Insights on a National Safety Improvement Learning Collaborative: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Background: There is a growing interest in quality improvement collaboratives (QICs), even though less remains known about contextual factors that impact collective and local project implementation. A study was undertaken that used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore the contextual factors impacting the use of this nationwide QIC in Canada. Methods: A deductive or direct qualitative content analysis using CFIR was employed to explore the contextual factors impacting the implementation of a nationwide QIC and participating organizations. Data were used from document analysis and semi-structured interviews with participants from 30 participating healthcare organizations across Canada. Results: A variety of contextual factors emerged, which influenced the uptake of the QICs across different settings, including intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and process factors. This study illustrates how organizations can consider a multi-pronged, theory-driven approach to guide the evaluation of safety and quality improvement efforts. Conclusions: This study provides insights into contextual factors that impact the implementation of local safety projects involved in a larger QIC, which may serve as a template or blueprint for healthcare leaders in their efforts to guide the co-design, implementation and evaluation of safety and quality improvement efforts.

Organizational Learning in the Morbidity and Mortality Conference.

INTRODUCTION: The focus of morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) has shifted to emphasize quality improvement and systems-level care. However, quality improvement initiatives targeting systems-level errors are challenged by learning in M&MCs, which occurs at the individual attendee level and not at the organizational level. Here, we aimed to describe how organizational learning in M&MCs is optimized by particular organizational and team cultures. METHODS: A prospective, multiple-case study design was used. Using purposive sampling, three cases covering different medical/surgical specialties in North America were chosen. Data collection included direct observations of the M&MC, semistructured interviews with key M&MC members, and documentary information. RESULTS: The role of the M&MC in all cases integrated two key concepts: recognition of system-wide trends and learning from error, at an organizational and team level. All cases provided evidence of double-loop learning and used organizational memory strategies to ensure knowledge was retained within the organization. A patient safety culture was linked to the promotion of open communication, fostering learning from adverse events. CONCLUSION: This study describes three cases of systems-oriented M&MCs that reflected elements of organizational learning theory. The M&MC can therefore provide a context for organizational learning, allowing optimal learning from adverse events.

Reconceptualizing Patient Safety Beyond Harm: Insights From a Mixed-Methods Qualitative Inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Although patients' and care partners' perspectives on patient safety can guide health care learning and improvements, this information remains underutilized. Efforts to leverage this valuable data require challenging the narrow focus of safety as the absence of harm. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gain a broader insight into how patients and care partners perceive and experience safety. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach that included a literature review and interviews and focus groups with patients, care partners, and health care providers. An emergent coding schema was developed from triangulation of the 2 data sets. RESULTS: Two core themes-feeling unsafe and feeling safe-emerged that collectively represent a broader view of safety. CONCLUSION: Knowledge from patients and care partners about feeling unsafe and safe needs to inform efforts to mitigate harm and promote safety, well-being, and positive outcomes and experiences.

Building High-Performing Primary Care Systems: After a Decade of Policy Change, Is Canada "Walking the Talk?"

Policy Points Considerable investments have been made to build high-performing primary care systems in Canada. However, little is known about the extent to which change has occurred over the last decade with implementing programs and policies across all 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions. There is significant variation in the degree of implementation of structural features of high-performing primary care systems across Canada. This study provides evidence on the state of primary care reform in Canada and offers insights into the opportunities based on changes that governments elsewhere have made to advance primary care transformation. CONTEXT: Despite significant investments to transform primary care, Canada lags behind its peers in providing timely access to regular doctors or places of care, timely access to care, developing interprofessional teams, and communication across health care settings. This study examines changes over the last decade (2012 to 2021) in policies across 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions that address the structural features of high-performing primary care systems. METHODS: A multiple comparative case study approach was used to explore changes in primary care delivery across 13 Canadian jurisdictions. Each case consisted of (1) qualitative interviews with academics, provincial health care leaders, and health care professionals and (2) a literature review of policies and innovations. Data for each case were thematically analyzed within and across cases, using 12 structural features of high-performing primary care systems to describe each case and assess changes over time. FINDINGS: The most significant changes include adopting electronic medical records, investments in quality improvement training and support, and developing interprofessional teams. Progress was more limited in implementing primary care governance mechanisms, system coordination, patient enrollment, and payment models. The rate of change was slowest for patient engagement, leadership development, performance measurement, research capacity, and systematic evaluation of innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Progress toward building high-performing primary care systems in Canada has been slow and variable, with limited change in the organization and delivery of primary care. Canada's experience can inform innovation internationally by demonstrating how preexisting policy legacies constrain the possibilities for widespread primary care reform, with progress less pronounced in the attributes that impact physician autonomy. To accelerate primary care transformation in Canada and abroad, a national strategy and performance measurement framework is needed based on meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders. This must be accompanied by targeted funding investments and building strong data infrastructure for performance measurement to support rigorous research.

