Bridging the gap to meet complex needs: an intersectoral action well supported by appropriate policies and governance.

Many people face problems about physical, mental, and social dimensions of health, and may have complex needs. They often experience a mismatch between their needs and the ability of the healthcare system to meet them, resulting in under- or overutilization of the healthcare system. On one hand, improving access to community-based primary healthcare for hard-to-reach populations should bring all healthcare and social services to one point of contact, near the community. On the other hand, better addressing the unmet needs of people who overuse healthcare services calls for integrated care among providers across all settings and sectors. In either case, intersectoral action between healthcare and social professionals and resources remains central to bringing care closer to the people and the community, enhancing equitable access, and improving health status. However, efforts to implement integrated care are unevenly weighted toward clinical and professional strategies (micro level), which could jeopardize our ability to implement and sustain integrated care. The development of appropriate policies and governance mechanisms (macro level) is essential to break down silos, promote a coherent intersectoral action, and improve health equity.

Comparing the implementation of advanced access strategies among primary health care providers.

The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (p = .001) and nurses (p < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (p = .015) and nurses (p < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (p < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (p = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (p = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (p <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.

The experience of pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability of prenatal primary nursing care: a descriptive interpretative qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal primary nursing care contributes to improving the health outcomes of mothers and unborn babies. Some pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability experience prenatal nursing care in a positive way, while some do not. A better understanding of factors influencing this experience could help improve prenatal nursing care. The aim of this study was to describe factors influencing the prenatal primary nursing care experience of pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability. METHODS: Thorne's qualitative interpretative descriptive approach was used. Twenty-four pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability were recruited in local community service centers in Quebec, Canada, using purposive and snowball samplings, to carry out a semi-structured interview. Participants were 16 years old and over, in their second or third trimester, or had given birth in the previous year, and received prenatal nursing care through community health services. Data collection methods included a logbook, sociodemographic questionnaire and semi-structured interview on vulnerable pregnant women's experience with prenatal primary nursing care. The Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven guided the inductive thematic analysis, following a constant comparative iterative process. RESULTS: The women's experience was initially influenced by the fulfillment of their needs and expectations. These stem from their previous or current pregnancy experiences, their motivation to receive prenatal care, their family concerns as well as their contexts of vulnerability. From the pregnant women's perspective, the main factors that influenced their experience were the nurse's approach, characteristics and interventions that all impact on their relationship with nurses, as well as the prenatal primary care organization, including the modalities of prenatal care (i.e. schedule, setting, duration, number and frequency of meetings), the continuity and the program's prenatal care services, such as referral to a nutritionist, social worker or other services. CONCLUSIONS: A conceptual framework is proposed to describe relationships among the factors distributed in three dimensions that influence the experience of pregnant women in contexts of vulnerability and to guide nurses in the improvement of prenatal primary care. Considering the complexity of this experience, a person-centered approach is mandatory to promote a positive experience, equity and a better use of services.

Patient engagement in health implementation research: A logic model.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme. METHODS: The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in-depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members. RESULTS: The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care. CONCLUSION: The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript.

How is the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our life, mental health, and well-being? Design and preliminary findings of the pan-Canadian longitudinal COHESION study.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person social interactions and opportunities for accessing resources that sustain health and well-being have drastically reduced. We therefore designed the pan-Canadian prospective COVID-19: HEalth and Social Inequities across Neighbourhoods (COHESION) cohort to provide a deeper understanding of how the COVID-19 pandemic context affects mental health and well-being, key determinants of health, and health inequities. METHODS: This paper presents the design of the two-phase COHESION Study, and descriptive results from the first phase conducted between May 2020 and September 2021. During that period, the COHESION research platform collected monthly data linked to COVID-19 such as infection and vaccination status, perceptions and attitudes regarding pandemic-related measures, and information on participants' physical and mental health, well-being, sleep, loneliness, resilience, substances use, living conditions, social interactions, activities, and mobility. RESULTS: The 1,268 people enrolled in the Phase 1 COHESION Study are for the most part from Ontario (47%) and Quebec (33%), aged 48 ± 16 years [mean ± standard deviation (SD)], and mainly women (78%), White (85%), with a university degree (63%), and living in large urban centers (70%). According to the 298 ± 68 (mean ± SD) prospective questionnaires completed each month on average, the first year of follow-up reveals significant temporal variations in standardized indexes of well-being, loneliness, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The COHESION Study will allow identifying trajectories of mental health and well-being while investigating their determinants and how these may vary by subgroup, over time, and across different provinces in Canada, in varying context including the pandemic recovery period. Our findings will contribute valuable insights to the urban health field and inform future public health interventions.

