Search

This quantitative pilot study aimed to 1) measure perceptions of multi-stakeholders on key indicators of team functioning (Team Effectiveness, TE, and Team Relational Coordination, TRC) during COVID-19 and its transition, and 2) document whether patient perceptions of TE/TRC are significantly associated with their cancer care experiences. Methods: A descriptive design with repeated measures was used. Through convenience sampling, participants were recruited from two outpatient cancer clinics at a large university-affiliated hospital, in Montréal, Qc, Canada. Sixty-six participants (ie, 13 healthcare professionals, 40 patients, 6 informal caregivers, and 7 volunteers) completed e-measures at T1 (years 2021– 2022) and n = 44 at T2 (year 2023). Results: At T1, participants reported high perceptions of Team Effectiveness (scale 1 to 6) M = 4.47; SD = 0.7 (Mdn = 4.54; IQR: 4.06– 5) and Relational Coordination (scale 1 to 5) M = 3.77; SD = 0.77 (Mdn = 3.81; IQR: 3.12– 4.38) with no significant differences in perceptions across the four groups. At T2, no significant changes in TE/TRC perceptions were found. At both time points, patient perceptions of TE/TRC were significantly correlated with positive cancer care experiences (Spearman rank correlation rs ranging from 0.69 and 0.83; p < 0.01). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study documenting perceptions of cancer team functioning amidst the pandemic as reported by multiple stakeholders. Significant relationships between patient perceptions of TE/TRC and their cancer care experiences underscore the importance of including patients' views in team functioning processes. Future work should rely on larger sample sizes to further explore key elements of optimal team functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Canada introduced accompanying patients (APs) into the breast cancer care trajectory. APs are patients who have been treated for breast cancer and have been integrated into the clinical team to expand the services offered to people affected by cancer. This study describes the profiles of the people who received the support and explores whether one-offs vs ongoing encounters with APs influence their experience of care, on self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and on their level of psychological distress. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out among patients to compare patients who had one encounter with an AP (G1) with those who had had several encounters (G2). Five questionnaires were administered on socio-demographic characteristics, care pathway, evaluation of the support experience, self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Logbooks, completed by the APs, determined the number of encounters. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the number of encounters, patient characteristics, care pathway, number of topics discussed, self-efficacy measures in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Results: Between April 2020 and December 2021, 60% of 535 patients who were offered support from an AP accepted. Of these, one hundred and twenty-four patients participated in the study. The study aimed to recruit a minimum of 70 patients with the expectation of obtaining at least 50 participants, assuming a response rate of 70%. There were no differences between G1 and G2 in terms of sociodemographic data and care pathways. Statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 for impacts on and the return to daily life (p = 0.000), the return to the work and impacts on professional life (p = 0.044), announcement of a diagnosis to family and friends (p = 0.033), and strategies for living with treatment under the best conditions (p = 0.000). Significant differences were found on the topics of cancer (p = 0.000), genetic testing (p = 0.023), therapeutic options (p = 0.000), fatigue following treatment (p = 0.005), pain and discomfort after treatment or surgery (p = 0.000), potential emotions and their management (p = 0.000) and the decision-making processes (p = 0.011). A significant relationship was found between the two groups for patients' ability to cope with cancer (p = 0.038), and their level of psychological distress at different stages of the care pathway (p = 0.024). Conclusions: This study shows differences between one-time and ongoing support for cancer patients. It highlights the potential for APs to help patients develop self-efficacy and cope with the challenges of cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is the property of Pappin Communications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden worldwide and the first cause of mortality in Canada with 30.2% of deaths attributable to cancer. Given aging of the population and the improvement of prevention and treatment protocols, the number of cancer survivors is steadily increasing. These individuals have unique physical and mental health needs some of which can be addressed by integrating physical activity promotion into ongoing and long-term care. Despite the benefits of being active, delivery of PA programs for cancer patients in both clinical and community settings remains challenging. This knowledge-to-action protocol–called Kiné-Onco–aims to develop a practice guideline for the delivery, implementation, and scaling-up of cancer-specific physical activity promotion programs and services in clinical and community settings located in Québec, Canada. Method: The Kiné-Onco project involves knowledge synthesis of scientific and grey literature to establish the benefits and added value of physical activity for cancer patients and survivors, describes current practices in delivering physical activity programs, analyses quantitative data from electronic health records (EHR) of patients participating in a novel hospital-based physical activity program, collects