Integrating Implementation Science in a Quality and Patient Safety Improvement Learning Collaborative: Essential Ingredients and Impact.

BACKGROUND: There is a current lack of research exploring the contextual factors of why and how quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) work. To this end, a mixed methods study was undertaken to improve our understanding of what works for whom and in what context among participants in a nationwide Canadian QIC. METHODS: The authors used a mixed methods approach consisting of a written survey and 30-to-45-minute telephone interviews with collaborative team members, coaches, and senior leaders of participating safety improvement project (SIP) organizations to identify the essential elements of an integrated approach involving implementation science/knowledge translation, quality improvement (QI), patient safety, and collaborative learning/networked approach to enhancing safety and quality and building implementation capabilities. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analyzed by three team members using thematic analysis and development of an emergent coding schema. RESULTS: Four themes emerged as the essential elements: (1) integrating implementation science into the QI/patient safety learning collaborative; (2) reinforcing of and opening eyes to implementation science by an expert implementation specialist; (3) valuing the sense making and strategies shared by coaches; and (4) experiencing challenges to implementation amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teams also reported improvements in teamwork and patient outcomes as a result of participating in the QIC. CONCLUSION: This study's findings provide deeper insight into the "essential ingredients" (expert implementation specialist, coaches) grounded in an integrated approach that drew from QI, patient safety, and implementation science. Organizations can use the key learnings on how best to implement quality and safety projects by leveraging the sense making of the expert implementation specialist and coaches in an integrated networked learning approach.

Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework: a qualitative study of implementation through a Canadian learning collaborative.

BACKGROUND: The Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF) aims to move beyond a narrow focus on measurement and past harmful events as the major focus for safety in healthcare organisations. There is limited evidence of MMSF implementation and impact. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine participants' perspectives and experiences to increase understanding of the adaptive work of implementing the MMSF through a learning collaborative programme in diverse healthcare contexts across Canada. METHODS: The Collaborative consisted of 11 teams from seven provinces. We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 36 participants, observations of 5 sites and learning sessions, and collection of documents. RESULTS: Collaborative sessions and coaching allowed participants to explore reliability, sensitivity to operations, anticipation and preparedness, and integration and learning, in addition to past harm, and move beyond a project and measurement oriented safety approach. Participants noted the importance of time dedicated to engaging stakeholders in talk about MMSF concepts and their significance to their settings, prior to moving to implementing the Framework into practice. While participants generally started with a small number of ways of integrating the MMSF into practice such as rounds or huddles, many teams continued to experiment with incorporating the MMSF into a range of practices. Participants reported changes in thinking about safety, discussions and behaviours, which were perceived to impact healthcare processes. However, participants also reported challenges to sharing the Framework broadly and moving beyond its surface implementation, and difficulties with its sustained and widespread use given misalignments with existing quality and safety processes. CONCLUSION: The MMSF requires a dramatic departure from traditional safety strategies that focus on discrete problems and emphasise measurement. MMSF implementation requires extensive discussion, coaching and experimentation. Future implementation should consider engaging local leaders and coaches and an organisation or system approach to enable broader reach and systemic change.

Consensus on how to optimise patient/family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: a Delphi survey.

