Decision making in continuing professional development organisations during a crisis.

INTRODUCTION: Early in COVID-19, continuing professional development (CPD) providers quickly made decisions about program content, design, funding and technology. Although experiences during an earlier pandemic cautioned providers to make disaster plans, CPD was not entirely prepared for this event. We sought to better understand how CPD organisations make decisions about CPD strategy and operations during a crisis. METHODS: This is a descriptive qualitative research study of decision making in two organisations: CPD at the University of Toronto (UofT) and the US-based Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME). In March 2021, using purposive and snowball sampling, we invited faculty and staff who held leadership positions to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview focused on the individual's role and organisation, their decision-making process and reflections on how their units had changed because of COVID-19. Transcripts were reviewed, coded and analysed using thematic analysis. We used Mazmanian et al.'s Ecological Framework as a further conceptual tool. RESULTS: We conducted eight interviews from UofT and five from SACME. We identified that decision making during the pandemic occurred over four phases of reactions and impact from COVID-19, including shutdown, pivot, transition and the 'new reality'. The decision-making ability of CPD organisations changed throughout the pandemic, ranging from having little or no independent decision-making ability early on to having considerable control over choosing appropriate pathways forward. Decision making was strongly influenced by the creativity, adaptability and flexibility of the CPD community and the need for social connection. CONCLUSIONS: This adds to literature on the changes CPD organisations faced due to COVID-19, emphasising CPD organisations' adaptability in making decisions. Applying the Ecological Framework further demonstrates the importance of time to decision-making processes and the relational aspect of CPD. To face future crises, CPD will need to embrace creative, flexible and socially connected solutions. Future scholarship could explore an organisation's ability to rapidly adapt to better prepare for future crises.

Sociotechnical imaginaries in academic medicine strategic planning: a document analysis.

Purpose Along with other industries, healthcare is becoming increasingly digitized. Our study explores how the field of academic medicine is preparing for this digital future. Method Active strategic plans available in English were collected from faculties of medicine in Canada (n = 14), departments in medical schools (n = 17), academic health science centres (n = 23) and associated research institutes (n = 5). In total, 59 strategic plans were subjected to a practice-oriented form of document analysis, informed by the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries. Results On the one hand, digital health is discursively treated as a continuation of the academic medicine vision, with expansions of physician competencies and of research institutes contributions. These imaginaries do not necessarily disrupt the field of academic medicine as currently configured. On the other hand, there is a vision of digital health pursuing a robust sociotechnical future with transformative implications for how care is conducted, what forms of knowledge are prioritized, how patients and patienthood will be understood, and how data work will be distributed. This imaginary may destabilize existing distributions of knowledge and power. Conclusions Looking through the lens of sociotechnical imaginaries, this study illuminates strategic plans as framing desirable futures, directing attention towards specific ways of understanding problems of healthcare, and mobilizing the resources to knit together social and technical systems in ways that bring these visions to fruition. There are bound to be tensions as these sociotechnical imaginaries are translated into material realities. Many of those tensions and their attempted resolutions will have direct implications for the expectations of health professional graduates, the nature of clinical learning environments, and future relationships with patients. Sociology of digital health and science and technology studies can provide useful insights to guide leaders in academic medicine shaping these digital futures.

A critical interpretive synthesis of interprofessional education interventions.

Interprofessional practice can look quite different depending on a number of dynamics. Interprofessional education interventions may or may not orient toward this range of practice possibilities. This literature review explores: (1) how interprofessional education interventions relate to different kinds of interprofessional practice and (2) the range of interprofessional practices assumed by interprofessional education interventions. Four databases were searched for articles published between 2011-2021 describing pre-licensure level interprofessional education interventions, resulting in a dataset of 110 articles. Our analysis involved (1) descriptive summaries of the articles, and (2) content analysis of the rationale and description of the intervention. Of the articles, 93% (102/110) of interprofessional education interventions were designed and/or evaluated using the concept of interprofessional education competencies. "Teamwork" was the most relied upon competency. Most articles were not explicit about the different kinds of interprofessional practices that these competencies might be oriented toward. Our study substantiates earlier claims that interprofessional education literature tends to focus on competencies and orient toward undifferentiated understandings of "teamwork." This analysis is particularly important as interprofessional teams are engaging in increasingly complex, fluid, and distributed forms of interprofessional practice that may not be captured in an undifferentiated approach to "teamwork."

