Identification and assessment of factors that impact the demand for and supply of dental hygienists amidst an evolving workforce context: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This study involved a scoping review to explore factors influencing dental hygienist demand and supply in high-income countries. METHODS: A six-stage scoping review was conducted with separate search strategies tailored to four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google) plus a targeted scan of dental hygienist organization websites. This yielded 2,117 unique citations, leading to 148 articles included in the review. RESULTS: Nearly half of the articles (47%) focused on the United States, with 11% on Canada. Most articles (91%) were in English, alongside 13 in Korean and one in French. Journal articles comprised 62% of the publications, followed by reports/working papers (11%) and websites (11%). Other types included conference abstracts, policy briefs, and presentation slides. Content-wise, 47% were original research, with analysis articles (14%), commentaries (11%), and reviews (8%) also present. The articles were coded into three main categories: workforce characteristics/projections, factor-specific analyses, and workforce opportunities. The articles on workforce characteristics covered demographic, geographic, and employment aspects of dental hygienists, along with projections for supply and demand using simulation modelling and geospatial analyses. Factor-specific articles investigated the (1) working environment, (2) policy/regulatory/training environment, (3) job/career satisfaction and related human resource issues, and (4) scope of practice. The third key category of articles highlighted opportunities for expanding the workforce through alternative models in different sectors/settings (e.g., public health, primary care, long-term care, hospitals, mobile outreach, and non-clinical roles including research, education and leadership) and for a range of vulnerable or underserved populations (e.g., geriatric and pediatric populations, persons with disabilities, those living in rural/remote areas, Indigenous peoples, and incarcerated people). CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive documentation of the current state of the dental hygienist workforce, compiling factors affecting demand and supply, and highlighting opportunities for the dental hygienist workforce in Canada and other high-income countries. The findings offer a foundation for future research, highlighting the need for more focused and rigorous reviews and underscoring the necessity of high-quality studies to verify the effectiveness of various interventions and policies. This is crucial to address dental hygienist workforce challenges and ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of oral health care delivery.

Health system learning with Indigenous communities: a study protocol for a two-eyed seeing review and multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that Canadian healthcare does not fully meet the health needs of First Nations, Inuit or Métis peoples. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that Indigenous peoples' healthcare needs had to be met by strategies and systems that emerged from Indigenous worldviews and cultures. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also called on health organizations to learn from Indigenous "knowledges" and integrate Indigenous worldviews alongside biomedicine and other western ways of knowing. These calls have not yet been met. Meanwhile, the dynamic of organizational learning from knowledges and evidence within communities is poorly understood-particularly when learning is from communities whose ways of knowing differ from those of the organization. Through an exploration of organizational and health system learning, this study will explore how organizations learn from the Indigenous communities they serve and contribute to (re-)conceptualizing the learning organization and learning health system in a way that privileges Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing. METHODS: This study will employ a two-eyed seeing literature review and embedded multiple case study. The review, based on Indigenous and western approaches to reviewing and synthesizing knowledges, will inform understanding of health system learning from different ways of knowing. The multiple case study will examine learning by three distinct government organizations in Northwest Territories, a jurisdiction in northern Canada, that have roles to support community health and wellness: TlįchÇ« Government, Gwich'in Tribal Council, and Government of Northwest Territories. Case study data will be collected via interviews, talking circles, and document analysis. A steering group, comprising TlįchÇ« and Gwich'in Elders and representatives from each of the three partner organizations, will guide all aspects of the project. DISCUSSION: Examining systems that create health disparities is an imperative for Canadian healthcare. In response, this study will help to identify and understand ways for organizations to learn from and respectfully apply knowledges and evidence held within Indigenous communities so that their health and wellness are supported. In this way, this study will help to guide health organizations in the listening and learning that is required to contribute to reconciliation in healthcare.