Implementation analysis of a case management intervention for people with complex care needs in primary care: a multiple case study across Canada.

BACKGROUND: Case management is one of the most frequently performed interventions to mitigate the negative effects of high healthcare use on patients, primary care providers and the healthcare system. Reviews have addressed factors influencing case management interventions (CMI) implementation and reported common themes related to the case manager role and activities, collaboration with other primary care providers, CMI training and relationships with the patients. However, the heterogeneity of the settings in which CMI have been implemented may impair the transferability of the findings. Moreover, the underlying factors influencing the first steps of CMI implementation need to be further assessed. This study aimed to evaluate facilitators and barriers of the first implementation steps of a CMI by primary care nurses for people with complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. METHODS: A qualitative multiple case study was conducted including six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. In-depth interviews and focus groups with nurse case managers, health services managers, and other primary care providers were conducted. Field notes also formed part of the data. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was carried out. RESULTS: Leadership of the primary care providers and managers facilitated the first steps of the of CMI implementation, as did the experience and skills of the nurse case managers and capacity development within the teams. The time required to establish CMI was a barrier at the beginning of the CMI implementation. Most nurse case managers expressed apprehension about developing an "individualized services plan" with multiple health professionals and the patient. Clinic team meetings and a nurse case managers community of practice created opportunities to address primary care providers' concerns. Participants generally perceived the CMI as a comprehensive, adaptable, and organized approach to care, providing more resources and support for patients and better coordination in primary care. CONCLUSION: Results of this study will be useful for decision makers, care providers, patients and researchers who are considering the implementation of CMI in primary care. Providing knowledge about first steps of CMI implementation will also help inform policies and best practices.

Integrating case management for patients with complex needs in the ground practice: the importance of context in evaluative designs.

Responding to complex needs calls for integrating care across providers, settings and sectors. Among models to improve integrated care, case management demonstrates a good evidence base of facilitating the appropriate delivery of healthcare services. Since case management is a complex, multi component intervention, with its component parts interacting in a non-linear manner, effectiveness is largely influenced by the context in which the intervention is implemented. This paper discusses how to respond to implementation challenges to evaluating complex interventions for patients with complex needs. Building on the example of case management, we suggest that documenting innovation effectiveness remains important, but that evaluation needs to include theory-based and systems perspectives. We also suggest that implementation science needs to be part of intervention design while engaging stakeholders to define the most relevant research questions and implementation effectiveness, to optimize successful implementation and sustainability.

Association between sustained opioid prescription and frequent emergency department use: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is common among frequent emergency department (ED) users, although factors underlying this association are unclear. This study estimated the association between sustained opioid use and frequent ED use among patients with CNCP. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using a Canadian provincial health insurer database (Régie d'Assurance Maladie du Québec). The database included adults with both ≥1 chronic condition and ≥ 1 ED visit in 2012 or 2013. Inclusion in the study further required a CNCP diagnosis, public drug insurance coverage and 1-year survival after the first ED visit in 2012 or 2013 (index visit). Multivariable logistic regression was used to derive ORs of frequent ED use (≥5 visits in the year following the index visit) subsequent to sustained opioid use (≥60 days opioids prescription within 90 days preceding the index visit), adjusting for important covariables. RESULTS: From 576 688 patients in the database, 58 237 were included in the study. Of these, 4109 (7.1%) had received a sustained opioid prescription and 4735 (8.1%) were frequent ED users in the follow-up year. Sustained opioid use was not associated with frequent ED use in the multivariable model (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19). Novel associated covariables were benzodiazepine prescription (OR: 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30) and polypharmacy (OR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Due to confounding by social and medical vulnerability, patients with CNCP with sustained opioid use appear to have a higher propensity for frequent ED use in unadjusted models. However, sustained opioid use was not associated with frequent ED use in these patients after adjustment.

Implementation analysis of case management interventions for frequent users of healthcare services: A multiple-case study.