Power/knowledge: A sociomaterial perspective on a new accreditation process during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impacts on many aspects of health care and education, including the accreditation of medical education programmes. As a community of international educators, it is important that we study changes that resulted from the pandemic to help us understand educational processes more broadly. As COVID-19 unfolded in Canada, a revised format of undergraduate medical accreditation was implemented, including a shift to virtual site visits, a two-stage visit schedule, a focused approach to reviewing standards and the addition of a field secretary to the visit team. Our case study research aimed to evaluate the sociomaterial implications of these changes in format on the process of accreditation at two schools. METHODS: We interviewed key informants to understand the impacts, strengths and limitations of changes made to the accreditation format. We used an abductive approach to analyse transcripts and applied a sociomaterial lens in looking for interconnections between the material and social changes that were experienced within the accreditation system. RESULTS: Stakeholders within the accreditation system did not anticipate that changes to the accreditation format would have significant impacts on how accreditation functioned or on its overall outcomes. However, key informants described how the revised format of accreditation reconstructed how power was distributed and how knowledge was produced. The revised format contributed to changes in who held power within each of the programmes, within each of the visiting teams and between site members and visiting team members. As power shifted across stakeholders in response to material changes to the accreditation format, key informants described changes in how knowledge was produced. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the most powerful knowledge about any given programme might best be obtained through individualised tools, technologies and voices that are most meaningful to the unique context of each programme. Deliberate attention to how knowledge and power are influenced by the interactions between material and social processes within accreditation may help educators and leaders see the effects of change.

Towards conceptualizing patients as partners in health systems: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as "partner" or "advisor". RESULTS: A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution.

Patients' perspectives on medical students' professionalism: Blind spots and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Research has acknowledged the value of patients as essential stakeholders in medical education, yet educators have not adequately incorporated patients' perspectives into medical students' developing professionalism. Our purpose was to explore patients' perceptions of professional behaviour in medical students as a first step to considering patients' potential roles in assessing professionalism. METHODS: Building on the existing framework of the 'disavowed curriculum', we used a constructivist grounded theory approach to interview and analyse data from 19 patients (11 W, 8 M) at one urban hospital. Each participant watched five video scenarios that depict professionally challenging situations commonly faced by medical students, after which they were asked to put themselves in the position of both the patient and the student depicted in each scenario, and to discuss what they felt would be appropriate or inappropriate behaviours from each perspective. RESULTS: Patients' responses replicated all elements of the disavowed curriculum, including principles of professionalism, the student's affect or internal factors, and potential implications of actions. Their responses reflected avowed, unavowed and disavowed rationales. Participants also identified novel principles, including hide dissension in the ranks, respect privacy, advocate for yourself and have trust in the system. Patients conveyed an understanding of the multiple competing factors students must balance (e.g., providing optimal care while maximising educational opportunities) and appeared to empathise with some of the pressures students face. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to significant blind spots in previous research based on faculty and student perspectives of professionalism. Knowing what patients perceive as important will allow educational and assessment efforts to be refined to reflect their values. Our work begins the process of understanding how best to include patients in the assessment of medical learners.

The impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement in the health system: Results from a Pan-Canadian survey of patient, family and caregiver partners.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on all aspects of the health system. Little is known about how the activities and experiences of patient, family and caregiver partners, as a large group across a variety of settings within the health system, changed due to the substantial health system shifts catalysed by the pandemic. This paper reports on the results of a survey that included questions about this topic. METHODS: Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey in the Fall of 2020. A virtual snowballing approach to recruitment was used. Survey invitations were shared on social media and emailed to health system and governmental organizations with the request that they share the survey with patient partners. This paper focuses on responses to two questions related to patient partner experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The COVID-19 questions were completed by 533 respondents. Over three quarters of respondents (77.9%, n = 415) indicated their patient engagement activities had been impacted by COVID-19. The majority (62.5%, n = 230) experienced at least a temporary or partial reduction in their patient engagement activities. Some respondents did see increases in their patient engagement activities (11.4%, n = 42). Many respondents provided insights into their experience with virtual platforms for engagement (n = 194), most expressed negative or mixed experiences with this shift. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a snapshot of Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on their engagement activities. Understanding how engagement unfolded during a crisis is critical for our future planning if patient engagement is to be fully integrated into the health system. Identifying how patient partners were engaged and not engaged during this time period, as well as the benefits and challenges of virtual engagement opportunities, offers instructive lessons for sustaining patient engagement, including the supports needed to engage with a more diverse set of patient, family and caregiver partners. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners were important members of the Canadian Patient Partner Study research team. They were engaged from the outset, participating in all stages of the research project. Additional patient partners were engaged to develop and pilot test the survey, and all survey respondents were patient, family or caregiver partners. The manuscript is coauthored by two patient partners.

Patient involvement in medical education: To what problem is engagement the solution?

CONTEXT: Patient and public engagement is gaining momentum across many domains of health care, inclusive of education and research. In this framing, engagement is offered as a solution to a myriad of problems. Yet, the way problems and solutions are linked together may be assumed, rather than made explicit. In the absence of clarity, there is a risk that solutions that may have worked in one domain of health care could falter, or even create new problems, in another. METHODS: We use a model from organisational studies as a way to make sense of the relationships between the problems, solutions and stakeholders operating in the name of patient and public engagement in health care. The 'garbage can model' is a playfully phrased but meaningful attempt to decipher the complex world of decision making in organisations. We use this model to guide our framing of the solutions of patient engagement practice and the wide range of problem statements that animate all of this activity. RESULTS: Following a discussion of the complexity of the field of patient engagement, we identify strategies for educators to conceptually weave problem statements, solutions and stakeholders together in mosaics of engagement activity. We further suggest a movement away from considering problems to be solved to thinking about polarities to be navigated. CONCLUSIONS: As patient engagement becomes more embedded in decision-making spaces in health professions education, we need a better understanding of how decisions are actually made in these organisations. We also need to consider that our most treasured solutions may have an uneasy fit, and some unintended consequences, as they enter new domains of health care. Finally, we advocate for critical approaches not just to the solutions of patient engagement, but to understand problem statements as they are defined, upheld and disrupted through all of this work.

Implicit and inferred: on the philosophical positions informing assessment science.

Assessment practices have been increasingly informed by a range of philosophical positions. While generally beneficial, the addition of options can lead to misalignment in the philosophical assumptions associated with different features of assessment (e.g., the nature of constructs and competence, ways of assessing, validation approaches). Such incompatibility can threaten the quality and defensibility of researchers' claims, especially when left implicit. We investigated how authors state and use their philosophical positions when designing and reporting on performance-based assessments (PBA) of intrinsic roles, as well as the (in)compatibility of assumptions across assessment features. Using a representative sample of studies examining PBA of intrinsic roles, we used qualitative content analysis to extract data on how authors enacted their philosophical positions across three key assessment features: (1) construct conceptualizations, (2) assessment activities, and (3) validation methods. We also examined patterns in philosophical positioning across features and studies. In reviewing 32 papers from established peer-reviewed journals, we found (a) authors rarely reported their philosophical positions, meaning underlying assumptions could only be inferred; (b) authors approached features of assessment in variable ways that could be informed by or associated with different philosophical assumptions; (c) we experienced uncertainty in determining (in)compatibility of philosophical assumptions across features. Authors' philosophical positions were often vague or absent in the selected contemporary assessment literature. Leaving such details implicit may lead to misinterpretation by knowledge users wishing to implement, build on, or evaluate the work. As such, assessing claims, quality and defensibility, may increasingly depend more on who is interpreting, rather than what is being interpreted.

