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.

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.

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.

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.

When can research from one setting be useful in another? Understanding perceptions of the applicability and transferability of research.

Determining whether research findings from one setting are relevant to another is complex and poorly understood. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting whether research from other settings was perceived to be of potential use to those working in or researching maternal health in Ghana. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 69 purposively sampled government decision-makers, researchers and other stakeholders working in maternal health in Ghana in 2008-09. The most influential factors affecting perceptions of applicability/transferability were the study's congruence with interviewees' previous experiences and beliefs. Interventions' adaptability was also considered crucial (and more important than remaining faithful to the original intervention). However, it was frequently considered a distinct stage in the research use process rather than a consideration of applicability/transferability. More attention was paid to the implementability of the intervention in the new setting, than to whether it would be as effective there. Interpretations of intervention descriptions and evaluation findings varied between interviewees, even when the same information was presented. This study is one of the first to explore perceptions of applicability/transferability of public health research among researchers and potential research users in a low-income setting. The findings suggest that existing frameworks of applicability/transferability do not reflect the factors considered to be most important in Ghana.

A multidisciplinary systematic review of the use of diagrams as a means of collecting data from research subjects: application, benefits and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In research, diagrams are most commonly used in the analysis of data and visual presentation of results. However there has been a substantial growth in the use of diagrams in earlier stages of the research process to collect data. Despite this growth, guidance on this technique is often isolated within disciplines. METHODS: A multidisciplinary systematic review was performed, which included 13 traditional healthcare and non-health-focused indexes, non-indexed searches and contacting experts in the field. English-language articles that used diagrams as a data collection tool and reflected on the process were included in the review, with no restriction on publication date. RESULTS: The search identified 2690 documents, of which 80 were included in the final analysis. The choice to use diagrams for data collection is often determined by requirements of the research topic, such as the need to understand research subjects' knowledge or cognitive structure, to overcome cultural and linguistic differences, or to understand highly complex subject matter. How diagrams were used for data collection varied by the degrees of instruction for, and freedom in, diagram creation, the number of diagrams created or edited and the use of diagrams in conjunction with other data collection methods. Depending on how data collection is structured, a variety of options for qualitative and quantitative analysis are available to the researcher. The review identified a number of benefits to using diagrams in data collection, including the ease with which the method can be adapted to complement other data collection methods and its ability to focus discussion. However it is clear that the benefits and challenges of diagramming depend on the nature of its application and the type of diagrams used. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The results of this multidisciplinary systematic review examine the application of diagrams in data collection and the methods for analyzing the unique datasets elicited. Three recommendations are presented. Firstly, the diagrammatic approach should be chosen based on the type of data needed. Secondly, appropriate instructions will depend on the approach chosen. And thirdly, the final results should present examples of original or recreated diagrams. This review also highlighted the need for a standardized terminology of the method and a supporting theoretical framework.

Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. RESULTS: The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood.

Factors affecting the implementation of complex and evolving technologies: multiple case study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Research regarding the decision to adopt and implement technological innovations in radiation oncology is lacking. This is particularly problematic since these technologies are often complex and rapidly evolving, requiring ongoing revisiting of decisions regarding which technologies are the most appropriate to support. Variations in adoption and implementation decisions for new radiation technologies across cancer centres can impact patients' access to appropriate and innovative forms of radiation therapy. This study examines the key steps in the process of adopting and implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in publicly funded cancer centres and identifies facilitating or impeding factors. METHODS: A multiple case study design, utilizing document analysis and key informant interviews was employed. Four cancer centres in Ontario, Canada were selected and interviews were conducted with radiation oncologists, medical physicists, radiation therapists, and senior administrative leaders. RESULTS: Eighteen key informants were interviewed. Overall, three centres made fair to excellent progress in the implementation of IMRT, while one centre achieved only limited implementation as of 2009. Key factors that influenced the extent of IMRT implementation were categorized as: 1) leadership, 2) training, expertise and standardization, 3) collaboration, 4) resources, and 5) resistance to change. CONCLUSION: A framework for the adoption and implementation of complex and evolving technologies is presented. It identifies the key factors that should be addressed by decision-makers at specific stages of the adoption/implementation process.

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.