Context. Case management interventions (CMIs) are recognized to improve patients' experience of integrated care, to promote better utilization of healthcare resources, and to reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations and health care costs. However, contextual factors influencing implementation of CMIs in primary care settings in Canada still need to be studied. Objective. To examine facilitators and barriers influencing implementation planning, engagement of key actors and the start-up phases of a CMI led by nurse case managers for frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs. Study design. Qualitative multiple case study design. Setting. Six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. Population studied. Frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs. Intervention. A CMI led by nurse case managers that included four main components: 1) patient needs assessment; 2) care planning, including an individual services plan (ISP); 3) coordination of services among health and social services partners; 4) self-management support for patients and families. Methods. Data collection: in-depth interviews with nurse case managers (n=10), clinic managers (n=5), and other healthcare professionals (n=5); six focus groups with family physicians (n=20), and other healthcare professionals (n=8); and field notes by research coordinators. Analysis: Mixed descriptive thematic analysis; intra-case histories; systematic comparison among cases by means of a descriptive and interpretative matrix; investigator and patient partners triangulation. Outcome Measures. Factors influencing the implementation of the CMI in primary care settings. Results. Difficulty of access to patient hospital information is a common barrier to all cases, as well as identification and recruitment of patients with the greatest needs of a CMI. Nurse case managers need extra time in the short term, especially when preparing and conducting the ISP. On the other hand, a culture of patient-centredness and collaboration; managerial and clinical leadership and support; and a positive perception of the CMI alongside provider engagement helps to overcome these barriers. Conclusions. This study may help researchers, decision-makers and clinicians plan the implementation of CMIs in primary care settings for frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs.

Planning, operationalizing, and evaluating patient partners' engagement in primary care research: a logic model.

Context. There is growing evidence supporting patients' engagement (PE) in primary care research to improve the quality, relevance, and uptake of research. However, guidance is still needed to plan and operationalize this engagement during the research process. Objective. To develop a logic model illustrating empirically the causal links between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes of PE in an implementation research program in primary care. Study design. Instrumental case study. Setting. A research program (PriCARE) aiming to implement and evaluate a case management intervention (CMI) in primary care clinics across five provinces in Canada. Population studied. Research team members. Methods. Data collection. Participant observation and in-depth interviews (n=22) conducted by two independent research assistants with research team members: principal investigators (n=5); co-investigators (n=2); research coordinators and assistants (n=8); and patient partners (n=7). Analysis. Deductive thematic analysis using components of the logic model as coding categories. All data were coded using NVivo 12 software. Data were reduced and organized in a first logic model version. Team meetings helped to refine the logic model. The final version was validated by all research team members. Results. The logic model provides an empirical illustration of the relationship between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes for PE. Mobilized resources (human, financial, organizational, and communicational) allow research team members to be involved in many activities related to PE: recruitment, training, and support of patient partners; development of a governance structure; participation in research activities; agreement on decision-making processes; training and support of clinicians; development of tools for patients' involvement in the CMI. These activities lead to the following benefits for health research: improved communication amongst all team members, results and knowledge translation; development of a PE culture; capacity building; democratization of health research; and for healthcare: improved implementation of the intervention; improved patient engagement in their care; better health outcomes and resource utilization; support of decision-makers and clinicians; and better practices. Conclusions. The logic model may be useful for the planning, operationalization and evaluation of PPE in primary care research programs.

Patient engagement works: Patient and researcher experiences of patient partnership in primary healthcare research.