and analyses qualitative data from patients and healthcare providers interviews about lived experience, facilitators, and barriers to physical activity promotion, outlines deliberative workshops among multidisciplinary team members to develop implementation guidelines for physical activity promotion, and summarizes a variety of knowledge transfer and exchange activities to disseminate the practice guidelines. Discussion: This paper describes the protocol for a knowledge-to-action project aimed at producing and sharing actionable evidence. Our aim is that physical activity promotion programs and services be scaled up in such a way as to successfully integrate physical activity promotion throughout cancer treatment and survivorship in order to improve the physical and mental health of the growing population of individuals having received a cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital contact tracing and exposure notification apps have quickly emerged as a potential solution to achieve timely and effective contact tracing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nonetheless, their actual uptake remains limited. Citizens, including patients, are rarely consulted and included in the design and implementation process. Their contribution supports the acceptability of such apps, by providing upstream evidence on incentives and potential barriers that are most relevant to users. The DIGICIT (DIGITal CITizenship) project relied on patient and citizen partnership in research to better integrate public perspectives on these apps. In this paper, we present the co-construction process that led to the survey instrument used in the DIGICIT project and the interpretation of its results. This approach promotes public participation in research on contact tracing and exposure notification apps, as well as related digital health applications. Objectives: This article has three objectives: (1) describe the methodological process to co-construct a questionnaire and interpret the survey results with patients and citizens, (2) assess their experiences regarding this methodology, and (3) propose best practices for their involvement in digital health research. Methods: The DIGICIT project was developed in four steps: (1) creation of the advisory committee composed of patients and citizens, (2) co-construction of a questionnaire, (3) interpretation of survey results, and (4) assessment of the experience of committee participants. Results: Of the 25 applications received for participation in the advisory committee, we selected 12 people based on pre-established diversity criteria. Participants initially generated 84 survey questions in the first co-construction meeting, and eventually selected 36 in the final version. Participants made more than 20 recommendations when interpreting survey results and suggested carrying out focus groups with marginalized populations to increase representativity. They appreciated their inclusion early in the research process, being listened to and respected, the collective intelligence, and the method used for integrating their suggestions. They suggested that the study objectives and roles be better defined, that more time in the brainstorming sessions be allowed, and that discussion outside of meetings be encouraged. Conclusion: Having patients and citizens actively participating in this research constitutes the main methodological strength. They enriched the study from start to finish, and recommended the addition of focus groups to seek the perspective of marginalized groups that are typically under-represented from digital health research. Clear communication of the project objectives, good organization in meetings, and continuous evaluation from participants allow best practices to be achieved for patients' and citizens' involvement in digital health research. Co-construction in research generates critical study design ideas through collective intelligence. This methodology can be used in various clinical contexts and different healthcare settings. Plain English summary: COVID Alert is a mobile application (app) that was developed created to help limit the spread of COVID-19 in Canada. Although promising, these apps have not been widely used by the population, in part due to limited citizen engagement in their design. The DIGICIT project (DIGITal CITizenship) was carried out in partnership with citizens, including patients, to gather public perspective in Quebec, Canada about the COVID Alert app. The purpose of this article is to describe our method of constructing a survey questionnaire with patients and citizens. We have created an advisory committee of 12 participants. Along with the research team, they created a 36-question survey. They also suggested doing focus groups to add data to the survey by reaching marginalized groups that are traditionally excluded from digital health research. We also wanted to know the experience of the participants being included in this study. We conducted interviews and did a small survey with them. They appreciated being included from the beginning of the research, being listened to, and being respected. They appreciated the creativity of the group and the brainstorming sessions. However, they would have liked the tasks to be clearer from the start. They also would have preferred to have more time in the brainstorming sessions to create the survey questions, and to have discussions outside of the meetings. The inclusion of patients and citizens is the main strength of this project. To improve their integration in health research, there needs to be good communication of project objectives. Also, meetings must be well organized, and participants must be able to evaluate their experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with serious mental illness face challenges in managing their health, leading to the