Experiences of Financial Stress and Supports in Caregivers During Pediatric Hospital Admission.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Canada and the United States, ∼1 in 5 children live in poverty, contributing to poor health outcomes. Families with children with chronic illness may experience additional financial stress related to hospitalization. This study aimed to capture experiences of financial needs and supports among caregivers with a child admitted to a tertiary care pediatric hospital to inform hospital-based financial services to reduce financial stress in families. METHODS: We recruited caregivers of children admitted to the general inpatient ward of an academic pediatric center using purposive sampling with no exclusion criteria. Individual, semistructured, in-depth interviews with participants were conducted. Data collected included socio-demographics, financial needs, and experiences with financial supports. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed on NVivo software using a modified-grounded theory approach and summative content analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen caregivers of diverse backgrounds were interviewed, including non-English speakers (n = 4). Three themes and associated subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: (1) financial stress expressed by participants (acute admission-related and chronic financial stress), (2) challenges associated with accessing and utilizing financial supports (caregiver factors, systemic hospital factors, and systemic government factors), and (3) ideas for financial services at the pediatric hospital (services that will provide acute- and chronic financial assistance including education about financial supports and benefits). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted acute and chronic financial needs as well as challenges in accessing financial support. Participants were interested in the healthcare system gaining a comprehensive understanding of their financial circumstances and accessing financial services in a hospital setting.

When rules turn into tools: An activity theory-based perspective on implementation processes and unintended consequences.

The idea that actions of people, organizations or governments may lead to Unintended Consequences (UICs) is not new. In health, UICs have been reported as a result of various interventions including quality improvement initiatives, health information technology implementation, and knowledge translation, especially those involving translation of broad policies (evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care) or system level improvement into actionable items or tools. While some unintended consequences cannot be anticipated, others may be predictable. In this article, we present a model based on cultural historical activity theory, which may help policy-makers, health leaders, and researchers better anticipate UICs resulting from implementation of new programs or technologies and take action to address them or mitigate their risk of occurrence. We support this model using examples of UICs of implementing family centred care principles, electronic health records, and computerized templates for quality improvement in chronic disease management.

Acceptability of the Long-Term In-Home Ventilator Engagement virtual intervention for home mechanical ventilation patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative evaluation.

Background: Clinical management of ventilator-assisted individuals (VAIs) was challenged by social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, the Long-Term In-Home Ventilator Engagement (LIVE) Program was launched in Ontario, Canada to provide intensive digital care case management to VAIs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the acceptability of the LIVE Program hosted via a digital platform during the COVID-19 pandemic from diverse perspectives. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study (May 2020-April 2021) comprising semi-structured interviews with participants from eight home ventilation specialty centers in Ontario, Canada. We purposively recruited patients, family caregivers, and providers enrolled in LIVE. Content analysis and the theoretical concepts of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were used to interpret findings. Results: A total of 40 individuals (2 VAIs, 18 family caregivers, 20 healthcare providers) participated. Participants described LIVE as acceptable as it addressed a longstanding imperative to improve care access, ease of use, and training provided; feasible for triaging problems and sharing information; and appropriate for timeliness of provider responses, workflows, and perceived value. Negative perceptions of acceptability among healthcare providers concerned digital workload and fit with existing clinical workflows. Perceived benefits accorded to LIVE included enhanced physical and psychological safety in the home, patient-provider relations, and VAI engagement in their own care. Conclusions: Study findings identify factors influencing the LIVE Program's acceptability by patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers during pandemic conditions including enhanced access to care, ease of case management triage, and VAI safety. Findings may inform the implementation of digital health services to VAIs in non-pandemic circumstances.

#HowNotToDoPatientEngagement: the engaging with purpose patient engagement framework based on a twitter analysis of community perspectives on patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patient engagement practices are frequently researcher-driven, researcher-funded, and asymmetric in power dynamics. Little to no literature on patient experiences in patient engagement exist that is are not framed by institutionally-driven research inquiries (i.e., from the lens of a research team lead, or healthcare administrative setting). Understanding these perspectives can help us understand: (i)what matters to patients when they are engaged in research; (ii)why it matters to them, and(iii) how to improve patient engagement practices, so that the needs and priorities of patients are consistently met. METHODS: This is a patient partner-initiated study. Study authors (including patient partners) conducted a conventional and summative content analysis of textual data retrieved from a highly engaged conversation on Twitter regarding the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement posted between February 2018 to June 2021. Twitter is a microblogging platform that allows for free-flowing discussions between users not pre-bound by specific community groupings (like within that of Facebook). RESULTS: A total of 276 tweets were retrieved from 178 separate contributors across seven geographical locations. Four stakeholder groups were identified. We generated 24 codes, nine subthemes and five overarching themes: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact. Four of these themes are closely aligned with the Strategy for Patient Oriented (SPOR) Patient Engagement framework. We identify impact as a separate and new theme. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings we offer the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework that defines and describes respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact as five key pillars of meaningful patient engagement.