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada. METHODS: We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level. RESULTS: We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%-56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%-66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%-30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%-85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%-35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%-71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%-97.3%, n = 9). INTERPRETATION: We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Health Care Professional Association Agency in Preparing for Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Multi-Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has impacted health care systems, including employment, training, education, and professional regulation. It is incumbent on health professional associations to assist their membership in defining and preparing for AI-related change. Health professional associations, or the national groups convened to represent the interests of the members of a profession, play a unique role in establishing the sociocultural, normative, and regulative elements of health care professions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a proposed study of how, when faced with AI as a disruptive technology, health professional associations engage in sensemaking and legitimization of change to support their membership in preparing for future practice. METHODS: An exploratory multi-case study approach will be used. This study will be informed by the normalization process theory (NPT), which suggests behavioral constructs required for complex change, providing a novel lens through which to consider the agency of macrolevel actors in practice change. A total of 4 health professional associations will be studied, each representing an instrumental case and related fields selected for their early consideration of AI technologies. Data collection will consist of key informant interviews, observation of relevant meetings, and document review. Individual and collective sensemaking activities and action toward change will be identified using stakeholder network mapping. A hybrid inductive and deductive model will be used for a concurrent thematic analysis, mapping emergent themes against the NPT framework to assess fit and identify areas of discordance. RESULTS: As of January 2021, we have conducted 17 interviews, with representation across the 4 health professional associations. Of these 17 interviews, 15 (88%) have been transcribed. Document review is underway and complete for one health professional association and nearly complete for another. Observation opportunities have been challenged by competing priorities during COVID-19 and may require revisiting. A linear cross-case analytic approach will be taken to present the data, highlighting both guidance for the implementation of AI and implications for the application of NPT at the macro level. The ability to inform consideration of AI will depend on the degree to which the engaged health professional associations have considered this topic at the time of the study and, hence, what priority it has been assigned within the health professional association and what actions have been taken to consider or prepare for it. The fact that this may differ between health professional associations and practice environments will require consideration throughout the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, this protocol outlines a case study approach to understand how, when faced with AI as a disruptive technology, health professional associations engage in sensemaking and legitimization of change to support their membership in preparing for future practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27340.

Referral and access to heart function clinics: A realist review.

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) clinics are highly effective, yet not optimally utilized. A realist review was performed to identify contexts (eg, health system characteristics, clinic capacity, and siting) and underlying mechanisms (eg, referring provider knowledge of clinics and referral criteria, barriers in disadvantaged patients) that influence utilization (provider referral [ie, of all appropriate and no inappropriate patients] and access [ie, patient attends ≥1 visit]) of HF clinics. METHODS: Following an initial scoping search and field observation in a HF clinic, we developed an initial program theory in conjunction with our expert panel, which included patient partners. Then, a literature search of seven databases was searched from inception to December 2019, including Medline; Grey literature was also searched. Studies of any design or editorials were included; studies regarding access to cardiac rehabilitation, or a single specialist for example, were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, and then full-texts. Relevant data from included articles were used to refine the program theory. RESULTS: A total of 29 papers from five countries (three regions) were included. There was limited information to support or refute many elements of our initial program theory (eg, referring provider knowledge/beliefs, clinic inclusion/exclusion criteria), but refinements were made (eg, specialized care provided in each clinic, lack of patient encouragement). Lack of capacity, geography, and funding arrangements were identified as contextual factors, explaining a range of mechanistic processes, including patient clinical characteristics and social determinants of health as well as clinic characteristics that help to explain inappropriate and low use of HF clinics (outcome). CONCLUSION: Given the burden of HF and benefit of HF clinics, more research is needed to understand, and hence overcome sub-optimal use of HF clinics. In particular, an understanding from the perspective of referring providers is needed.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening.

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Health Policy as a Barrier to First Nations Peoples' Access to Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: First Nations peoples in Ontario are facing increasing rates of cancer and have been found to have poorer survival. Cancer screening is an important strategy to improve cancer outcomes; yet, Indigenous people in Canada are less likely to participate in screening. Ontario has established organized breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs; this paper examines the health policy context that informs these programs for First Nations peoples in the province. METHOD: This paper follows an embedded multiple-case study design, drawing upon a document review to outline the existing policy context and on key informant interviews to explore the aforementioned context from the perspective of stakeholders. RESULTS: Policies created by agencies operating across federal, regional and provincial levels impact First Nations peoples' access to screening. Interviews identified issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, appropriateness of program design for First Nations persons and lack of cultural competency as barriers to participation in screening. CONCLUSION: Federal, provincial and regional policy makers must work in collaboration with First Nations peoples to overcome barriers to cancer screening created and sustained by existing policies.

Interoperable Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchanges: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use. RESULTS: We included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact. CONCLUSIONS: This review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

Inappropriateness of health care in Canada: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. METHODS: We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. DISCUSSION: This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093495.