Context: Health researchers are increasingly engaging patients and their families as partners in the research process, from inception to knowledge translation. The trend toward 'patient-oriented' research is encouraged by a growing view that studies which integrate the patient perspective will make better use of resources to produce more relevant evidence that can be more easily translated to clinical settings. While there is an emerging literature on best practices, challenges, and learnings related to patient engagement (PE), few studies consider the experiences of patient partners (PP) and researchers in the same project. This presentation will present PP and researcher experiences of PE, highlighting important similarities and differences and proposing recommendations. Objectives: To characterize PE experience from the perspective of researchers and PP working together on the same research program, PriCARE; to identify successes and challenges; to ascertain contributions of PE in health research. Study Design: Qualitative. Setting or Dataset: This study was conducted within the larger 5-province PriCARE study examining a nurse-led case management intervention for primary care patients with complex needs. Population studied: 22 members of the study team (7 PP, 8 coordinators, 2 co-investigators, 5 principal investigators). Methods: Data collection: In-depth interviews using guides co-created by researchers and PP covering topics such as PE-related training and knowledge, and reflections on PE processes and impact. Research assistants external to the PriCARE study conducted interviews, transcribed researcher interviews, and generated a summary of PP interviews. Analysis: Data were analyzed thematically using a coding framework that was co-developed with PP. Outcome Measures: Researcher and patient experiences of PE, PP contributions to health research. Results: All team members need PE training at the beginning of and throughout the research process. Evolving trust and flexibility helped team members to navigate different experiences and priorities. PP make integral contributions to study and instrument design, data analysis, and knowledge translation. Clear expectations about the degree and nature of PE and team members' roles are critical. Conclusions: Meaningful PE requires patient-researcher partnership and clear expectation setting at the outset and throughout the research process, and ongoing flexibility to adapt.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a group self-management support program versus treatment-as-usual for anxiety disorders: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The integration of a personal recovery-oriented practice in mental health services is an emerging principle in policy planning. Self-management support (SMS) is an intervention promoting recovery that aims at educating patients on the nature of their mental disorder, improving their strategies to manage their day-to-day symptoms, fostering self-efficacy and empowerment, preventing relapse, and promoting well-being. While SMS is well established for chronic physical conditions, there is a lack of evidence to support the implementation of structured SMS programs for common mental disorders, and particularly for anxiety disorders. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of a group-based self-management support program for anxiety disorders as an add-on to treatment-as-usual in community-based care settings. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a pre-treatment, post-treatment (4-month post-randomization), and follow-ups at 8, 12 and 24-months. TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS: a) group self-management support (10 weekly 2.5-h group web-based sessions with 10-15 patients with two trained facilitators); b) treatment-as-usual. Participants will include adults meeting DSM-5 criteria for Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety Disorder, and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The primary outcome measure will be the Beck Anxiety Inventory; secondary outcome measures will comprise self-reported instruments for anxiety and depressive symptoms, recovery, self-management, quality of life, and service utilisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data will be analysed based on intention-to-treat with a mixed effects regression model accounting for between and within-subject variations in the effects of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the limited knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of structured group self-management support for anxiety disorders. It is expected that changes in patients' self-management behaviour will lead to better anxiety management and, consequently, to improved patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05124639 . Prospectively registered 18 November 2021.

Reconciling validity and challenges of patient comfort and understanding: Guidelines to patient-oriented questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely recognized as important tools for achieving a patient-centred approach in health research. While PROMs are subject to several stages of validation during development, even questionnaires with robust psychometric properties may challenge patient comfort and understanding. AIM: Building on the experience of patient engagement in the PriCARE research programme, this paper outlines the team's response to concerns raised by patient partners regarding the administration of the questionnaire. METHODS: Based on a participatory action research design and the patient engagement framework in the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, PriCARE team members worked together to discuss concerns, review the questionnaires and come up with solutions. Data were collected through participant observation of team meetings. RESULTS: This paper demonstrates how patient partners were engaged in PriCARE and integrated into the programme's governance structure, focusing on the challenges that they raised regarding the questionnaires and how these were addressed by PriCARE team members in a six-step approach: (1) Recognizing patient partner concerns, discussing concerns and reframing the challenges; (2) Detailing and sharing evidence of the validity of the questionnaires; (3) Evaluating potential solutions; (4) Searching the literature for guidelines; (5) Creating guidelines; and (6) Sharing and refining guidelines. CONCLUSION: This six-step approach demonstrates how research teams can integrate patient partners as equal members, develop meaningful collaboration through recognition of individual experiences and expertise and ensure that the patient perspective is taken into consideration in research and healthcare innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All patient partners from the PriCARE programme were actively involved in the six-step approach. They were also involved in the preparation of the manuscript.

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. AIM: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. METHODS: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. RESULTS: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. CONCLUSION: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.