need for integrating their needs and preferences in care decisions. One way to enhance collaboration between users and providers is to improve clinical governance; a shared responsibility between managers and providers, supported by healthcare organizations (HCOs), policies, and standards. We applied the concept of clinical governance to understand (1) how managers and providers can enhance the involvement of users in mental health, (2) the contextual and organizational factors that facilitate user involvement in care, and (3) the users' perceptions of their involvement in care. Methods: We conducted two, in-depth case studies from two clinical teams in Canada offering outpatient care for users with acute mental illness. A total of 25 interviews were carried out with managers, and four focus groups were held with providers. A measure of patient-reported experience was used to evaluate the users' perceptions of their involvement in care. Results: The providers used two methods to involve users in the care planning process: encouraging users to identify their life goals and supporting them to define recovery-oriented objectives. To encourage the adoption of collaborative practices, the managers used various practices such as revising care protocols, strengthening providers' knowledge of best practices and integrating peer-support workers (PSWs) in the team. Compliance with organizational and external commitments/requirements for user involvement, access to specific training and the institutionalization of a culture promoting user involvement facilitated the adoption of collaborative practices. We found that mental health teams that adopt recovery and collaborative practices with users show a high degree of user-perceived involvement in care. Conclusion: This is the first study to apply the concept of clinical governance to understand how managerial and clinical practices, and other organizational and contextual factors, can enhance the involvement of mental healthcare users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada deployed a digital exposure notification app (COVID Alert) as a strategy to support manual contact tracing. Our aims are to (1) assess the use, knowledge, and concerns of the COVID Alert app, (2) identify predictors of app downloads, and (3) develop strategies to promote social acceptability. A 36-item questionnaire was co-designed by 12 citizens and patients partnered with 16 academic researchers and was distributed in the province of Québec, Canada, from May 27 to 28 June 2021. Of 959 respondents, 43% had downloaded the app. Messaging from government sources constituted the largest influence on app download. Infrequent social contacts and perceived app inefficacy were the main reasons not to download the app. Cybersecurity, data confidentiality, loss of privacy, and geolocation were the most frequent concerns. Nearly half of the respondents inaccurately believed that the app used geolocation. Most respondents supported citizen involvement in app development. The identified predictors for app uptake included nine characteristics. In conclusion, this project highlights four key themes on how to promote the social acceptability of such tools: (1) improved communication and explanation of key app characteristics, (2) design features that incentivize adoption, (3) inclusive socio-technical features, and (4) upstream public partnership in development and deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety is a worldwide problem, and the patient contribution to mitigate the risk of patient harm is now recognized as a cornerstone to its solution. In order to understand the nature of integrating patients into patient safety and healthcare organizations and to monitor their integration, a Canadian survey tool has been co-constructed by patients, researchers and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI). This questionnaire has been adapted from the French version of the patient engagement (PE) in patient safety (PS) questionnaire created for the province of Quebec, Canada.Methodology: The pan-Canadian PE in PS survey tool was developed in a five-step process: (1) a literature review and revision of the initial tool developed in the province of Quebec; (2) translation of the French questionnaire into an English version tool; (3) creation of a Canadian expert advisory group; (4) adaptation of the English version tool based on feedback from the expert advisory group (assessment and development of the construct's dimensions, wording assessment and adaptation for pan-Canadian use, technical testing of the online platform for the survey); and (5) pilot testing and pre-validation of the tool before pan-Canadian use.Results and Conclusion: Eight pan-Canadian PE in PS surveys were completed from five Canadian provinces by the expert advisory group and six surveys were completed during the pilot project by participants from different provinces in Canada. This survey tool comprises 5 sections: (1) demographic identification of the participants (Q1 to Q5); (2) general questions (Q6 to Q17); (3) the patient engagement process (experience level of participants and organizational incentives for PE in general) (Q18 to Q33); (4) PE in PS processes, such as current activities, strategies, structures, resources and factors (Q34 to Q67); and (5) the context and impact of PE in PS initiatives in Canadian healthcare organizations (CHOs) (Q68 to Q75), including outcome identification, improvement mechanisms and strategies, evaluation mechanisms, and indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. Objective: This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. Methods: Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. Discussion: The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Canada, long waiting times for core specialized services have consistently