Public involvement and health research system governance: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Interest in public involvement in health research projects has led to increased attention on the coordination of public involvement through research organisations, networks and whole systems. We draw on previous work using the 'health research system' framework to explore organisational actors and stewardship functions relevant to governance for public involvement. METHODS: To inform efforts in Ontario, Canada, to mobilise public involvement across the provincial health research enterprise, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative descriptive study of efforts in two jurisdictions (England, United Kingdom, and Alberta, Canada) where there were active policy efforts to support public involvement, alongside jurisdiction-wide efforts to mobilise health research. Focusing on the efforts of public sector organisations with responsibility for funding health research, enabling public involvement, and using research results, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 expert informants and used a qualitative thematic approach to explore how the involvement of publics in health research has been embedded and supported. RESULTS: We identified three sets of common issues in efforts to advance public involvement. First, the initial aim to embed public involvement leveraged efforts to build self-conscious research 'systems', and mobilised policy guidance, direction, investment and infrastructure. Second, efforts to sustain public involvement aimed to deepen involvement activity and tackle diversity limitations, while managing the challenges of influencing research priorities and forging common purpose on the evaluation of public involvement. Finally, public involvement was itself an influential force, with the potential to reinforce - or complicate - the ties that link actors within research systems, and to support - or constrain - the research system's capacity to serve and strengthen health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the two jurisdictions analysed and in the organisation of public involvement within them, the supporters and stewards of public involvement sought to leverage research systems to advance public involvement, anticipated similar opportunities for improvement in involvement processes and identified similar challenges for future involvement activities. This suggests the value of a health research system framework in governance for public involvement, and the importance of public involvement for the success of health research systems and the health systems they aim to serve.

Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework.

BACKGROUND: Growing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance. METHODS: We drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories. RESULTS: We identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents. CONCLUSIONS: A governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.

BACKGROUND: In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles. RESULTS: We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified. INTERPRETATION: Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.

What do we mean when we talk about the Triple Aim? A systematic review of evolving definitions and adaptations of the framework at the health system level.

Notwithstanding important contributions of the Triple Aim, uncritical enthusiasm regarding the implications of the framework may be leading to inconsistent use, particularly when applied at the health system level, which goes beyond the original positioning of the framework as a strategic organizing principle to guide improvement initiatives at the organizational or local community level. We systematically identified uses of the Triple Aim that extended beyond its original intention to focus on uses at the whole health system level, to assess convergence and divergence with the original definition. We also attempted to identify consistencies in the way the Triple Aim was adapted for different contexts and settings. Data sources were indexed databases, web search engines, and international experts. Forty-seven articles were included in the analysis. We found that the definition of the Triple Aim has been subject to important modifications when the framework is used to define goals for whole health care systems or globally. Despite widespread recognition of the name, what constitutes the Triple Aim framework varies. We identified the need to consider the inclusion of at least two additional aims of health care systems - the provider experience of care, and the desire to achieve health equity for populations.

Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: With massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment. APPROACH: Our approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Research relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact - a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable - ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance.

Evaluating investment in quality improvement capacity building: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Leading health systems have invested in substantial quality improvement (QI) capacity building, but little is known about the aggregate effect of these investments at the health system level. We conducted a systematic review to identify key steps and elements that should be considered for system-level evaluations of investment in QI capacity building. METHODS: We searched for evaluations of QI capacity building and evaluations of QI training programmes. We included the most relevant indexed databases in the field and a strategic search of the grey literature. The latter included direct electronic scanning of 85 relevant government and institutional websites internationally. Data were extracted regarding evaluation design and common assessment themes and components. RESULTS: 48 articles met the inclusion criteria. 46 articles described initiative-level non-economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, while 2 studies included economic evaluations of QI capacity building/training, also at the initiative level. No system-level QI capacity building/training evaluations were found. We identified 17 evaluation components that fit within 5 overarching dimensions (characteristics of QI training; characteristics of QI activity; individual capacity; organisational capacity and impact) that should be considered in evaluations of QI capacity building. 8 key steps in return-on-investment (ROI) assessments in QI capacity building were identified: (1) planning-stakeholder perspective; (2) planning-temporal perspective; (3) identifying costs; (4) identifying benefits; (5) identifying intangible benefits that will not be included in the ROI estimation; (6) discerning attribution; (7) ROI calculations; (8) sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on QI capacity building evaluation is limited in the number and scope of studies. Our findings, summarised in a Framework to Guide Evaluations of QI Capacity Building, can be used to start closing this knowledge gap.

