Search

Background: Patient and family engagement (PE) in healthcare planning and improvement achieves beneficial outcomes and is widely advocated, but a lack of resources is a critical barrier. Little prior research studied how organizations support engagement specifically in hospitals.Objective: We explored what constitutes hospital capacity for engagement.Methods: We conducted descriptive qualitative interviews and complied with criteria for rigour and reporting in qualitative research. We interviewed patient/family advisors, engagement managers, clinicians and executives at hospitals with high engagement activity, asking them to describe essential resources or processes. We used content analysis and constant comparison to identify themes and corresponding quotes and interpreted findings by mapping themes to two existing frameworks of PE capacity not specific to hospitals.Results: We interviewed 40 patient/family advisors, patient engagement managers, clinicians and corporate executives from nine hospitals (two < 100 beds, four 100 + beds, three teaching). Four over-arching themes about capacity considered essential included resources, training, organizational commitment and staff support. Views were similar across participant and hospital groups. Resources included funding and people dedicated to PE and technology to enable communication and collaboration. Training encompassed initial orientation and project-specific training for patient/family advisors and orientation for new staff and training for existing staff on how to engage with patient/family advisors. Organizational commitment included endorsement from the CEO and Board, commitment from staff and continuous evaluation and improvement. Staff support included words and actions that conveyed value for the role and input of patient/family advisors. The blended, non-hospital-specific framework captured all themes. Hospitals of all types varied in the availability of funding dedicated to PE. In particular, reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and contributions were not provided to patient/family advisors. In addition to skilled engagement managers, the role of clinician or staff champions was viewed as essential.Conclusion: The findings build on prior research that largely focused on PE in individual clinical care or research or in primary care planning and improvement. The findings closely aligned with existing frameworks of organizational capacity for PE not specific to hospital settings, which suggests that hospitals could use the blended framework to plan, evaluate and improve their PE programs. Further research is needed to yield greater insight into how to promote and enable compensation for patient/family advisors and the role of clinician or staff champions in supporting PE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient engagement (PE) in health‐care planning and improvement is a growing practice. We lack evidence‐based guidance for PE, particularly in hospital settings. This study explored how to optimize PE in hospitals. Methods: This study was based on qualitative interviews with individuals in various roles at hospitals with high PE capacity. We asked how patients were engaged, rationale for approaches chosen and solutions for key challenges. We identified themes using content analysis. Results: Participants included 40 patient/family advisors, PE managers, clinicians and executives from 9 hospitals (2 < 100 beds, 4 100 + beds, 3 teaching). Hospitals most frequently employed collaboration (standing committees, project teams), followed by blended approaches (collaboration + consultation), and then consultation (surveys, interviews). Those using collaboration emphasized integrating perspectives into decisions; those using consultation emphasized capturing diverse perspectives. Strategies to support engagement included engaging diverse patients, prioritizing what benefits many, matching patients to projects, training patients and health‐care workers, involving a critical volume of patients, requiring at least one patient for quorum, asking involved patients to review outputs, linking PE with the Board of Directors and championing PE by managers, staff and committee/team chairs. Conclusion: This research generated insight on concrete approaches and strategies that hospitals can use to optimize PE for planning and improvement. On‐going research is needed to understand how to recruit diverse patients and best balance blended consultation/collaboration approaches. Patient or public contribution: Three patient research partners with hospital PE experience informed study objectives and interview questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the proven benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), adherence to programs remains suboptimal. To improve adherence, alternative models of care, such as using home programs (HP), have been recommended. Little information exists, however, about its effect on adherence in real-world settings. Therefore, this study's primary objective was to compare adherence of patients in an HP and traditional on-site program (TP) model of CR. The secondary objective was to compare their clinical and demographic profiles and changes in cardiovascular fitness. We implemented a retrospective review of 200 consecutively enrolled patients who chose either a TP or HP model. Profile data was collected at intake assessment. Adherence, defined as attendance to prescheduled contacts or on-site visits in each respective cohort, served as a primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included completion of program and cardiopulmonary fitness levels at 6 months. We found that the HP cohort had patients who were significantly younger, male (significantly moreso than female), were more geographically removed from the on-site centre, were employed, and (or) had greater cardiopulmonary fitness at initiation. Similar mean attendance ( p = 0.21) and completion rates ( p = 0.22) were seen between models. Both groups attained similar gains in cardiovascular fitness ( p = 0.79). Analysis of adherence shows the HP to be a suitable option for patients who face barriers for TP-CR participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]