Interviewee Transcript Review: assessing the impact on qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting errors or inaccuracies and providing clarifications. ITR, in various forms, is widely used among qualitative researchers, however there is limited methodological guidance on how it should be employed and little is known about its actual impact on the transcript, the data, the interviewee or the researcher. METHODS: ITR was incorporated into a qualitative research study in which 51 key informant interviews were conducted with a range of senior stakeholders within the Canadian health care system. The changes made by interviewees to their transcripts were systematically tracked and categorized using a set of mutually exclusive categories. RESULTS: The study found that ITR added little to the accuracy of the transcript and may create complications if the goal of the researcher is to produce a transcript which reflects precisely what was said at the time of the interview. The advantages of ITR are that it allows interviewees the opportunity to edit or clarify information provided in the original interview, with many interviewees providing corrections, clarifications, and in some cases, adding new material to their transcripts. There are also potential disadvantages, such as a bias created by inconsistent data sources or the loss of data when an interviewee chooses to remove valuable material. The impact of ITR on the interviewee may be both positive and negative, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the study. The impact of ITR on the researcher was minimal in this study, but is again subject to specific circumstances of the research context. CONCLUSION: While ITR is employed by many researchers across numerous fields, the advantages of its use may be relatively small in terms of verifying the accuracy of qualitative interview transcripts. Researchers are advised to carefully consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of ITR outlined in this paper before deciding to incorporate the practice within their qualitative study designs.

Access to electronic health records by care setting and provider type: perceptions of cancer care providers in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The use of electronic health records (EHRs) to support the organization and delivery of healthcare is evolving rapidly. However, little is known regarding potential variation in access to EHRs by provider type or care setting. This paper reports on observed variation in the perceptions of access to EHRs by a wide range of cancer care providers covering diverse cancer care settings in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Perspectives were sought regarding EHR access and health record completeness for cancer patients as part of an internet survey of 5663 cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario. Data were analyzed using a multilevel logistic regression model. Provider type, location of work, and access to computer or internet were included as covariates in the model. RESULTS: A total of 1997 of 5663 (35%) valid responses were collected. Focusing on data from cancer care providers (N = 1247), significant variation in EHR access and health record completeness was observed between provider types, location of work, and level of computer access. Providers who worked in community hospitals were half as likely as those who worked in teaching hospitals to have access to their patients' EHRs (OR 0.45 95% CI: 0.24-0.85, p < 0.05) and were six times less likely to have access to other organizations' EHRs (OR 0.15 95% CI: 0.02-1.00, p < 0.05). Compared to surgeons, nurses (OR 3.47 95% CI: 1.80-6.68, p < 0.05), radiation therapists/physicists (OR 7.86 95% CI: 2.54-25.34, p < 0.05), and other clinicians (OR 4.92 95% CI: 2.15-11.27, p < 0.05) were more likely to report good access to their organization's EHRs. CONCLUSION: Variability in access across different provider groups, organization types, and geographic locations illustrates the fragmented nature of EHR adoption in the cancer system. Along with focusing on technological aspects of EHR adoption within organizations, it is essential that there is cross-organizational and cross-provider access to EHRs to ensure patient continuity of care, system efficiency, and high quality care.

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring the attitudes of cancer care providers and administrators.

The multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) provides an outlet for contributors in cancer care collectively to evaluate diagnosis and treatment options and to provide optimal patient care. The prevalence and perceived benefits of MCCs in Canada have not previously been described. Between February and March 2007, the Cancer Services Integration Survey, including four key statements concerning MCCs, was administered to cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario, Canada. A total of 1,769 responses were received with a response rate of 33%. Overall, 74% of respondents were aware of MCCs within their region, but only 58% were either regular MCC participants, or acknowledged participation of cancer providers in their institutions. Using multilevel modeling, physicians (OR 2.69, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.62-4.57) and surgeons (OR 3.00, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.52-6.20) both perceived greater benefit of MCCs for coordinating and improving patient plans than administrators. Although MCCs appear to positively influence patient care and interprofessional interactions, variability exists among cancer providers and administrators concerning their acceptance and perceived benefits. Further research should concentrate on further probing these trends, and exploring explanations and solutions for the inconsistent acceptance of MCCs into routine cancer care.

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.

The efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing diagrams in interviews: an assessment of participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation.

BACKGROUND: This paper focuses on measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of two diagramming methods employed in key informant interviews with clinicians and health care administrators. The two methods are 'participatory diagramming', where the respondent creates a diagram that assists in their communication of answers, and 'graphic elicitation', where a researcher-prepared diagram is used to stimulate data collection. METHODS: These two diagramming methods were applied in key informant interviews and their value in efficiently and effectively gathering data was assessed based on quantitative measures and qualitative observations. RESULTS: Assessment of the two diagramming methods suggests that participatory diagramming is an efficient method for collecting data in graphic form, but may not generate the depth of verbal response that many qualitative researchers seek. In contrast, graphic elicitation was more intuitive, better understood and preferred by most respondents, and often provided more contemplative verbal responses, however this was achieved at the expense of more interview time. CONCLUSION: Diagramming methods are important for eliciting interview data that are often difficult to obtain through traditional verbal exchanges. Subject to the methodological limitations of the study, our findings suggest that while participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation have specific strengths and weaknesses, their combined use can provide complementary information that would not likely occur with the application of only one diagramming method. The methodological insights gained by examining the efficiency and effectiveness of these diagramming methods in our study should be helpful to other researchers considering their incorporation into qualitative research designs.