OBJECTIVE: Patient and family engagement (PE) in health service planning and improvement is widely advocated, yet little prior research offered guidance on how to optimise PE, particularly in hospitals. This study aimed to engage stakeholders in generating evidence-informed consensus on recommendations to optimise PE. DESIGN: We transformed PE processes and resources from prior research into recommendations that populated an online Delphi survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Panellists included 58 persons with PE experience including: 22 patient/family advisors and 36 others (PE managers, clinicians, executives and researchers) in round 1 (100%) and 55 in round 2 (95%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings of importance on a seven-point Likert scale of 48 strategies organised in domains: engagement approaches, strategies to integrate diverse perspectives, facilitators, strategies to champion engagement and hospital capacity for engagement. RESULTS: Of 50 recommendations, 80% or more of panellists prioritised 32 recommendations (27 in round 1, 5 in round 2) across 5 domains: 5 engagement approaches, 4 strategies to identify and integrate diverse patient/family advisor perspectives, 9 strategies to enable meaningful engagement, 9 strategies by which hospitals can champion PE and 5 elements of hospital capacity considered essential for supporting PE. There was high congruence in rating between patient/family advisors and healthcare professionals for all but six recommendations that were highly rated by patient/family advisors but not by others: capturing diverse perspectives, including a critical volume of advisors on committees/teams, prospectively monitoring PE, advocating for government funding of PE, including PE in healthcare worker job descriptions and sharing PE strategies across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-makers (eg, health system policy-makers, hospitals executives and managers) can use these recommendations as a framework by which to plan and operationalise PE, or evaluate and improve PE in their own settings. Ongoing research is needed to monitor the uptake and impact of these recommendations on PE policy and practice.

Striving for high reliability in healthcare: a qualitative study of the implementation of a hospital safety programme.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. OBJECTIVE: This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. METHODS: We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles 'preoccupation with failure', 'reluctance to simplify interpretations' and 'sensitivity to operations', and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles 'commitment to resilience' and 'deference to expertise' and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices.

Shifting paradigms: Developmental milestones for integrated care.

Frameworks for understanding integrated care risk underemphasizing the complexities of the development of integrated care in a local context. The objectives of this article are to (1) present a novel strategy for conceptualizing integrated care as developing through a series of milestones at the organizational level, and (2) present a typology of milestones empirically generated through the analysis of four cases of integrated community-based primary health care (ICBPHC) in Canada and New Zealand. Our paper reports on an analysis of 4 specific organizational case studies within a large dataset generated for an international multiple case study project of exemplar models of ICBPHC. Drawing on earlier analyses of 359 qualitative interviews with patients, caregivers, health care providers, managers, and policymakers, in this article we present a detailed analysis of 28 interviews with managers and leaders of local models of integrated care. We generated a detailed timeline of the development of integrated care as expressed by each participant, and synthesized themes across timelines within each case to identify specific milestone events. We then synthesized across cases to generate the broader milestone categories to which each event belongs. We generated 5 milestone categories containing 12 more specific milestone events. The milestone categories include (1) strategic relational, (2) strategic process change, (3) internal structural, (4) inter-organizational structural, and (5) external milestones. We propose a comprehensive framework of developmental milestones for integrated care. Milestones represent a compelling strategy for conceptualizing the development of integrated care. Practically, policymakers and health care leaders can support the implementation of integrated care by examining the history and context of a given model of care and identifying strategies to achieve milestones that will accelerate integrated care. Further research should document additional milestone events and advance the development of dynamic frameworks for integrated care.

Impacts of patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: qualitative interviews with patient/family advisors and hospital staff.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in hospital planning and improvement is widespread, yet we lack evidence of its impact. We aimed to identify benefits and harms that could be used to assess the impact of hospital PE. METHODS: We interviewed hospital-affiliated persons involved in PE activities using a qualitative descriptive approach and inductive content analysis to derive themes. We interpreted themes by mapping to an existing framework of healthcare performance measures and reported themes with exemplar quotes. RESULTS: Participants included 38 patient/family advisors, PE managers and clinicians from 9 hospitals (2 < 100 beds, 4 100 + beds, 3 teaching). Benefits of PE activities included 9 impacts on the capacity of hospitals. PE activities involved patient/family advisors and clinicians/staff in developing and spreading new PE processes across hospital units or departments, and those involved became more adept and engaged. PE had beneficial effects on hospital structures/resources, clinician staff functions and processes, patient experience and patient outcomes. A total of 14 beneficial impacts of PE were identified across these domains. Few unintended or harmful impacts were identified: overextended patient/family advisors, patient/family advisor turnover and clinician frustration if PE slowed the pace of planning and improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The 23 self reported impacts were captured in a Framework of Impacts of Patient/Family Engagement on Hospital Planning and Improvement, which can be used by decision-makers to assess and allocate resources to hospital PE, and as the basis for ongoing research on the impacts of hospital PE and how to measure it.