been identified as a key barrier to access. Governments and organizations have responded with strategies for better access management, notably for total joint replacement (TJR) of the hip and knee. While wait time management strategies (WTMS) are promising, the factors which influence their sustainable implementation at the organizational level are understudied. Consequently, this study examined organizational and systemic factors that made it possible to sustain waiting times for TJR within federally established limits and for at least 18 months or more.Methods: The research design is a multiple case study of WTMS implementation. Five cases were selected across five Canadian provinces. Three success levels were pre-defined: 1) the WTMS maintained compliance with requirements for more than 18 months; 2) the WTMS met requirements for 18 months but could not sustain the level thereafter; 3) the WTMS never met requirements. For each case, we collected documents and interviewed key informants. We analyzed systemic and organizational factors, with particular attention to governance and leadership, culture, resources, methods, and tools.Results: We found that successful organizations had specific characteristics: 1) management of the whole care continuum, 2) strong clinical leadership; 3) dedicated committees to coordinate and sustain strategy; 4) a culture based on trust and innovation. All strategies led to relatively similar unintended consequences. The main negative consequence was an initial increase in waiting times for TJR and the main positive consequence was operational enhancement of other areas of specialization based on the TJR model.Conclusions: This study highlights important differences in factors which help to achieve and sustain waiting times. To be sustainable, a WTMS needs to generate greater synergies between contextual-level strategy (provincial or regional) and organizational objectives and constraints. Managers at the organizational level should be vigilant with regard to unintended consequences that a WTMS in one area can have for other areas of care. A more systemic approach to sustainability can help avoid or mitigate undesirable unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling in the debate on privatization of Quebec's health care system. The Quebec government subsequently made several decisions, such as lifting the ban on private insurance for some health services already offered in the public system. We interviewed 42 stakeholders who were involved in the decision process between 1999 and 2008 and analyzed their views. We identified three types of positions on privatization, based on two key factors raised in these encounters: (a) the ideological and political inertia of both civil society and the state and (b) the concerted action of stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective As rates of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis (OA) rise, there is a need to ensure appropriate use. We undertook this study to develop criteria for appropriate use of TJA. Methods In prior work, we used qualitative methods to separately assess OA patients' and arthroplasty surgeons' perceptions regarding appropriateness of patient candidates for TJA. The current study reviewed the appropriateness themes that emerged from each group, and a series of statements were developed to reflect each unique theme or criterion. A group of arthroplasty surgeons then indicated their level of agreement with each statement using electronic voting. Where ≤70% agreed or disagreed, the criterion was discussed and revised, and revoting occurred. In standardized telephone interviews, OA patient focus group participants indicated their level of agreement with each revised criterion. Results Qualitative research in 58 OA patients and 14 arthroplasty surgeons identified 11 appropriateness criteria. Member-checking in 15 surgeons (including 5 who had participated in the qualitative study) resulted in agreement on 6 revised criteria. These included evidence of arthritis on joint examination, patient-reported symptoms negatively impacting quality of life, an adequate trial of appropriate nonsurgical treatment, realistic patient expectations of surgery, mental and physical readiness of patient for surgery, and patient-surgeon agreement that potential benefits exceed risks. Thirty-six of the original 58 OA patient focus group participants (62.1%) participated in the member-check interviews and endorsed all 6 criteria. Conclusion Patients and surgeons jointly endorsed 6 criteria for assessment of TJA appropriateness in OA patients. Prospective validation of these criteria (assessed preoperatively) as predictive of postoperative patient-reported outcomes is under way and will inform development of a surgeon-patient decision-support tool for assessment of TJA appropriateness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to update the Global Model of Public Mental Health (GMPMH) in light of the WHO QualityRights project. Design/methodology/approach -- Being able to refer to international conventions and human rights standards is a key component of a genuine global approach that is supportive of individuals and communities in their quest for recovery and full citizenship. The GMPMH was inspired by the ecological approach in health promotion programs, adding to that approach the individuals as agents of mental health policies and legislation transformation. The GMPMH integrates recovery- and citizenship-oriented psychiatric practices through the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (WHO, 1986). Findings -- Updating the GMPMH through the WHO QualityRights Toolkit highlights the need for a new form of governance body, namely the Civic Forum, which is inclusive of local communities and persons in recovery. People withmental health disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and substance use conditions can be "included in the community" (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 19) only if the community is informed and welcoming, for instance through a Civic Forum and its organizing Local Council of Mental Health. Research limitations/implications -- Transition from social marginalization to full citizenship represents a daunting challenge in public mental health care. An approach that focuses primarily on individuals is not sufficient in creating access to valued roles those individuals will be able to occupy in community settings. Instead, public intervention and debate are required to promote and monitor the bond of citizenship that connects people to their communities. Originality/value -- The GMPMH is the result of a conceptual cross-breeding between recovery and health promotion (WHO, 1986). The GMPMH is an offspring of the ecological approach in health promotion programs, adding to that approach individuals as agents of mental health transformation. It refers to international conventions and human rights standards as a central component of a genuine global approach. A community-based participatory research design is well suited, which includes a Civic Forumfor local communities to become involved and supportive of service users in their quality and human rights assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, the mix of private- and public-sector involvement in health care delivery is a focus of political concern. This concern in Canada takes place within the parameters of the federal Canada Health Act. Private for-profit activities in the health care sector in Canadian provinces have moderately shrunk the definition of ‘necessary medical and hospital services’ that must be provided by the public administration system under the federal Canada Health Act. In this article, we argue that the development of new technologies, pharmaceutical innovations, competing (non-health) demands on the federal dollar, and an aging population together create an environment where pressures for economic and political sustainability have led to some erosion of necessary health services in the provinces. Such pressures have, in turn, led to the growth of private commercial-sector health services. Within Canada’s federal system, provincial negotiation of the role of commercial health care organizations has developed in different ways in Ontario and Quebec. Such subnational developments are a significant focus for comparative health policy analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article focuses on Quebec's most recent reform in the regionalization of health care to understand why the government chose to transform the regional boards into agencies. This case study used interviews and documentary analysis. Rooted in a political science perspective, the conceptual framework is inspired by the work of John and draws on the four variables that influence the choice of policy: ideas, interests, institutions and events. Results of the case study suggest that Quebec's Commission of Study for Health and Social Services (the Clair Commission) in 2000 and the 2002 pre-electoral environment put the issue on the agenda. In 2003, the newly elected Liberal government passed Bill 25 - An Act Respecting Local Health and Social Services Network Development Agencies, which represented a political compromise: originally slated for eradication, the regional tier survived but in a new form. The element that sparked reform was the change in government following the elections. Different inquiry reports spread the reform's ideas, while interest groups articulated contrasting visions on the transformation. Above all, regional institutions showed great resilience in the face of change. From a historical perspective, this regionalization policy is a step backward: the regional tier is now stronger from a managerial and technocratic point of view, but it is politically and democratically weakened. This suggests a government intention, at that time, to maintain the regional level as a means of retaining centralized control over Quebec's health-care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One way to improve quality and safety in healthcare organizations (HCOs) is through accreditation. Accreditation is a rigorous external evaluation process that comprises self-assessment against a given set of standards, an on-site survey followed by a report with or without recommendations, and the award or refusal of accreditation status. This study evaluates how the accreditation process helps introduce organizational changes that enhance the quality and safety of care.Methods: We used an embedded multiple case study design to explore organizational characteristics and identify changes linked to the accreditation process. We employed a theoretical framework to analyze various elements and for each case, we interviewed top managers, conducted focus groups with staff directly involved in the accreditation process, and analyzed self-assessment reports, accreditation reports and other case-related documents.Results: The context in which accreditation took place, including the organizational context, influenced the type of change dynamics that occurred in HCOs. Furthermore, while accreditation itself was not necessarily the element that initiated change, the accreditation process was a highly effective tool for (i) accelerating integration and stimulating a spirit of cooperation in newly merged HCOs; (ii) helping to introduce continuous quality improvement programs to newly accredited or not-yet-accredited organizations; (iii) creating new leadership for quality improvement initiatives; (iv) increasing social capital by giving staff the opportunity to develop relationships; and (v) fostering links between HCOs and other stakeholders. The