Patient engagement in research is an important aspect of healthcare, but most studies on the topic are driven by researchers and healthcare settings. We wanted to understand patient experiences of patient engagement from the lens of patient partners that occurred outside the traditional norms of evaluating such engagements. To do this, we analyzed data from Twitter, a platform where users freely share their thoughts and opinions. Posts that included the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement were of focus because they resonated with members of the online patient partner community who wanted to improve the current state of patient partnership. We identified 276 tweets from 178 contributors across seven geographic locations. Five themes emerged from the study: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact which led to the development of the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework. This framework highlights respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact as the five essential pillars of meaningful patient engagement in research. By understanding and implementing these pillars, researchers and institutions can improve patient engagement practices and ensure that the needs and priorities of patients are effectively addressed.

Severe Respiratory Disease Among Children With and Without Medical Complexity During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Severe respiratory disease declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, partially due to decreased circulation of respiratory pathogens. However, the outcomes of children with higher risk have not been described using population-based data. Objective: To compare respiratory-related hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and mortality during the pandemic vs prepandemic, among children with medical complexity (CMC) and without medical complexity (non-CMC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based repeated cross-sectional study used Canadian health administrative data of children aged younger than 18 years in community and pediatric hospitals during a pandemic period (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022) compared with a 3-year prepandemic period (April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2020). The pandemic period was analyzed separately for year 1 (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021) and year 2 (April 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022). Statistical analysis was performed from October 2022 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Respiratory-related hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality before and during the pandemic among CMC and non-CMC. Results: A total of 139 078 respiratory hospitalizations (29 461 respiratory hospitalizations for CMC and 109 617 for non-CMC) occurred during the study period. Among CMC, there were fewer respiratory hospitalizations in both 2020 (rate ratio [RR], 0.44 [95% CI, 0.42-0.46]) and 2021 (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.51-0.62]) compared with the prepandemic period. Among non-CMC, there was an even larger relative reduction in respiratory hospitalizations in 2020 (RR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.17-0.19]) and a similar reduction in 2021 (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.54-0.56]), compared with the prepandemic period. Reductions in ICU admissions for respiratory illness followed a similar pattern for CMC (2020: RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.53-0.59]; 2021: RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.63-0.70]) and non-CMC (2020: RR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.20-0.24]; RR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.61-0.69]). In-hospital mortality for these conditions decreased among CMC in both 2020 (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.77]) and 2021 (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.87]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found a substantial decrease in severe respiratory disease resulting in hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality during the first 2 years of the pandemic compared with the 3 prepandemic years. These findings suggest that future evaluations of the effect of public health interventions aimed at reducing circulating respiratory pathogens during nonpandemic periods of increased respiratory illness may be warranted.

Opening the digital front door for individuals using long-term in-home ventilation (LIVE) during a pandemic- implementation, feasibility and acceptability.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented need for virtual healthcare that was safe, acceptable and feasible to deliver. In May 2020, we launched the Long-term In-Home Ventilator Engagement (LIVE) program for ventilator assisted individuals using ventilators hosted on an e-platform in Ontario, Canada. Objectives: To assess the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and usability of the LIVE program reported by patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers (HCP). Design and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. We provided HCPs participating in the LIVE program anonymized questionnaires (Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), and mHealth App Usability (MAUQ). Patients and family caregivers completed the AIM and MAUQ. Questionnaires were administered via an e-platform. Results: We recruited 105/251 (42%) patients and family caregivers and 42/48 (87.5%) HCPs. Patients and caregivers rated a mean (SD) overall AIM score of 4.3 (0.7) (maximum score 5; higher scores indicate greater acceptability) and a mean (SD) overall MAUQ score of 5.8 (1.5) (maximum score 7; higher scores indicate greater useability). HCPs rated a mean (SD) overall AIM score of 4.3 (0.7), IAM score of 4.3 (0.8), FIM score of 4.2 (0.7) and overall MAUQ score of 5.6 ± 1.5. There were no differences in AIM ((4.3 (0.7) vs 4.3 (0.8), p = 1) or MAUQ (5.8 (1.5) vs 5.6 (1.5), p = 0.5) scores between patients/ family caregivers and HCPs. Interpretation: This study suggests that the LIVE program was acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and usable from the perspective of patients, family caregivers and HCPs.