Using Case Costing to Evaluate the Potential Impact of a Reintegration Unit on an Acute-Care Hospital's Capacity and Resources.

The Ontario Ministry of Health funded a reintegration unit to transition hospitalized patients who no longer required acute care to alternate level of care (ALC), such as long-term care. In its first year, 102 (3.5%) patients of the hospital's waiting-for-ALC population were transferred, with 37.3% transferred on the day of ALC readiness. The reintegration unit reduced direct hospital costs by $861,000. Using case costing, we modelled optimized scenarios including all transfers on the day of ALC readiness and increased transfers to the reintegration unit; this helped reduce avoided direct costs by $2.3-$5.4 million. Acute-care bed capacity could have increased by 11%. We outline strategies to optimize future performance of the reintegration unit.

The role of hospital characteristics in patient safety: a protocol for a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Substantial expenditures on health care safety programs have been justified by their goal of reducing health care associated-harm (adverse events), but adverse event rates have not changed over the past 4 decades. The objective of this study is to describe hospital-level factors that are relevant to safety in Canadian hospitals and the impact of these factors on hospital adverse events. METHODS: This is a protocol for a national cohort study to describe the association between hospital-level factors and adverse events. We will survey at least 90 (35%) Canadian hospitals to describe 4 safety-relevant domains, chosen based on the literature and expert consultation, namely patient safety culture, safety strategies, staffing, and volume and capacity. We will retrospectively identify hospital adverse events from a national data source. We will evaluate organization-level factors using established scales and a survey, codesigned by the study team and hospital leaders. Hospital leaders, clinical unit leaders and front-line staff will complete the surveys once a year for 3 years, with an anticipated start date of winter 2022. We will use national health administrative data to estimate the rate and type of hospital adverse events corresponding to each 1-year survey period. INTERPRETATION: Analysis of data from this project will describe hospital organizational factors that are relevant to safety and help identify organizational initiatives that improve hospital patient safety. In addition to biyearly reports to the leaders of the participating hospitals, we have a multifaceted and tailored dissemination strategy that includes integrating the knowledge users into the study team to increase the likelihood that our study will lead to improved hospital patient safety.

Organizational capacity for patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: interviews with patient/family advisors, managers and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement (PE) in healthcare planning and improvement achieves beneficial outcomes and is widely advocated, but a lack of resources is a critical barrier. Little prior research studied how organizations support engagement specifically in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: We explored what constitutes hospital capacity for engagement. METHODS: We conducted descriptive qualitative interviews and complied with criteria for rigour and reporting in qualitative research. We interviewed patient/family advisors, engagement managers, clinicians and executives at hospitals with high engagement activity, asking them to describe essential resources or processes. We used content analysis and constant comparison to identify themes and corresponding quotes and interpreted findings by mapping themes to two existing frameworks of PE capacity not specific to hospitals. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 patient/family advisors, patient engagement managers, clinicians and corporate executives from nine hospitals (two < 100 beds, four 100 + beds, three teaching). Four over-arching themes about capacity considered essential included resources, training, organizational commitment and staff support. Views were similar across participant and hospital groups. Resources included funding and people dedicated to PE and technology to enable communication and collaboration. Training encompassed initial orientation and project-specific training for patient/family advisors and orientation for new staff and training for existing staff on how to engage with patient/family advisors. Organizational commitment included endorsement from the CEO and Board, commitment from staff and continuous evaluation and improvement. Staff support included words and actions that conveyed value for the role and input of patient/family advisors. The blended, non-hospital-specific framework captured all themes. Hospitals of all types varied in the availability of funding dedicated to PE. In particular, reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and contributions were not provided to patient/family advisors. In addition to skilled engagement managers, the role of clinician or staff champions was viewed as essential. CONCLUSION: The findings build on prior research that largely focused on PE in individual clinical care or research or in primary care planning and improvement. The findings closely aligned with existing frameworks of organizational capacity for PE not specific to hospital settings, which suggests that hospitals could use the blended framework to plan, evaluate and improve their PE programs. Further research is needed to yield greater insight into how to promote and enable compensation for patient/family advisors and the role of clinician or staff champions in supporting PE.