How do organisational characteristics influence teamwork and service delivery in lung cancer diagnostic assessment programmes? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic assessment programmes (DAPs) can reduce wait times for cancer diagnosis, but optimal DAP design is unknown. This study explored how organisational characteristics influenced multidisciplinary teamwork and diagnostic service delivery in lung cancer DAPs. DESIGN: A mixed-methods approach integrated data from descriptive qualitative interviews and medical record abstraction at 4 lung cancer DAPs. Findings were analysed with the Integrated Team Effectiveness Model. SETTING: 4 DAPs at 2 teaching and 2 community hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 22 staff were interviewed about organisational characteristics, target service benchmarks, and teamwork processes, determinants and outcomes; 314 medical records were reviewed for actual service benchmarks. RESULTS: Formal, informal and asynchronous team processes enabled service delivery and yielded many perceived benefits at the patient, staff and service levels. However, several DAP characteristics challenged teamwork and service delivery: referral volume/workload, time since launch, days per week of operation, rural-remote population, number and type of full-time/part-time human resources, staff colocation, information systems. As a result, all sites failed to meet target benchmarks (from referral to consultation median 4.0 visits, median wait time 35.0 days). Recommendations included improved information systems, more staff in all specialties, staff colocation and expanded roles for patient navigators. Findings were captured in a conceptual framework of lung cancer DAP teamwork determinants and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several DAP characteristics that could be improved to facilitate teamwork and enhance service delivery, thereby contributing to knowledge of organisational determinants of teamwork and associated outcomes. Findings can be used to update existing DAP guidelines, and by managers to plan or evaluate lung cancer DAPs. Ongoing research is needed to identify ideal roles for navigators, and staffing models tailored to case volumes.

A scoping review of online repositories of quality improvement projects, interventions and initiatives in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) is becoming an important focal point for health systems. There is increasing interest among health system stakeholders to learn from and share experiences on the use of QI methods and approaches in their work. Yet there are few easily accessible, online repositories dedicated to documenting QI activity. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of publicly available, web-based QI repositories to (i) identify current approaches to sharing information on QI practices; (ii) categorise these approaches based on hosting, scope and size, content acquisition and eligibility, content format and search, and evaluation and engagement characteristics; and (iii) review evaluations of the design, usefulness and impact of their online QI practice repositories. The search strategy consisted of traditional database and grey literature searches, as well as expert consultation, with the ultimate aim of identifying and describing QI repositories of practices undertaken in a healthcare context. RESULTS: We identified 13 QI repositories and found substantial variation across the five categories. The QI repositories used different terminology (eg, practices vs case studies) and approaches to content acquisition, and varied in terms of primary areas of focus. All provided some means for organising content according to categories or themes and most provided at least rudimentary keyword search functionality. Notably, none of the QI repositories included evaluations of their impact. DISCUSSION: With growing interest in sharing and spreading best practices and increasing reliance on QI as a key contributor to health system performance, the role of QI repositories is likely to expand. Designing future QI repositories based on knowledge of the range and type of features available is an important starting point for improving their usefulness and impact.

Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration among researchers and research users, or integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, it is not widely practiced and, even when well-resourced, desired impacts may not be achieved. Given that large-scale investment is not the norm, further research is needed to identify how IKT can be optimized. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with researchers and research users (clinicians, managers) in a health care delivery (HCDO) and health care monitoring (HCMO) organization that differed in size and infrastructure, and were IKT-naïve. Basic qualitative description was used. Participants were asked about IKT activities and challenges, and recommendations for optimizing IKT. Data were analysed inductively using constant comparative technique. RESULTS: Forty-three interviews were conducted (28 HCDO, 15 HCMO) with 13 researchers, 8 clinicians, and 22 managers. Little to no IKT took place. Participants articulated similar challenges and recommendations revealing that a considerable number of changes were needed at the organizational, professional and individual levels. Given the IKT-absent state of participating organizations, this research identified a core set of conditions which must be addressed to prepare an environment conducive to IKT. These conditions were compiled into a framework by which organizations can plan for, or evaluate their capacity for IKT. CONCLUSIONS: The IKT capacity framework is relevant for organizations in which there is no current IKT activity. Use of the IKT framework may result in more organizations that are ready to initiate and establish IKT, perhaps ultimately leading to more, and higher-quality collaboration for health system innovation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in other organizations not yet resourced for, or undertaking IKT, and to explore the resource implications and mechanisms for establishing the conditions identified here as essential to preparing for IKT.

The relationship between integrated care and cancer patient experience: A scoping review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Health policy documents underscore the need to develop organizational models to optimize the integration of cancer care pathways around patient needs. Still, there is a lack of clarity about the meaning of integrated care as perceived by patients. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the integration of cancer services and patients' experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a scoping review of the available literature searching PubMed, Embase and Scopus from the earliest date available in each database to February 2013. RESULTS: From 1760 bibliographic records, we identified 30 articles relevant for this analysis. Based on the qualitative conventional content analysis, we defined three integrated care approaches: "individual care provider", "team care providers", "mixed approach", that impact on the following patient experience dimensions: patient satisfaction, quality of life, psychological and physical outcomes, continuity of care and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identifies important aspects of integration from patients' perspective and suggests that policy makers should consider how to best include patients' experience into the patient care pathway. Future perspectives include engaging patients, family members, caregivers and clinicians in an on-going dialogue and have them participate actively in developing, implementing and evaluating policies, services and programmes.