Patient Engagement in a Large-Scale Change Initiative: "As Safe as Possible, as Soon as Possible".

Patients for Patient Safety Canada (PFPSC) member engagement has evolved from individual stories to having 27 patients and family members actively participating in the National Patient Safety Consortium. PFPSC collaborated with 270 other stakeholders in governance, leadership and action teams to design, implement and evaluate the National Patient Safety Consortium and Integrated Patient Safety Action Plan. There were several key outputs, including a patient engagement guide. This article illustrates how patients were meaningfully engaged in a large-scale change initiative, highlighting the experiences of the patient partners and organizational partners in this transformational change.

The health care system is making 'too much noise' to provide family-centred care in neonatal intensive care units: Perspectives of health care providers and hospital administrators.

AIM: To describe the perspectives of health care providers and hospital administrators on their experiences of providing care for infants in Level II neonatal intensive care units and their families. RESEARCH METHODS: We conducted 36 qualitative interviews with neonatal health care providers and hospital administrators and analysed data using a descriptive interpretive approach. SETTING: 10 Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Units in a single, integrated health care system in one Canadian province. FINDINGS: Three major themes emerged: (1) providing family-centred care, (2) working amidst health care system challenges, and (3) recommending improvements to the health care system. The overarching theme was that the health care system was making 'too much noise' for health care providers and hospital administrators to provide family-centred care in ways that would benefit infants and their families. Recommended improvements included: refining staffing models, enhancing professional development, providing tools to deliver consistent care, recognising parental capacity to be involved in care, strengthening continuity of care, supporting families to be with their infant, and designing family-friendly environments. CONCLUSION: When implementing family-centred care initiatives, health care providers and hospital administrators need to consider the complexity of providing care in Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Units, and recognise that health care system changes may be necessary to optimise implementation.

Exploring Context and the Factors Shaping Team-Based Primary Healthcare Policies in Three Canadian Provinces: A Comparative Analysis.

This paper discusses findings from a high-level scan of the contextual factors and actors that influenced policies on team-based primary healthcare in three Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The team searched diverse sources (e.g., news reports, press releases, discussion papers) for contextual information relevant to primary healthcare teams. We also conducted qualitative interviews with key health system informants from the three provinces. Data from documents and interviews were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. We then wrote narrative summaries highlighting pivotal policy and local system events and the influence of actors and context. Our overall findings highlight the value of reviewing the context, relationships and power dynamics, which come together and create "policy windows" at different points in time. We observed physician-centric policy processes with some recent moves to rebalance power and be inclusive of other actors and perspectives. The context review also highlighted the significant influence of changes in political leadership and prioritization in driving policies on team-based care. While this existed in different degrees in the three provinces, the push and pull of political and professional power dynamics shaped Canadian provincial policies governing team-based care. If we are to move team-based primary healthcare forward in Canada, the provinces need to review the external factors and the complex set of relationships and trade-offs that underscore the policy process.

Advancing team-based primary health care: a comparative analysis of policies in western Canada.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed and compared primary health care (PHC) policies in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan to understand how they inform the design and implementation of team-based primary health care service delivery. The goal was to develop policy imperatives that can advance team-based PHC in Canada. METHODS: We conducted comparative case studies (n = 3). The policy analysis included: Context review: We reviewed relevant information (2007 to 2014) from databases and websites. Policy review and comparative analysis: We compared and contrasted publically available PHC policies. Key informant interviews: Key informants (n = 30) validated narratives prepared from the comparative analysis by offering contextual information on potential policy imperatives. Advisory group and roundtable: An expert advisory group guided this work and a key stakeholder roundtable event guided prioritization of policy imperatives. RESULTS: The concept of team-based PHC varies widely across and within the three provinces. We noted policy gaps related to team configuration, leadership, scope of practice, role clarity and financing of team-based care; few policies speak explicitly to monitoring and evaluation of team-based PHC. We prioritized four policy imperatives: (1) alignment of goals and policies at different system levels; (2) investment of resources for system change; (3) compensation models for all members of the team; and (4) accountability through collaborative practice metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Policies supporting team-based PHC have been slow to emerge, lacking a systematic and coordinated approach. Greater alignment with specific consideration of financing, reimbursement, implementation mechanisms and performance monitoring could accelerate systemic transformation by removing some well-known barriers to team-based care.