Implementation of a central-line bundle: a qualitative study of three clinical units.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) bundle effectiveness remains mixed, possibly reflecting implementation challenges and persistent ambiguities in how CLABSIs are counted and bundle adherence measured. In the context of a tertiary pediatric hospital that had reduced CLABSI by 30% as part of an international safety program, we aimed to examine unit-based socio-cultural factors influencing bundle practices and measurement, and how they come to be recognized and attended to by safety leaders over time in an organization-wide bundle implementation effort. METHODS: We used an interpretivist qualitative research approach, based on 74 interviews, approximately 50 h of observations, and documents. Data collection focused on hospital executives and safety leadership, and three clinical units: a medical specialty unit, an intensive care unit, and a surgical unit. We used thematic analysis and constant comparison methods for data analysis. RESULTS: Participants had variable beliefs about the central-line bundle as a quality improvement priority based on their professional roles and experiences and unit setting, which influenced their responses. Nursing leaders were particularly concerned about CLABSI being one of an overwhelming number of QI targets for which they were responsible. Bundle implementation strategies were initially reliant on unit-based nurse education. Over time there was recognition of the need for centralized education and reinforcement tactics. However, these interventions achieved limited impact given the influence of competing unit workflow demands and professional roles, interactions, and routines, which were variably targeted in the safety program. The auditing process, initially a responsibility of units, was performed in different ways based on individuals' approaches to the process. Given concerns about auditing reliability, a centralized approach was implemented, which continued to have its own variability. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings report on a contextualized, dynamic implementation approach that required movement between centralized and unit-based approaches and from a focus on standardization to some recognition of a role for customization. However, some factors related to bundle compliance and measurement remain unaddressed, including harder to change socio-cultural factors likely important to sustainability of the CLABSI reductions and fostering further improvements across a broader safety agenda.

Approaches to optimize patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: Qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in health-care planning and improvement is a growing practice. We lack evidence-based guidance for PE, particularly in hospital settings. This study explored how to optimize PE in hospitals. METHODS: This study was based on qualitative interviews with individuals in various roles at hospitals with high PE capacity. We asked how patients were engaged, rationale for approaches chosen and solutions for key challenges. We identified themes using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 40 patient/family advisors, PE managers, clinicians and executives from 9 hospitals (2 < 100 beds, 4 100 + beds, 3 teaching). Hospitals most frequently employed collaboration (standing committees, project teams), followed by blended approaches (collaboration + consultation), and then consultation (surveys, interviews). Those using collaboration emphasized integrating perspectives into decisions; those using consultation emphasized capturing diverse perspectives. Strategies to support engagement included engaging diverse patients, prioritizing what benefits many, matching patients to projects, training patients and health-care workers, involving a critical volume of patients, requiring at least one patient for quorum, asking involved patients to review outputs, linking PE with the Board of Directors and championing PE by managers, staff and committee/team chairs. CONCLUSION: This research generated insight on concrete approaches and strategies that hospitals can use to optimize PE for planning and improvement. On-going research is needed to understand how to recruit diverse patients and best balance blended consultation/collaboration approaches. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three patient research partners with hospital PE experience informed study objectives and interview questions.

Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health services: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in planning or improving hospital facilities or services is one approach for improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. To provide evidence on hospital capacity needed to support PE, we described the attributes of hospital PE capacity associated with clinical quality measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of general and specialty hospitals based on the Measuring Organizational Readiness for Patient Engagement framework. We derived a PE capacity index measure, and with Multiple Correspondence Analysis, assessed the association of PE capacity with hospital type, and rates of hand-washing, C. difficile infection rates and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Respondents (91, 66.4%) included general: < 100 beds (48.4%), 100+ beds (27.5%), teaching hospitals (11.0%) and specialty (13.2%) hospitals. Most featured PE in multiple clinical and corporate departments. Most employed PE in a range of Planning (design/improve facilities 94.5%, develop strategic plans 87.9%), Evaluation/Quality Improvement (accreditation 91.2%, develop QI plans 90.1%) and Service Delivery activities (develop information/communication aids 92.3%). Hospitals enabled PE with multiple supports (median 12, range 0 to 25), most often: 76.9% strategic plan recognizes PE, 74.7% patient/family advisory council, and 69.2% pool of patient volunteers; and least often: 30.0% PE staff, 26.4% PE funding and 16.5% patient reimbursement or 3.3% compensation. Hospitals employed a range of less (inform, consult) and more (involve, partner) active modes of engagement. Two variables accounted for 29.6% of variance in hospital PE capacity index measure data: number of departments featuring PE and greater use of active engagement modes. PE capacity was not associated with general hospital type or clinical quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with fewer resources can establish favourable PE conditions by deploying PE widely and actively engaging patients. Healthcare policy-makers, hospital executives and PE managers can use these findings to allocate PE resources. Future research should explore how PE modes and methods impact clinical outcomes.

