"I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value": Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project's patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.

Evaluating patient engagement in research is often not done or not reported, making it hard to know what engagement strategies work best and when. Here, we provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Innovative Clinical Trial Multi-Year Grant. The project focuses on strategies to reduce two low-value care practices (pre-operative testing in low-risk day surgery and imaging for low back pain). An online survey was sent to project researchers, study staff and patient partners to get their opinions on the patient engagement in the project. Generally, there were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in the project. Both patient partners and research study staff were very willing to be involved with patient engagement in future projects. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. An important part of showing the value of patient partners was working together to design the project and making sure that the patient partners were considered full members of the research team. Areas for improvement included better communication among all team members and earlier training about patient engagement with a focus on patient roles and expectations. The results from this survey will be used to improve the patient engagement in this project but will also help patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.

Beyond guideline knowledge: a theory-based qualitative study of low-value preoperative testing.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely Canada and most major anesthesia and preoperative guidelines recommend against obtaining preoperative tests before low-risk procedures. However, these recommendations alone have not reduced low-value test ordering. In this study, the theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to understand the drivers of preoperative electrocardiogram (ECG) and chest X-ray (CXR) ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgery ('low-value preoperative testing') among anesthesiologists, internal medicine specialists, nurses, and surgeons. METHODS: Using snowball sampling, preoperative clinicians working in a single health system in Canada were recruited for semi-structured interviews about low-value preoperative testing. The interview guide was developed using the TDF to identify the factors that influence preoperative ECG and CXR ordering. Interview content was deductively coded using TDF domains and specific beliefs were identified by grouping similar utterances. Domain relevance was established based on belief statement frequency, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence over preoperative test ordering practices. RESULTS: Sixteen clinicians (7 anesthesiologists, 4 internists, 1 nurse, and 4 surgeons) participated. Eight of the 12 TDF domains were identified as the drivers of preoperative test ordering. While most participants agreed that the guidelines were helpful, they also expressed distrust in the evidence behind them (knowledge). Both a lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the specialties involved in the preoperative process and the ease by which any clinician could order, but not cancel tests, were drivers of low-value preoperative test ordering (social/professional role and identity, social influences, belief about capabilities). Additionally, low-value tests could also be ordered by nurses or the surgeon and may be completed before the anesthesia or internal medicine preoperative assessment appointment (environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities). Finally, while participants agreed that they did not intend to routinely order low-value tests and understood that these would not benefit patient outcomes, they also reported ordering tests to prevent surgery cancellations and problems during surgery (motivation and goals, beliefs about consequences, social influences). CONCLUSIONS: We identified key factors that anesthesiologists, internists, nurses, and surgeons believe influence preoperative test ordering for patients undergoing low-risk surgeries. These beliefs highlight the need to shift away from knowledge-based interventions and focus instead on understanding local drivers of behaviour and target change at the individual, team, and institutional levels.

Co-developing patient and family engagement indicators for health system improvement with healthcare system stakeholders: a consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of patient and family engagement indicators (PFE-Is) for measuring engagement in health system improvement for a Canadian provincial health delivery system through an evidence-based consensus approach. DESIGN: This mixed-method, multiphase project included: (1) identification of existing measures of patient and family engagement through a review of the literature and consultations with a diverse provincial council of patients, caregivers, community members and researchers. The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) was selected; (2) consultations on relevance, acceptability and importance with patient and family advisors, and staff members of Alberta Health Services' Strategic Clinical Networks. This phase included surveys and one-on-one semi-structured interviews aimed to further explore the use of PPEET in this context. Findings from the survey and interviews informed the development of PFE-Is; (3) a Delphi consensus process using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify and refine a core set of PFE-Is. PARTICIPANTS: The consensus panel consisted of patients, family members, community representatives, clinicians, researchers and healthcare leadership. RESULTS: From an initial list of 33 evidence-based PFE-Is identified, the consensus process yielded 18 final indicators. These PFE-Is were grouped into seven themes: communication, comfort to contribute, support needed for engagement, impact and influence of engagement initiative, diversity of perspectives, respectful engagement, and working together indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This group of final patient, family and health system leaders informed indicators can be used to measure and evaluate meaningful engagement in health research and system transformation. The use of these metrics can help to improve the quality of patient and family engagement to drive health research and system transformation.

A co-designed framework to support and sustain patient and family engagement in health-care decision making.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement in health care has emerged as a critical priority. Understanding engagement, from the perspective of the patient and family member, coupled with an awareness of how patient and family members are motivated to be involved, is an important component in increasing the effectiveness of patient engagement initiatives. The purpose of this research was to co-design a patient and family engagement framework. METHODS: Workshops were held to provide additional context to the findings from a survey. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling strategy. Workshop data collected were analysed using a modified constant comparative technique. The core research team participated in a workshop to review the findings from multiple inputs to inform the final framework and participated in a face validity exercise to determine that the components of the framework measured what they were intended to measure. RESULTS: The framework is organized into three phases of engagement: why I got involved; why I continue to be involved; and what I need to strengthen my involvement. The final framework describes seven motivations and 24 statements, arranged by the three phases of engagement. CONCLUSION: The results of this research describe the motivations of patient and family members who are involved with health systems in various roles including as patient advisors. A deeper knowledge of patient and family motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities but will also enable health organizations to gain from the voice and experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing the quality and sustainability of patient and family involvement.

Understanding the motivations of patients: A co-designed project to understand the factors behind patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale transformation depends on effective engagement of diverse stakeholders. With the evolution of the role of the 'patient partner' in health-care decision making, understanding the motivations of these individuals is essential to the success of engagement initiatives. This study reports on motivational factors associated with patient engagement in health care. METHODS: Patient co-investigators and a researcher co-designed and conducted this study. A survey was administered to patients and family members. Key informant interviews and previous research informed the development of the survey tool. The survey data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability. RESULTS: A total of 1449 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 543 completed and 427 partially completed the survey (67% complete rate). The mean age of the respondents was 54 years. The majority of participants were female, well-educated, retired, married and lived in an urban centre. Seven motivational factors explained 65% of the total variance. Analysis of internal consistency revealed acceptable reliability for all items. The seven motivations were as follows: Self-fulfillment, Improving Healthcare, Compensation, Influence, Learning New Things, Conditional and Perks. CONCLUSION: The results of this research describe a sample of patient and family members currently engaged with health systems. We identified seven motivational factors underlying their engagement. A deeper knowledge of volunteer motivations will not only create meaningful engagement opportunities for patients, but also enable health organizations to gain from the experience of these individuals, thereby enhancing quality and sustainability of patient engagement programmes.

Understanding patient engagement in health system decision-making: a co-designed scoping review.

BACKGROUND: With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members. METHODS: Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.