Response audit of an Internet survey of health care providers and administrators: implications for determination of response rates.

BACKGROUND: Internet survey modalities often compare unfavorably with traditional survey modalities, particularly with respect to response rates. Response to Internet surveys can be affected by the distribution options and response/collection features employed as well as the existence of automated (out-of-office) replies, automated forwarding, server rejection, and organizational or personal spam filters. However, Internet surveys also provide unparalleled opportunities to track study subjects and examine many of the factors influencing the determination of response rates. Tracking data available for Internet surveys provide detailed information and immediate feedback on a significant component of response that other survey modalities cannot match. This paper presents a response audit of a large Internet survey of more than 5000 cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario, Canada. OBJECTIVE: Building upon the CHEcklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), the main objectives of the paper are to (a) assess the impact of a range of factors on the determination of response rates for Internet surveys and (b) recommend steps for improving published descriptions of Internet survey methods. METHODS: We audited the survey response data, analyzing the factors that affected the numerator and denominator in the ultimate determination of response. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to account for the inherent uncertainty associated with the impact of some of the factors on the response rates. RESULTS: The survey was initially sent out to 5636 health care providers and administrators. The determination of the numerator was influenced by duplicate/unattached responses and response completeness. The numerator varied from a maximum of 2031 crude (unadjusted) responses to 1849 unique views, 1769 participants, and 1616 complete responses. The determination of the denominator was influenced by forwarding of the invitation email to unknown individuals, server rejections, automated replies, spam filters, and 'opt out' options. Based on these factors, the denominator varied from a minimum of 5106 to a maximum of 5922. Considering the different assumptions for the numerator and the denominator, the sensitivity analysis resulted in a 12.5% variation in the response rate (from minimum of 27.3% to maximum of 39.8%) with a best estimate of 32.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on how the numerator and denominator are chosen, the resulting response rates can vary widely. The CHERRIES statement was an important advance in identifying key characteristics of Internet surveys that can influence response rates. This response audit suggests the need to further clarify some of these factors when reporting on Internet surveys for health care providers and administrators, particularly when using commercially available Internet survey packages for specified, rather than convenience, samples.

Shifting clinical accountability and the pursuit of quality: aligning clinical and administrative approaches.

This paper presents a narrative review of the literature on clinical accountability, and draws particularly on England's experience establishing "clinical governance" as a base to examine the establishment of a clinical accountability framework for cancer services in Ontario. The review suggests that clinical governance and accountability approaches that actively mesh clinical and administrative approaches at both system and local levels are more likely to be effective in improving quality of care.

Referring patients to nurses: outcomes and evaluation of a nurse flexible sigmoidoscopy training program for colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is a significant health burden. Several screening options exist that can detect colorectal cancer at an early stage, leading to a more favourable prognosis. However, despite years of knowledge on best practice, screening rates are still very low in Canada, particularly in Ontario. The present paper reports on efforts to increase the flexible sigmoidoscopy screening capacity in Ontario by training nurses to perform this traditionally physician-performed procedure. Drawing on American, British and local experience, a professional regulatory framework was established, and training curriculum and assessment criteria were developed. Training was initiated at Princess Margaret Hospital and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario. (During the study, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre was deamalgamated into two separate hospitals: Women's College Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.) Six registered nurses participated in didactic, simulator and practical training. These nurses performed a total of 77 procedures in patients, 23 of whom had polyps detected and biopsied. Eight patients were advised to undergo colonoscopy because they had one or more neoplastic polyps. To date, six of these eight patients have undergone colonoscopy, one patient has moved out of the province and another patient is awaiting the procedure. Classifying the six patients according to the most advanced polyp histology, one patient had a negative colonoscopy (no polyps found), one patient's polyps were hyperplastic, one had a tubular adenoma, two had advanced neoplasia (tubulovillous adenomas) and one had adenocarcinoma. All these lesions were excised completely at colonoscopy. Overall, many difficulties were anticipated and addressed in the development of the training program; ultimately, the project was affected most directly by challenges in encouraging family physicians to refer patients to the program. As health human resource strategies continue to evolve, it is believed that lessons learned from experience make an important contribution to the knowledge of how nontraditional health services can be organized and delivered.

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.

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.