Leaders' Role in Fostering a Just Culture.

Just culture supports learning, encourages transparency and minimizes harm following reported patient safety incidents. Healthcare leaders have a key role in establishing and maintaining a just culture to improve patient safety at the macro, meso and micro levels of the healthcare system. In this paper, we discuss the role of leaders at various levels in the healthcare system in fostering a just culture to support the reporting of and learning from patient safety incidents. Specifically, leadership challenges related to establishing a just culture to improve patient safety are analyzed. In addition, we identify opportunities for healthcare leaders to foster a just culture.

Common tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment: implications for systematic reviewers.

There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.

Supporting Quality Integrated Care for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care: A Learning System Approach.

Background: Quality integrated care, which involves primary care and mental health clinicians working together, can help identify and treat adolescent depression early. We explored systemic barriers to quality integrated care at the provincial level in Ontario, Canada using a learning system approach. Methods: Two Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), regional networks designed to support integrated care, completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) and participated in focus groups. Results: The OHTs had a median PIP score of 69 out of 100. Among the PIP domains, the lowest median score was case identification (50), and the highest one was workspace (100). The focus groups generated 180 statements mapped to the PIP domains. Workflow had the highest number of coded statements (59, 32.8%). Discussion: While the primary care practices included mental health clinicians on-site, the findings highlighted systemic barriers with adhering to the integrated care pathway for adolescent depression. These include limited access to mental health expertise for assessment and diagnosis, long wait times for treatment, and shortages of clinicians trained in evidence-based behavioral therapies. These challenges contributed to the reliance on antidepressants as the first line of treatment due to their accessibility rather than evidence-based guidelines. Conclusion: Primary care practices, within regional networks such as OHTs, can form learning systems to continuously identify the strategies needed to support quality integrated care for adolescent depression based on real-world data.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies.

Systematic reviews of effectiveness offer a rigorous synthesis of the best evidence available regarding the effects of interventions or treatments. Randomized controlled trials are considered the optimal study design for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and are the ideal study design for inclusion in a systematic review of effectiveness. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies may be relied on to provide information on treatment or intervention effectiveness. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity and, consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies; offers practical guidance for its use; provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment; and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes.

Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the occurrence of medication incidents in Canadian community pharmacies.

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, community pharmacies adapted rapidly to broaden and adjust the services they were providing to patients, while coping with severe pressure on supply chains and constrained social interactions. This study investigates whether these events had an impact on the medication incidents reported by pharmacists. Results indicate that Canadian pharmacies were able to sustain such stress while maintaining comparable safety levels. At the same time, it appears that some risk factors that were either ignored or not meaningful in the past started to be reported, suggesting that community pharmacists are now aware of a larger set of contributing factors that can lead to medication incidents, notably for medication incidents that can lead to harm.

The benefits and opportunities: Engaging patients in identifying and reporting patient safety incidents.

There is growing recognition that patients can and should be engaged in the identification of patient safety incidents arising during their experiences across health systems. In this article, we describe the benefits that can be harnessed from engaging patients in reporting patient safety incidents; identify opportunities to support patient engagement in reporting and learning from patient safety incidents; and describe the potential role of health leaders in connecting patient experience and patient safety using patient-reported patient safety incident data.

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews.

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials.

JBI recently began the process of updating and revising its suite of critical appraisal tools to ensure that these tools remain compatible with recent developments within risk of bias science. Following a rigorous development process led by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, this paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. This paper also presents practical guidance on how the questions of this tool are to be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers, while providing topical examples. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field.

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews.

A key step in the systematic review process is the assessment of the methodological quality (or risk of bias) of the included studies. At JBI, we have developed several tools to assist with this evaluation. As evidence synthesis methods continue to evolve, it has been necessary to revise and reflect on JBI's current approach to critical appraisal and to plan a strategy for the future. In this first paper of a series focusing on risk of bias assessment, we introduce our vision for risk of bias assessment for JBI. In future papers in this series, the methodological approach taken for this revision process will be discussed, along with the revised tools and guidance for using these tools.

Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process.

JBI offers a suite of critical appraisal instruments that are freely available to systematic reviewers and researchers investigating the methodological limitations of primary research studies. The JBI instruments are designed to be study-specific and are presented as questions in a checklist. The JBI instruments have existed in a checklist-style format for approximately 20 years; however, as the field of research synthesis expands, many of the tools offered by JBI have become outdated. The JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative studies (eg, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies) must be updated to reflect the current methodologies in this field. Cognizant of this and the recent developments in risk-of-bias science, the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group was tasked with updating the current quantitative critical appraisal instruments. This paper details the methods and rationale that the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group followed when updating the JBI critical appraisal instruments for quantitative study designs. We detail the key changes made to the tools and highlight how these changes reflect current methodological developments in this field.

Achieving Quality Integrated Care for Adolescent Depression: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: While primary care is often the first point of contact for adolescents with depression, more than half of depressed adolescents are either untreated or undertreated. A scoping review had been completed to summarize approaches for achieving quality integrated care in primary care focused on adolescent depression. METHODS: The scoping review followed the methodological framework for scoping studies from Arksey and O'Malley. Articles were grouped into themes and mapped to 6 quality domains for integrated care from the practice integration profile survey and 3 levels of stakeholders based on WHO's definition for health systems (patient/family, primary care team, and national/sub-national health system). RESULTS: A total of 868 records were screened resulting in 22 articles at the patient/family-level (5/22), the primary care team-level (18/22), and the national/sub-national health system-level (16/22). The results highlighted multilevel approaches to support the delivery of quality integrated care for adolescent depression in primary care: (1) population-focused using patient registries, routine screening based on standardized algorithms, and patient-centered strategies, (2) team-driven where primary care clinicians collaborate with mental health clinicians as part of a primary care team, (3) evidence-based delivery of mental health services across the integrated care pathway from screening to follow-up visits, and (4) measurement-guided by leveraging the electronic health record infrastructure to learn from patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: More research is needed on how to provide quality integrated care for adolescent depression, specifically on patient engagement and retention, grounded in the frontline experiences of patients, families, and clinicians and supported by national and/or sub-national guidelines. A learning system could help integrate mental health services in primary care in a way that is consistent across the national and/or sub-national health system.