Better understanding care transitions of adults with complex health and social care needs: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Adults with chronic conditions who also suffer from mental health comorbidities and/or social vulnerability require services from many providers across different sectors. They may have complex health and social care needs and experience poorer health indicators and high mortality rates while generating considerable costs to the health and social services system. In response, the literature has stressed the need for a collaborative approach amongst providers to facilitate the care transition process. A better understanding of care transitions is the next step towards the improvement of integrated care models. The aim of the study is to better understand care transitions of adults with complex health and social care needs across community, primary care, and hospital settings, combining the experiences of patients and their families, providers, and health managers. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a two-phase mixed methods multiple case study (quantitative and qualitative). We will work with six cases in three Canadian provinces, each case being the actual care transitions across community, primary care, and hospital settings. Adult patients with complex needs will be identified by having visited the emergency department at least three times over the previous 12 months. To ensure they have complex needs, they will be invited to complete INTERMED Self-Assessment and invited to enroll if positive. For the quantitative phase, data will be obtained through questionnaires and multi-level regression analyses will be conducted. For the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be conducted with patients, family members, care providers, and managers, and thematic analysis will be performed. Quantitative and qualitative results will be compared and then merged. DISCUSSION: This study is one of the first to examine care transitions of adults with complex needs by adopting a comprehensive vision of care transitions and bringing together the experiences of patients and family members, providers, and health managers. By using an integrated knowledge translation approach with key knowledge users, the study's findings have the potential to inform the optimization of integrated care, to positively impact the health of adults with complex needs, and reduce the economic burden to the health and social care systems.

COVID-19 - an opportunity to improve access to primary care through organizational innovations? A qualitative multiple case study in Quebec and Nova Scotia (Canada).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 catalyzed a rapid and substantial reorganization of primary care, accelerating the spread of existing strategies and fostering a proliferation of innovations. Access to primary care is an essential component of a healthcare system, particularly during a pandemic. We describe organizational innovations aiming to improve access to primary care and related contextual changes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Nova Scotia. METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study based on 63 semi-structured interviews (n = 33 in Quebec, n = 30 in Nova Scotia) conducted between October 2020 and May 2021 and 71 documents from both jurisdictions. We recruited a diverse range of provincial and regional stakeholders (e.g., policy-makers, decision-makers, family physicians, nurses) involved in reorganizing primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic using purposeful sampling (e.g., based on role, region). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted in NVivo12. Emerging results were discussed by team members to identify salient themes and organized into logic models. RESULTS: We identified and analyzed six organizational innovations. Four of these - centralized public online booking systems, centralized access centers for unattached patients, interim primary care clinics for unattached patients, and a community connector to health and social services for older adults - pre-dated COVID-19 but were accelerated by the pandemic context. The remaining two innovations were created to specifically address pandemic-related needs: COVID-19 hotlines and COVID-dedicated primary healthcare clinics. Innovation spread and proliferation was influenced by several factors, such as a strengthened sense of community amongst providers, decreased patient demand at the beginning of the first wave, renewed policy and provider interest in population-wide access (versus attachment of patients only), suspended performance targets (e.g., continuity ≥80%) in Quebec, modality of care delivery, modified fee codes, and greater regional flexibility to implement tailored innovations. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 accelerated the uptake and creation of organizational innovations to potentially improve access to primary healthcare, removing, at least temporarily, certain longstanding barriers. Many stakeholders believed this reorganization would have positive impacts on access to primary care after the pandemic. Further studies should analyze the effectiveness and sustainability of innovations adapted, developed, and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case Management and Telehealth: A Scoping Review.

Background: Case management (CM) is an intervention adapted to the needs of patients with chronic conditions or complex needs. Factors associated with effectiveness of CM, such as high intervention intensity, can represent challenges to its implementation. Telehealth has the potential to help overcome these challenges, but little work has been done to synthesize available evidence on telehealth CM. The purpose of this scoping review was thus to fill this gap and document which telehealth modalities have been used, summarize perspectives of key users, and discuss evidence on effectiveness of telehealth-delivered CM. Methods: A search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL for articles published between January 2005 and January 2021 was done. Studies in which telehealth was used for patient-case manager interaction and conducted in a population with complex health needs and/or chronic conditions were included. Articles selected for full-text review were independently screened by two reviewers. Data extraction was conducted once and validated by a second reviewer. Results: Of 3,108 articles, 22 were retained for data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Most studies evaluated CM interventions delivered over telephone, yet, literature suggests that face-to-face contact is essential to CM success. Results also indicate that telehealth CM is acceptable and effective, associated with better utilization of health services and favorable clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Lack of research evaluating telehealth CM delivered using modalities other than telephone. Further research should evaluate CM interventions that integrate platforms enabling visual information exchange.