Re-envisioning paradigms of education: towards awareness, alignment, and pluralism.

In this article we introduce a synthesis of education "paradigms," adapted from a multi-disciplinary body of literature and tailored to health professions education (HPE). Each paradigm involves a particular perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, and the roles of teachers and learners in the learning process. We aim to foster awareness of how these different paradigms look in practice and to illustrate the importance of alignment between teaching, learning and assessment practices with paradigmatic values and assumptions. Finally, we advocate for a pluralistic approach that purposefully and meaningfully integrates paradigms of education, enhancing our ability to drive quality in HPE.

Translating outcome frameworks to assessment programmes: Implications for validity.

OBJECTIVES: Competency-based medical education (CBME) requires that educators structure assessment of clinical competence using outcome frameworks. Although these frameworks may serve some outcomes well (e.g. represent eventual practice), translating these into workplace-based assessment plans may undermine validity and, therefore, trustworthiness of assessment decisions due to a number of competing factors that may not always be visible or their impact knowable. Explored here is the translation process from outcome framework to formative and summative assessment plans in postgraduate medical education (PGME) in three Canadian universities. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with leaders of PGME programmes involved in assessment and/or CBME implementation, with a focus on their assessment-based translational activities and evaluation strategies. Interviews were informed by Callon's theory of translation. Our analytical strategy involved directed content analysis, allowing us to be guided by Kane's validity framework, whilst still participating in open coding and analytical memo taking. We then engaged in axial coding to systematically explore themes across the dataset, various situations and our conceptual framework. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted involving 15 specialties across three universities. Our results suggest: (i) using outcomes frameworks for assessment is necessary for good assessment but are also viewed as incomplete constructs; (ii) there are a number of social and practical negotiations with competing factors that displace validity as a core influencer in assessment planning, including implementation, accreditation and technology; and (iii) validity exists as threatened, uncertain and assumed due to a number of unchecked assumptions and reliance on surrogates. CONCLUSIONS: Translational processes in CBME involve negotiating with numerous influencing actors and institutions that, from an assessment perspective, provide challenges for assessment scientists, institutions and educators to contend with. These processes are challenging validity as a core element of assessment designs. Educators must reconcile these influences when preparing for or structuring validity arguments.

Problematizing assumptions about interdisciplinary research: implications for health professions education research.

This article critically examines three assumptions underlying recent efforts to advance interdisciplinary research-defined in this article as communication and collaboration between researchers across academic disciplines (e.g. Sociology, Psychology, Biology)-and examines these assumptions' implications for health professions education research (HPER). These assumptions are: (1) disciplines are silos that inhibit the free flowing of knowledge across fields and stifle innovative thinking; (2) interdisciplinary research generates a better understanding of the world as it brings together researchers from various fields of expertise capable of tackling complex problems; and (3) interdisciplinary research reduces fragmentation across groups of researchers by eliminating boundaries. These assumptions are among the new beliefs shaping the contemporary academic arena; they orient academics' and university administrators' decisions toward expanding interdisciplinary research and training, but without solid empirical evidence. This article argues that the field of HPER has largely adopted the premises of interdisciplinary research but has not yet debated the potential effects of organizing around these premises. The authors hope to inspire members of the HPER community to critically examine the ubiquitous discourse promoting interdisciplinarity, and engage in reflection about the future of the field informed by evidence rather than by unsubstantiated assumptions. For example: Should research centres and graduate programs in HPER encourage the development of interdisciplinary or disciplinary-trained researchers? Should training predominantly focus on methods and methodologies or draw more on disciplinary-based knowledge? What is the best route toward increasing the field's profile within academia and attracting the best students and researchers to engage in HPER? These are questions that merit attention at the current juncture as the future of the HPER field relies on decisions made in the present time.

Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality.

