together. The event originated in the FCSS community’s own desire to better understand and accomplish integration. As a facilitated discussion, it was designed as a space for participants to move away from talking about integration, and towards making both it, and the concept of a ‘system’ of care, real. In organizing the event and in line with a well-developed scholarly literature, we framed the problem of fragmentation as a ‘structural’ issue caused by, among other factors, divergent mandates, competitive funding models, disjointed assessment processes, and a lack of co-ordinated transition. Similar to other researchers, we saw the solution to fragmentation as integration through the lens of organizational structures, joint services, shared assessments, and coordinated planning. However, when we presented these concepts to the FCSS community, they initially connected with them, but quickly diverged away from the structural recommendations and instead generated their own initiatives through conversations and relationship building. We found that the act of bringing service providers together to share experiences, learn about each other, and develop their knowledge of services is the foundation upon which the various structural elements are built. The structural interventions are not the pathway to real integration, because they cannot be undertaken without a number of preconditions in place. Trust, consensus, and collaborative relationships are the necessary preconditions to integration, in whatever form it may take. In other words, an unsiloed system does not emerge from structural reforms, but rather from trusting relationships, consensus, and the resources and space for collaboration. The event provided participants with the opportunity to set agreed-upon goals for the sector to work on together. The collaborative space that FCSS community members envisioned during the event, along with the ambitious work packages they prioritized for action inside that space, were practical, implementable visions of integration as an activity emerging from a community working together. [1] The acronym FCSS is also commonly used in Alberta's social support community for Family and Community Support Services, which is a unique 80/20 funding partnership between the Government of Alberta and participating municipalities or Métis Settlements.

BackgroundIn response to the Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-patient units in hospitals around the world have altered their patient care routines and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practices. Our interdisciplinary team of applied Human Factors (HF), ethnography, and IPC experts assisted one Unit, normally serving general surgical and orthopedic patients, as it rapidly converted to deliver COVID-19-specific care. This paper describes the conversion experience of the Unit, and outlines broader lessons for other acute care teams faced with similar issues.MethodsWe deployed walkthroughs, simulations, and ethnography to identify important safety gaps in care delivery processes on the Unit. These interventions were undertaken using interdisciplinary theories of implementation that combined systems-level HF perspectives, ethnographic approaches, and individual-level IPC perspectives. Timely recommendations were developed and delivered to Unit staff for feedback and implementation.ResultsWe describe three interventions on the Unit: 1) the de-cluttering and re-organization of personal protective equipment (PPE); 2) the reconfiguring of designated 'dirty' tray tables and supplies; and 3) the redesign of handling pathways for 'dirty' linens and laundry. Each of these interventions was implemented to varying degrees, but all contributed to discussions of safety and IPC implementation that extended beyond the Unit and into the operations of the broader hospital.ConclusionsLeveraging our team's interdisciplinary expertise and blended approaches to implementation, the interventions assisted in the Unit's rapid conversion towards providing COVID-19-specific care. The deployment and implementation of the interventions highlight the potential of collaboration between HF, ethnography, and IPC experts to support frontline healthcare delivery under pandemic conditions in an effort to minimize nosocomial transmission potential in the acute healthcare setting.

This paper outlines the rapid integration of social scientists into a Canadian province’s COVID-19 response. We describe the motivating theory, deployment and initial outcomes of our team of Organisational Sociologist ethnographers, Human Factors experts and Infection Prevention and Control clinicians focused on understanding and improving Alberta’s responsiveness to the pandemic. Specifically, that interdisciplinary team is working alongside acute and primary care personnel, as well as public health leaders to deliver ‘situated interventions’ that flow from studying communications, interpretations and implementations across responding organisations. Acting in real time, the team is providing critical insights on policy communication and implementation to targeted members of the health system. Using our rapid and ongoing deployment as a case study of social science techniques applied to a pandemic, we describe how other health systems might leverage social science to improve their preparations and communications.