Optimizing the interprofessional workforce for centralized intake of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease: case study.

INTRODUCTION: This case study was part of a larger programme of research in Alberta that aims to develop an evidence-based model to optimize centralized intake province-wide to improve access to care. A centralized intake model places all referred patients on waiting lists based on severity and then directs them to the most appropriate provider or service. Our research focused on an in-depth assessment of two well-established models currently in place in Alberta to 1) enhance our understanding of the roles and responsibilities of staff in current intake processes, 2) identify workforce issues and opportunities within the current models, and 3) inform the potential use of alternative providers in the proposed centralized intake model. CASE DESCRIPTION: Our case study included two centralized intake models in Alberta associated with three clinics. One model involved one clinic that focuses on rheumatoid disease. The other model involved two clinics that focus on osteoarthritis. We completed a document review and interviews with managers and staff from both models. Finally, we reviewed the scope of practice regulations for a range of health-care providers to examine their suitability to contribute to the centralized intake process of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: Interview findings from both models suggested a need for an electronic medical record and eReferral system to improve the efficiency of the current process and reduce staff workload. Staff interviewed also spoke of the need to have a permanent musculoskeletal screener available to streamline the intake process for osteoarthritis patients. Both models relied on registered nurses, medical office assistants, and physicians throughout their intake process. Our scope of practice review revealed that several providers have the competencies to screen, assess, and provide case management at different junctures in the centralized intake of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease. CONCLUSIONS: Using a broader range of providers in the centralized intake of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid disease has the potential to improve access and care specifically related to the assessment and management of patients. This may enhance the patient care experience and address current access issues.

Organizational factors influencing inter-professional team functioning in primary care networks.

This study examined organizational factors influencing the functioning of inter-professional teams in select primary care networks (PCNs) in Alberta. Seven PCNs participated, each identifying two teams to be interviewed. The study used an exploratory qualitative approach to collect information from 118 physicians, managers and other clinical and non-clinical staff. Organizational factors affecting these teams included leadership and workplace culture, physical infrastructure, information technology infrastructure, organizational supports and employment models. The authors offer organizational strategies that enhance inter-professional team functioning based on interviewee recommendations and the existing literature. Further research is needed to link the strategies to measureable outcomes.

Incentives for improving human resource outcomes in health care: overview of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of financial and nonfinancial incentives for improving the benefits (recruitment, retention, job satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, intent to leave) of human resource strategies in health care. METHODS: Overview of 33 reviews published from 2000 to 2012 summarized the effectiveness of incentives for improving human resource outcomes in health care (such as job satisfaction, turnover rates, recruitment, and retention) that met the inclusion criteria and were assessed by at least two research members using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews quality assessment tool. Of those, 13 reviews met the quality criteria and were included in the overview. Information was extracted on a description of the review, the incentives considered, and their impact on human resource outcomes. The information on the relationship between incentives and outcomes was assessed and synthesized. RESULTS: While financial compensation is the best-recognized approach within an incentives package, there is evidence that health care practitioners respond positively to incentives linked to the quality of the working environments including opportunities for professional development, improved work life balance, interprofessional collaboration, and professional autonomy. There is less evidence that workload factors such as job demand, restructured staffing models, re-engineered work designs, ward practices, employment status, or staff skill mix have an impact on human resource outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence of effective strategies for improving outcomes is mixed. While financial incentives play a key role in enhancing outcomes, they need to be considered as only one strategy within an incentives package. There is stronger evidence that improving the work place environment and instituting mechanisms for work-life balance need to be part of an overall strategy to improve outcomes for health care practitioners.