The medical education (Med Ed) research community characterises itself as drawing on the insights, methods, and knowledge from multiple disciplines and research domains (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Education, Humanities, Psychology). This common view of Med Ed research is echoed and reinforced by the narrative used by leading Med Ed departments and research centres to describe their activities as "interdisciplinary." Bibliometrics offers an effective method of investigating scholarly communication to determine what knowledge is valued, recognized, and utilized. By empirically examining whether knowledge production in Med Ed research draws from multiple disciplines and research areas, or whether it primarily draws on the knowledge generated internally within the field of Med Ed, this article explores whether the characterisation of Med Ed research as interdisciplinary is substantiated. A citation analysis of 1412 references from research articles published in 2017 in the top five Med Ed journals was undertaken. A typology of six knowledge clusters was inductively developed. Findings show that the field of Med Ed research draws predominantly from two knowledge clusters: the Applied Health Research cluster (made of clinical and health services research), which represents 41% of the references, and the Med Ed research cluster, which represents 40% of the references. These two clusters cover 81% of all references in our sample, leaving 19% distributed among the other knowledge clusters (i.e., Education, disciplinary, interdisciplinary and topic centered research). The quasi-hegemonic position held by the Applied Health and Med Ed research clusters confines the other sources of knowledge to a peripheral role within the Med Ed research field. Our findings suggest that the assumption that Med Ed research is an interdisciplinary field is not convincingly supported by empirical data and that the knowledge entering Med Ed comes mostly from the health research domain.

When logics of learning conflict: an analysis of two workplace-based continuing education programs.

Educators, practitioners, and policy makers are calling for stronger connections between continuing education (CE) for professionals and the concerns of workplaces where these professionals work. This call for greater alignment is not unique to the health professions. Researchers within the field of higher education have long wrestled with the complexities of aligning professional learning and workplace concerns. In this study, we extend this critical line of inquiry to explore the possible conceptual intersections between two CE programs acting within a single healthcare organization. Both programs are concerned with improving patient care, primarily by changing the ways professionals think and talk with one another. However, the two programs have different historical origins: one in a workplace, the other within a university setting. Introducing the concept of "modes of ordering" as a way to analyze the curricula, we argue the programs are operating through separate logics of learning. We label these two modes of ordering: (1) learning as standardization and (2) learning as identification. Through our discussion, we explore how these different modes demand different roles for educators and participants. Ultimately, we argue that both have value. However, we also argue that educators require conceptual tools to sensitize them to the possibility of competing logics of learning and the subsequent implications for their practice as educators. In conclusion, we offer the metaphor of CE educator as choreographer, connecting concepts and practices within these logics in productive ways while continually navigating the various learning imperatives acting on professionals at any given time.

Patient involvement in health professionals' education: a meta-narrative review.

More than 100 years ago, Osler inspired educators to consider health professions education (HPE) as intricately reliant on patients. Since that time, patient involvement in HPE has taken on many different meanings. The result is a disparate body of literature that is challenging to search, making it difficult to determine how to continue to build knowledge in the field. To address this problem, we conducted a review of the literature on patient involvement in HPE using a meta-narrative approach. The aim of the review was to synthesize how questions of patient involvement in HPE have been considered across various research traditions and over time. In this paper, we focus on three scholarly communities concerned with various interpretations of patient involvement in HPE-patient as teachers, real patients as standardized patients, and bedside learning. Focus on these three research communities served as a way to draw out various meta-narratives in which patients are thought of in particular ways, specific rationales for involvement are offered, and different research traditions are put to use in the field. Attending to the intersections between these meta-narratives, we focus on the potentially incommensurate ways in which "active" patient engagement is considered within the broader field and the possible implications. We end by reflecting on these tensions and what they might mean for the future of patient involvement, specifically patient involvement as part of future iterations of competency based education.

Implementing a peer-learning approach for the clinical education of respiratory therapy students.