Exploring the lived experience of patients and families who speak language other than English (LOE) for healthcare: developing a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who use Languages other than English (LOE) for healthcare communication in an English-dominant region are at increased risk for experiencing adverse events and worse health outcomes in healthcare settings, including in pediatric hospitals. Despite the knowledge that individuals who speak LOE have worse health outcomes, they are often excluded from research studies on the basis of language and there is a paucity of data on ways to address these known disparities. Our work aims to address this gap by generating knowledge to improve health outcomes for children with illness and their families with LEP. BODY: We describe an approach to developing a study with individuals marginalized due to using LOE for healthcare communication, specifically using semi-structured qualitative interviews. The premise of this study is participatory research-our overall goal with this systematic inquiry is to, in collaboration with patients and families with LOE, set an agenda for creating actionable change to address the health information disparities these patients and families experience. In this paper we describe our overarching study design principles, a collaboration framework in working with different stakeholders and note important considerations for study design and execution. CONCLUSIONS: We have a significant opportunity to improve our engagement with marginalized populations. We also need to develop approaches to including patients and families with LOE in our research given the health disparities they experience. Further, understanding lived experience is critical to advancing efforts to address these well-known health disparities. Our process to develop a qualitative study protocol can serve as an example for engaging this patient population and can serve as a starting point for other groups who wish to develop similar research in this area. Providing high-quality care that meets the needs of marginalized and vulnerable populations is important to achieving an equitable, high-quality health care system. Children and families who use a Language other than English (LOE) in English dominant regions for healthcare have worse health outcomes including a significantly increased risk of experiencing adverse events, longer lengths of stay in hospital settings, and receiving more unnecessary tests and investigations. Despite this, these individuals are often excluded from research studies and the field of participatory research has yet to meaningfully involve them. This paper aims to describe an approach to conducting research with a marginalized population of children and families due to using a LOE. We detail protocol development for a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients and families who use a LOE during hospitalization. We aim to share considerations when conducting research within this population of families with LOE. We highlight learning applied from the field of patient-partner and child and family-centred research and note specific considerations for those with LOE. Developing strong partnerships and adopting a common set of research principles and collaborative framework underlies our approach and initial learnings, which we hope spark additional work in this area.

Patients and Families as Partners in Patient-Oriented Research: How Should They Be Compensated?

Patient and family engagement has become a widely accepted approach in health care research. We recognize that research conducted in partnership with people with relevant lived experience can substantially improve the quality of that research and lead to meaningful outcomes. Despite the benefits of patient-researcher collaboration, research teams sometimes face challenges in answering the questions of how patient and family research partners should be compensated, due to the limited guidance and lack of infrastructure for acknowledging partner contributions. In this paper, we present some of the resources that might help teams to navigate conversations about compensation with their patient and family partners and report how existing resources can be leveraged to compensate patient and family partners fairly and appropriately. We also present some of our first-hand experiences with patient and family compensation and offer suggestions for research leaders, agencies, and organizations so that the health care stakeholders can collectively move toward more equitable recognition of patient and family partners in research.