Building Research Capacity in Nursing Academia in 2020: Is the Road Less Perilous?

BACKGROUND: Building research capacity in nursing academic units continues to be a challenge. There are a number of external contextual factors and internal factors that influence individual faculty as well as the collective to engage successfully in research. PURPOSE: The overall aim of this opinion article is to provide an overview of the current external and internal, processes and structures, relevant to capacity of nursing faculty to engage in research. METHODS: To inform the external context, we reviewed national research funding trends for nursing. To inform the internal context, we provided an exemplar of the internal processes and structures designed to support research capacity building within our academic unit. RESULTS: Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding trends for research grants led by nurse principal applicants increased between 2010 and 2013, followed by a steady decline. In 2017 to 2018, there were only 24 research grants led by nurse principal applicants. These external challenges coupled with the traditional internal barriers, such as the imbalance between teaching and research time, threaten research capacity for nursing academics. CONCLUSION: Organizational strategies to promote research capacity within academic nursing units are a necessary requirement to move forward.

A population-based study of prescribing trends in a potentially vulnerable paediatric population from 1999 to 2012.

OBJECTIVES: There is a limited understanding of paediatric medication prescribing trends and patterns, thus poorly positioning decision-makers to identify quality and safety concerns related to medication use. The objective of this study was to determine overall medication prescribing trends and patterns among children receiving Ontario Drug Benefits over a thirteen-year period in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Administrative health databases housed within the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Ontario, Canada, were used to identify outpatient prescriptions dispensed from 1999 to 2012 through a publicly funded programme to children ≤18 years of age. Medications were classified according to the American Hospital Formulary Service Pharmacologic-Therapeutic Classification system. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize prescribing patterns. KEY FINDINGS: This study identified 457 037 children who were dispensed a new prescription between 1999 and 2012. About 56% received their first prescription before 6.5 years of age, and 85% of the children in this study were from families who received social assistance. The most commonly prescribed drugs were antiinfectives (56.1%). Prescriptions for several central nervous system agents, including antipsychotics and agents for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, increased across the study period. Changes in prescribing patterns within opioids, hormones and autonomic agents were noted. The results suggest that historically, prescribing trends have shifted with public policy, pharmaceutical marketing and diagnostic patterns, thus identifying them as a possible tool to measure the impact of policydriven practice changes. Anti-infective prescribing increased markedly with the global H1N1 pandemic. Pharmaceutical marketing, formulary decisions and diagnostic trends may affect the prescribing of ADHD medications globally. The prescribing of codeine-containing products and medroxyprogesterone appeared to fluctuate in response to important publications in the medical literature, and the use of epinephrine syringes increased after public policy changes in the province of Ontario. The steady rise in the use of medications whose long-term effects in children are unknown, such as antipsychotics and proton pump inhibitors, identifies areas in need of future research. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first overview of Canadian prescribing trends for children, the majority of which are of low socioeconomic status and represent a potentially vulnerable population. Our analysis suggests that future research is required to determine whether prescribing trends could be used as indicators of policy effectiveness, pharmacovigilance and diagnostic trends.

Development and Evaluation of an Epidural Analgesia Workshop for Senior Nursing Students.

BACKGROUND: Most prelicensure nursing students receive little to no training in providing care for patients who receive epidural analgesia, despite exposure in clinical settings and the potential for devastating adverse effects. To develop and pilot an epidural workshop for senior nursing students using standardized patients (SPs), and to evaluate feasibility and learner outcomes. METHOD: A 4-hour epidural workshop consisted of a large group lecture and demonstration, small-group practice scenarios, and individual learner evaluation with SPs. Learning outcomes were evaluated using a performance checklist and critical thinking rubric, and pre- and posttests. RESULTS: Participants scored well on the performance-based evaluation (mean score of 86% items performed correctly) and rated the workshop highly. However, learners and instructors made several recommendations for improving the learning module for future sessions. CONCLUSION: This pilot project demonstrated that an epidural analgesia workshop using SPs is feasible and results in positive learning outcomes and high satisfaction with senior nursing students. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(6):359-365.].

Medication Knowledge Among Older Adults Admitted to Home Care in Ontario During 2012-2013.

BACKGROUND: Medication use among Canadian seniors is widespread and increases with the number of comorbidities. Limited evidence exists on medication knowledge among seniors, especially in home care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to describe medication knowledge and ability to take medication among seniors admitted to home care in Ontario. RESULTS: Ten percent had little or no knowledge of what medication to take (n = 1,389/14,004) or an understanding of the purpose of their medications (n = 1,396/14,004). Increasing numbers of medications prescribed was associated with decreased knowledge of medications. The strongest predictor of limited knowledge and ability to take medication was dementia (odds ratio > 5.0). DISCUSSION: Among Ontario seniors living at home, knowledge about medications decreases as the number of medications increases. Therefore, this group may be at high risk of medication errors. CONCLUSION: Better systems are required to allow healthcare professionals to review with patients, any medications with patients and caregivers, to assist in addressing the decreased knowledge of medications. Such a system would provide the capacity to target those individuals at high risk for a medication error, as well as the medications and drug-drug interactions that seem most likely to be harmful among older adults.