INTRODUCTION: With recent clinical placement demands exceeding supply, the University Health Network (UHN) Respiratory Therapy (RT) department implemented a 2:1 student-to-preceptor model where a focus on peer learning (PL) becomes a key component of program success. PL can be defined as students learning from and with each other in both formal and informal ways. The shift towards facilitative student-directed models in other health care professions can be seen globally with the literature suggesting that 2:1 models not only support increases in student capacity but also improve the student learning experience through PL strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of RT preceptors and students regarding the 2:1 model as an educational strategy in the context of their clinical experience. The study further explored experiences of PL to understand how learning is enabled in RT practice-based education, particularly within 2:1 models. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study using single-episode semi-structured interviews with RT preceptors (n = 10) and students (n = 10) was conducted during the 2015-2016 RT student clinical year. Twelve open-ended interview questions were designed to draw out study participants' PL experiences and exploration of issues using a 2:1 model in the context of their clinical experience. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The content analysis resulted in two broad themes with respect to the RT 2:1 educational model: "enablers" and "barriers" to a PL approach. The 2:1 model was preferred by students and preceptors early on in the clinical training due to the benefits of PL, whereas opportunities to showcase independent practice was preferred towards the end of their clinical year. Furthermore, careful planning, resources, and supports need to be implemented to augment benefits and diminish potential disadvantages of using a 2:1 model structure. CONCLUSION: Participants felt that a 2:1 model strongly contributes to a supportive learning environment and can have a positive influence on the RT student clinical experience at UHN. Along with the improved critical thinking and student engagement opportunities that a 2:1 model offers, increased placement numbers are also supported.

Beyond vulnerability: how the dual role of patient-health care provider can inform health professions education.

In order to prepare fully competent health care professionals, health professions education must be concerned with the relational space between patients and providers. Compassion and compassionate care are fundamental elements of this relational space. Traditionally, health professions educators and leaders have gone to two narrative sources when attempting to better under constructs of compassion: patients or providers. Rarely have there been explorations of the perspectives of those who consider themselves as both patients and providers. In this study, we interviewed nineteen health care providers who self-disclosed as having had a substantive patient experience in the health care system. We engaged with these participants to better understand their experience of having these dual roles. Anchored in Foucault's concepts of subjectivity and Goffman's symbolic interactionism, the interviews in this study reveal practices of moving between the two roles of patient and provider. Through this exploration, we consider how it is that providers who have been patients understand themselves to be more compassionate whilst in their provider roles. Rather than describing compassion as a learnable behaviour or an innate virtue, we theoretically engage with one proposed mechanism of how compassion is produced. In particular, we highlight the role of critical reflexivity as an underexplored construct in the enactment of compassion. We discuss these findings in light of their implications for health professions education.

Team dynamics within quality improvement teams: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: This scoping review examines what is known about the processes of quality improvement (QI) teams, particularly related to how teams impact outcomes. The aim is to provide research-informed guidance for QI leaders and to inform future research questions. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched included: MedLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SCOPUS. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible publications were written in English, published between 1999 and 2016. Articles were included in the review if they examined processes of the QI team, were related to healthcare QI and were primary research studies. Studies were excluded if they had insufficient detail regarding QI team processes. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive detail extracted included: authors, geographical region and health sector. The Integrated (Health Care) Team Effectiveness Model was used to synthesize findings of studies along domains of team effectiveness: task design, team process, psychosocial traits and organizational context. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Over two stages of searching, 4813 citations were reviewed. Of those, 48 full-text articles are included in the synthesis. This review demonstrates that QI teams are not immune from dysfunction. Further, a dysfunctional QI team is not likely to influence practice. However, a functional QI team alone is unlikely to create change. A positive QI team dynamic may be a necessary but insufficient condition for implementing QI strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Areas for further research include: interactions between QI teams and clinical microsystems, understanding the role of interprofessional representation on QI teams and exploring interactions between QI team task, composition and process.

Patient Roles in Engagement-Capable Environments: Multiple Perspectives.

Engagement-capable environments have well-defined roles for patients. These roles are often described in terms of their functional aspects. In this paper, we provide a complementary way of thinking about patient roles: an interactionist perspective. For interactionists, roles evolve through social interactions and contextual demands that shape how the work is performed. Drawing from a case example at Health Standards Organization (HSO), we demonstrate the need for engagement leaders to attend to functional descriptions of patient roles and their interactive possibilities. Finally, we argue for the connection between multiple patient roles and engagement-capable environments.