study also found that HCOs' motivation to introduce accreditation-related changes dwindled over time.Conclusions: We conclude that the accreditation process is an effective leitmotiv for the introduction of change but is nonetheless subject to a learning cycle and a learning curve. Institutions invest greatly to conform to the first accreditation visit and reap the greatest benefits in the next three accreditation cycles (3 to 10 years after initial accreditation). After 10 years, however, institutions begin to find accreditation less challenging. To maximize the benefits of the accreditation process, HCOs and accrediting bodies must seek ways to take full advantage of each stage of the accreditation process over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At their origin, public healthcare systems were designed mainly for the treatment of acute illnesses. For many years, therefore, public health care focused on services offered in healthcare establishments and primary care was allowed to evolve on the periphery of hospitals, with doctors free to follow their own conception of how best to provide and follow up on care. As hospital costs grew, however, and new challenges regarding the provision of care began to emerge, governments felt increasingly responsible for organizing the front line (Nolte and McKee 2008). How doctors would be called upon to participate in the new configuration of services — particularly in Canada, where physicians function as independent entrepreneurs — is the subject of this article, which investigates the decision to introduce family medicine groups (FMGs) to the province of Quebec. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Working with women to best meet their needs has always been central to midwifery in Quebec, Canada. The creation of birthing centres at the end of the 1990s consolidated this desire to prioritize women's involvement in perinatal care and was intended to encourage the establishment of a care and services partnership between care providers and users. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the perceptions of clients, midwives and birth assistants of the way in which women are involved in partnership working in Quebec birthing centres., Methods: A single qualitative case and pilot study was conducted with midwives (n = 5), birth assistants (n = 4), a manager (n = 1), clients (n = 5) and members of the users' committee (n = 2) at a birthing centre in Quebec, Canada in July and August 2023. The partnership was evaluated using the dimensions of a validated CADICEE questionnaire., Results: The women and professionals stressed that the relationship was established in a climate of trust. The caregivers also attached importance to autonomy, information sharing and decision-making, adaptation to context, empathy and recognition of the couple's expertise. The women confirmed that they establish a relationship of trust with the professionals when the latter show empathy and that they adapt the follow-up to their knowledge and life context. Key factors in establishing this kind of care relationship are the time given, a de-medicalized environment, the comprehensive care received, and professionals who are well-informed about the partnership. In addition, the birthing centre has a users' committee that can put forward ideas but has no decision-making powers., Conclusions: Both the women and the professionals at the birthing centre appear to be working in partnership. However, at the organizational level, the women are not involved in decision-making. A study of all birthing centres in Quebec would provide a more comprehensive picture of the situation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: COVID Alert is an exposure notification app deployed in Canada to help limit the spread of COVID-19., Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in Québec, Canada. The questionnaire was codesigned with patients and members of the public. It assessed the perspectives of teenagers aged 15-17 years old., Results: Among 237 respondents, 27% had downloaded the COVID Alert app. Friends and relatives constituted the largest influence for app download. The most frequently reported concerns included threats to privacy, confidentiality, cybersecurity, and geolocalization. Among nonusers, having more social contacts and evidence demonstrating effectiveness would have motivated app download. Individual factors associated with download included high concern about the pandemic and high self-perceived app knowledge., Discussion: Future digital health interventions should engage teenagers in developing tools that promote social acceptance and responsible use in this group., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Attachment to a primary care provider is an important component of primary care as it facilitates access. In Québec, Canada, attachment to a family physician is a concern. To address unattached patients' barriers to accessing primary care, the Ministry of Health and Social Services mandated Québec's 18 administrative regions to implement single points of access for unattached patients ( Guichets d'accès première ligne (GAPs)) that aim to better orient patients towards the most appropriate services to meet their needs. The objectives of this study are to (1) analyse the implementation of GAPs, (2) measure the effects of GAPs on performance indicators and (3) assess unattached patients' experiences of navigation, access and service utilisation., Methods and Analysis: A longitudinal mixed-methods case study design will be conducted. Objective 1. Implementation will be analysed through semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, observations of key meetings and document analysis. Objective 2. GAP effects on indicators will be measured using performance dashboards produced using clinical and administrative