Interprofessional and multiprofessional approaches in quality improvement education.

The imperative for all healthcare professionals to partake in quality improvement (QI) has resulted in the development of QI education programs with participants from different professional backgrounds. However, there is limited empirical and theoretical examination as to why, when and how interprofessional and multiprofessional education occurs in QI and the outcomes of these approaches. This paper reports on a qualitative collective case study of interprofessional and multiprofessional education in three longitudinal QI education programs. We conducted 58 interviews with learners, QI project coaches, program directors and institutional leads and 135 h of observations of in-class education sessions, and collected relevant documents such as course syllabi and handouts. We used an interpretive thematic analysis using a conventional and directed content analysis approach. In the directed content approach, we used sociology of professions theory with particular attention to professional socialization, hierarchies and boundaries in QI, to understand the ways in which individuals' professional backgrounds informed the planning and experiences of the QI education programs. Findings demonstrated that both interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches were being used to achieve different education objectives. While each approach demonstrated positive learning and practice outcomes, tensions related to the different ways in which professional groups are engaging in QI, power dynamics between professional groups, and disconnects between curricula and practice existed. Further conceptual clarity is essential for a more informed discussion about interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches in QI and explicit attention is needed to professional processes and tensions, to optimize the impact of education on practice.

Applying the principles of adaptive leadership to person-centred care for people with complex care needs: Considerations for care providers, patients, caregivers and organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health systems in many countries see person-centred care as a critical component of high-quality care but many struggle to operationalize it in practice. We argue that models such as adaptive leadership can be a critical lever to support person-centred care, particularly for people who have multiple complex care needs. OBJECTIVE: To reflect on two concepts: person-centred care and adaptive leadership and share how adaptive leadership can advance person-centred care at the front-line care delivery level and the organizational level. FINDINGS: The defining feature of adaptive leadership is the separation of technical solutions (ie applying existing knowledge and techniques to problems) from adaptive solutions (ie requiring shifts in how people work together, not just what they do). Addressing adaptive challenges requires identifying key assumptions that may limit motivations for change and the behaviours influenced by these assumptions. Thus, effective care for patients, particularly those with multiple complex care needs, often entails helping care providers and patients to examine their relationships and behaviours not just identifying technical solutions. Addressing adaptive challenges also requires a supportive and enabling organizational context. We provide illustrative examples of how adaptive leadership principles can be applied at both the front line of care and the organization level in advancing person-centred care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing person-centred care at both the clinical and organizational levels requires a growth mindset, a willingness to try (and fail) and try again, comfort in being uncomfortable and a commitment to figure things out, in partnership, in iterative ways. Patients, caregivers, care providers and organizational leaders all need to be adaptive leaders in this endeavour.

Reducing preventable patient transfers from long-term care facilities to emergency departments: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, there were over 60,000 long-term care facility patient transfers to emergency departments (EDs) in 2014, with up to a quarter of them being potentially preventable. Each preventable transfer exposes the patient to transport- and hospital-related complications, contributes to ED crowding, and adds significant costs to the health care system. There have been many proposed and studied interventions aimed at alleviating the issue, but few attempts to assess and evaluate different interventions across institutions. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE for studies describing the impact of interventions aimed at reducing preventable transfers from long-term care facilities to EDs on ED transfer rate. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and completed a quality assessment. A tabular and narrative synthesis was then completed. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included (Cohen's k = 0.68). One was of low quality (Cohen's k = 0.58). Studies were summarized into five themes based on intervention type: Telemedicine, Outreach Teams, Interdisciplinary Care, Integrated Approaches, and Other. Effective interventions reported reductions in ED transfer rates post intervention ranging from 10 to 70%. Interdisciplinary health care teams staffed within long-term care facilities were the most effective interventions. CONCLUSION: There are several promising interventions that have successfully reduced the number of preventable transfers from long-term care facilities to EDs in a variety of health care settings. Widespread implementation of these interventions has the potential to reduce ED crowding in Canada.