Integrated self-management support provided by primary care nurses to persons with chronic diseases and common mental disorders: a scoping review.

AIM: To map integrated and non-integrated self-management support interventions provided by primary care nurses to persons with chronic diseases and common mental disorders and describe their characteristics. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: In April 2020, we conducted searches in several databases (Academic Research Complete, AMED, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Emcare, HealthSTAR, Proquest Central) using self-management support, nurse, primary care and their related terms. Of the resulting 4241 articles, 30 were included into the analysis. REVIEW METHODS: We used the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care to identify integrated self-management interventions and to analyze the data and the PRISMS taxonomy for the description of interventions. Study selection and data synthesis were performed by the team. Self-management support interventions were considered integrated if they were consistent with the Rainbow model's definition of clinical integration and person-focused care. RESULTS: The 30 selected articles related to 10 self-management support interventions. Among these, five interventions were considered integrated. The delivery of the interventions showed variability. Strategies used were education, problem-solving therapies, action planning, and goal setting. Integrated self-management support intervention characteristics were nurse-person relationship, engagement, and biopsychosocial approach. A framework for integrated self-management was proposed. The main characteristics of the non-integrated self-management support were disease-specific approach, protocol-driven, and lack of adaptability. CONCLUSION: Our review synthesizes integrated and non-integrated self-management support interventions and their characteristics. We propose recommendations to improve its clinical integration. However, further theoretical clarification and qualitative research are needed. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING: Self-management support is an important activity for primary care nurses and persons with chronic diseases and common mental disorders, who are increasingly present in primary care, and require an integrated approach. IMPACT: This review addresses the paucity of details surrounding integrated self-management support for persons with chronic diseases and common mental disorders and provides a framework to better describe its characteristics. The findings could be used to design future research and improve the clinical integration of this activity by nurses.

Les soins primaires face à la COVID-19 : une comparaison Belgique, France, Québec et Suisse.

INTRODUCTION: Facing COVID-19, most of health care system first responded with the confinement of the population and an increase of intensive care resources. Primary care was then mobilized variably and more or less coordinated. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: Comparing the involvement of primary care in four francophone regions with similar primary care to draw lessons for reforms directions in light of the COVID experience. RESULTS: Mobilization of primary care actors was important, heterogeneous and linked to local context and previous dynamics at the territorial level or the practice level except in Quebec where primary care is governed by health authorities. The creation of COVID centers was systematic as "warm practices" in Quebec or left to the initiative of local stakeholders more or less supported by health authorities. Teleconsultation, largely dominated by the use of the telephone, was implemented everywhere, generally supported by flexible and adapted pricing. The performance of diagnostic tests such as vaccination by new professionals within a legal, financial and simple training framework is a major area for improvement. Information systems to assess local needs were insufficient everywhere. CONCLUSION: The definition of primary care governance methods and, in particular, the link between professionals and public health operators in the four areas studied is a priority area for improvement at both local and national levels.

Case Study With a Participatory Approach: Rethinking Pragmatics of Stakeholder Engagement for Implementation Research.

The case study design is particularly useful for implementation analysis of complex health care innovations in primary care that can be influenced by the context of dynamic environments. Case studies may be combined with participatory approaches where academics conduct joint research with nonacademic stakeholders, to foster translation of findings results into practice. The aim of this article is to clarify epistemological and methodological considerations of case studies with a participatory approach. It also aims to propose best practice recommendations when using this case study approach. We distinguish between the participatory case study with full co-construction and co-governance, and the case study with a participatory approach whereby stakeholders are consulted in certain phases of the research. We then compare the epistemological posture of 3 prominent case study methodologists, Yin, Stake, and Merriam, to present the epistemological posture of case studies with a participatory approach. The relevance, applications, and procedures of a case study with a participatory approach methodology are illustrated through a concrete example of a primary care research program (PriCARE). We propose 12 steps for designing and conducting a case study with a participatory approach that may help guide researchers in the implementation analysis of complex health care innovations in primary care.