data. Objective 3. Unattached patients' experiences will be assessed using a self-administered electronic questionnaire. Findings for each case will be interpreted and presented using a joint display, a visual tool for integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Intercase analyses will be conducted highlighting the similarities and differences across cases., Ethics and Dissemination: This study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (# 475314) and the Fonds de Soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux (# 5-2-01) and was approved by the CISSS de la Montérégie-Centre Ethics Committee (MP-04-2023-716)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In Canada, two out of five people will be diagnosed with cancer which will affect their lives on a physical, psychological, and social levels. To help people affected by cancer (PAC) cope with the disease, support is provided by oncology nurses (ONs), including oncology pivot nurses (OPNs), as well as by accompanying patients (APs), i.e. people who have already had to deal with a cancer problem. APs are still a recent addition to the services offered in oncology, and as of yet no study has explored how the support provided by APs is being integrated into usual care, especially ONs care. This study explores the perceptions of APs and ONs on APs' integration into clinical teams., Method: An exploratory qualitative study was carried out with six ONs and six APs through semi-structured interviews conducted from 2020 to 2021. Data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis., Results: Participants perceived the AP's integration into the teams and during care as variable and in flux. They also identified factors that influence APs' integration into clinical teams (e.g.:the clinical teams' dynamics, the understanding of the AP's role, APs and patients' characteristics). Lastly, participants made recommendations to improve APs integration into clinical teams., Conclusion: This study highlights how integrating APs into clinical teams has not yet become part of ONs' routines. ONs can play a key role in their integration through their collaborative and teamwork skills. Furthermore, there is a recognition that these two approaches can play complementary roles in supporting PACs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Little is known about the organizational priorities of patients and clinicians involved in primary cardiovascular care. This study aimed to identify their shared top priorities and explore on which aspects their perspectives differed., Methods: A three-round modified online Delphi study was carried out with patients and clinicians in seven academic primary care settings from metropolitan, suburban and small-town areas in Quebec, Canada. Patient partners experienced in the mobilization of their experiential knowledge also participated in the study. Following an "open" round, the items elicited were assessed by a combined rating and ranking approach. Items achieving an initial consensus level ≥70% were reassessed and then rank-ordered based on their final scores. Levels of consensus achieved among patients and clinicians were compared using Fisher's Exact tests., Results: Thirty panelists completed the study (9 clinic patients, 7 patient partners and 14 clinicians). Out of 41 organizational aspects generated, six top priorities were shared by patients and clinicians. These related to listening and tailoring care to each patient, provision of personalized information, rapid response in the event of a problem, keeping professional training up-to-date, and relational and informational continuity of care. Statistically significant differences were found between patients' and clinicians' perspectives regarding the importance of offering healthy lifestyle and prevention activities at the clinic (lower for patients), timely access to the treating physician (higher for patients), and effective collaboration with specialist physicians (higher for patients)., Conclusion: Although their views differ on some organizational aspects, patients and clinicians share a small set of top priorities for primary cardiovascular care that may be transferable to other chronic diseases. These top priorities should remain a central focus of clinical settings, alongside other primary care reform goals., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Del Grande et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine Canadian organizational and systemic factors that made it possible to keep wait times within federally established limits for at least 18 months., Design/methodology/approach: The research design is a multiple cases study. The paper selected three cases: Case 1 - staff were able to maintain compliance with requirements for more than 18 months; Case 2 - staff were able to meet requirements for 18 months, but unable to sustain this level; Case 3 - staff were never able to meet the requirements. For each case the authors interviewed persons involved in the strategies and collected documents. The paper analysed systemic and organizational-level factors; including governance and leadership, culture, resources, methods and tools., Findings: Findings indicate that the hospital that was able to maintain compliance with the wait time requirements had specific characteristics: an exclusive mandate to do only hip and knee replacement surgery; motivated staff who were not distracted by other concerns; and a strong team spirit., Originality/value: The authors' research highlights an important gradient between three cases regarding the factors that sustain waiting times. The paper show that the hospital factory model seems attractive in a super-specialized surgery context. However, patients are selected for simple surgeries, without complications, and so this cannot be considered a unique model.

Although the costs of doctors' visits and hospital stays in Canada are covered by national public health insurance, the cost of outpatient prescription drugs is not. To solve problems of access, Canadian provinces have introduced provincial prescription drug benefit programs. This study analyzes the prescription drug policymaking process in five Canadian provinces between 1992 and 2004 with a view to (1) determining the federal government's role in the area of prescription drugs; (2) describing the policymaking process; (3) identifying factors in each province's choice of a policy; (4) identifying patterns in those factors across the five provinces; and (5) assessing the federal government's influence on the policies chosen. Analysis shows that despite significant differences in policy choices, the ideological motivations of the provinces were unexpectedly similar. The findings also highlight the importance of institutional factors, for example, in provinces' decision to compete rather than to collaborate. We conclude that, to date, Canada's federalism laboratory has only partly benefited the Canadian public. Cost pressures may, however, eventually overcome barriers to cooperation between the provincial and the federal governments, enabling them to capitalize on Canada's federal structure to improve the accessibility and affordability of drugs.

Governing boards of healthcare organizations in Canada are accountable for the performance of their organization and provide oversight on their decisions. Traditionally, many healthcare boards have focused on finances and community relations and have deferred responsibility for quality of care to the medical or professional staff. This deferral reflects not only recognition of the expertise of clinical leaders on these issues but also the historical separation of responsibilities between the administration and the medical staff, the former being responsible for financial and operational issues, and the latter for quality of care.

Objectives: By comparing Canada, where accreditation is optional, to France, where it is required, this study evaluates the extent to which the accreditation process acts as a tool for bureaucratic coercion as opposed to a tool for learning., Methods: Our study consists of a qualitative meta-analysis of studies of French and Canadian accreditation experiences between 1996 and 2006. Using the conceptual framework of Adler and Borys [Adler P, Borys B. Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercitive. Administration Science Quarterly 1996;41:61-89], we assess the characteristics of accreditation in the French and the Canadian environments and distinguish between coercive and enabling modi operandi., Results: Results show that accreditation has positive impacts in the two countries but is more coercion-oriented in France than in Canada. This is because in France: (1) the fact that accreditation is compulsory and certain standards are required by law limits participant's opportunities to influence the process; (2) standards are not adapted to various clinical programs and as a result, participants contest their legitimacy; (3) ambiguity about the use of accreditation visit results has sullied global transparency. Despite differences between the French and Canadian systems, however, both systems are converging towards a mixed model that includes elements of both philosophies, with the Canadian model becoming more coercive and the French model becoming more flexible and learning-oriented., Conclusion: Comparison of the two cases shows that current trends in the evolution of accreditation threaten the very purpose of the accreditation process.

We evaluated the effect of an intervention on call centre nurses' knowledge of decision support and skills in coaching callers facing value-sensitive health decisions. Forty-one registered nurses at a health call centre were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. The intervention was a coaching protocol, online tutorial, skills building workshop and performance feedback. The main outcome measures were: knowledge test; blinded quality assessment of coaching skills during simulated calls and call duration. Compared with controls, nurses in the intervention group had better knowledge (74 versus 60%, P = 0.007) and decision coaching skills (81 versus 44%, P < 0.001), particularly in assessing decisional needs (information, values clarity, support, stage and timing of decision) and addressing support issues. Call duration did not differ (18.5 versus 16.7 min, P = 0.73). The coaching protocol was rated as compatible with nurses' views on decision-making and more advantageous compared with their usual practices. The intervention improved the quality of nurses' decision coaching without affecting call duration.