Codevelopment and usability testing of Patient Engagement 101: a Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health e-learning module for health care professionals, researchers and trainees.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement is thought to improve the quality and relevance of child health research. We developed and evaluated the usability of Patient Engagement 101, an e-learning module designed to strengthen the patient-oriented research readiness of health care professionals, researchers, trainees and other stakeholders. METHODS: The development of Patient Engagement 101 was co-led by a parent and a researcher and overseen by a diverse multistake-holder steering committee. The module was refined and evaluated using a mixed-methods usability testing approach with 2 iterative cycles of semistructured interviews, observations and questionnaires. We collected module feedback by way of semistructured interviews, the validated System Usability Scale, and satisfaction, knowledge and confidence questionnaires. Thematic coding of transcripts and field notes, informed by team discussions, guided the module revisions. RESULTS: Thirty end-users completed usability testing (15 per cycle). In each cycle, we modified the module with respect to its content, learner experience, learner-centred design and aesthetic design. Participants were highly satisfied, and System Usability Scale scores indicated the module had the best imaginable usability. Substantial increases in the participants' knowledge test scores and the confidence to engage in patient-oriented research, but not self-rated knowledge, were observed after module completion. INTERPRETATION: Codevelopment with patients and caregivers, and refinement through comprehensive end-user testing, resulted in a training resource with exceptional usability that improved knowledge and confidence to engage in patient-oriented research in child health. Patient Engagement 101 is openly available online, and the methods used to develop and evaluate it may facilitate the creation and evaluation of similar capacity-building resources.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of the COVID-19 pandemic's indirect consequences on children are emerging. We aimed to describe the impacts of the pandemic on children with medical complexity (CMC) and their families. METHODS: A one-time survey of Canadian paediatricians using the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) was conducted in Spring 2021. RESULTS: A total of 784 paediatricians responded to the survey, with 70% (n = 540) providing care to CMC. Sixty-seven (12.4%) reported an adverse health outcome due to a COVID-19 pandemic-related disruption in healthcare delivery. Disruption of the supply of medication and equipment was reported by 11.9% of respondents (n = 64). Respondents reported an interruption in family caregiving (47.5%, n = 252) and homecare delivery (40.8%, n = 218). Almost 47% of respondents (n = 253) observed a benefit to CMC due to COVID-19 related changes in healthcare delivery, including increased availability of virtual care and reduction in respiratory illness. Some (14.4%) reported that CMC were excluded from in-person learning when their peers without medical complexity were not. CONCLUSION: Canadian paediatricians reported that CMC experienced adverse health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, including disruptions to family caregiving and community supports. They also describe benefits related to the pandemic including the expansion of virtual care. These results highlight the need for healthcare, community and education policymakers to collaborate with families to optimize their health.

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Participation in Prioritization of Research Questions in Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

Importance: The research agenda in pediatric hospital medicine has seldom considered the perspectives of young people, parents and caregivers, and health care professionals. Their perspectives may be useful in identifying questions on topics for research. Objective: To prioritize unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine from the perspectives of young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between August 4, 2020, and August 19, 2021, two online surveys and a virtual workshop were conducted, using modified Delphi technique and nominal group technique. Young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals with experiences in pediatric hospital medicine in Canada were included. Interventions: The established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method was used. In phase 1, a survey collected unanswered questions regarding pediatric hospital medicine via 3 open-ended questions. Survey responses were used to develop summary questions that went through an evidence-checking process. Unanswered questions were brought to a phase 2 interim prioritization survey. The top 10 unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine were established at the final priority setting workshop. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey responses, top 10 research questions. Results: The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants (148 of 167 [89%] females; 17 of 167 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [12.4] years) and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (eg, communication, shared decision-making, health service delivery, and health service management) and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, only 4 questions had sufficient evidence. To make the number of questions in phase 2 manageable, 21 questions submitted by only 1 respondent were eliminated. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants (165 of 186 [89%] females; 19 of 186 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 40.0 [11.0] years). A short list of 16 questions-the top 10 questions from patient partners (youths, parents/caregivers) and clinicians-was presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized. The top 10 questions focused on the care of special inpatient populations (eg, children with medical complexity), communication, shared decision-making, support strategies in the hospital, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents/caregivers, and families. Conclusions and Relevance: This patient-oriented pediatric hospital medicine priority setting partnership identified the most important unanswered research questions focused on the care of children in the hospital. These questions provide a possible roadmap for research on areas deemed important to young people, parents/caregivers, and clinicians.

From Philanthropy to Clinical Care through Research: Impact of the Norman Saunders Complex Care Initiative.

Norman Saunders was a respected academic community paediatrician who was passionate about the care of children with medical complexity. Following his untimely death at age 60, patients, friends, and colleagues raised funds to create the Norman Saunders Complex Care Initiative (NSCCI). Dr. Saunders's vision was a comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated clinical program for children with medical complexity that was informed by research evidence. The objective of this review was to evaluate the impact of targeted philanthropic funding on research, clinical care, and policy. Since 2006, NSCCI funds have been used to support interdisciplinary and innovative research. Funded projects have reflected a breadth of research questions (clinical care, training, health system delivery, social determinants), disciplines, and methods, and the research results have informed and helped build an internationally renowned clinical program in complex care. Philanthropic funding was the foundation for the NSCCI, which over the last 15 years has built research and clinical capacity, catalysed clinical and research networks, helped train paediatric residents, influenced policy, and improved the health and well-being of children with medical complexity and their families across Canada, and beyond.

Prevalence, Cost, and Variation in Cost of Pediatric Hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Identifying conditions that could be prioritized for research based on health care system burden is important for developing a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children. However, existing prioritization studies are decades old or do not include data from both pediatric and general hospitals. Objective: To assess the prevalence, cost, and variation in cost of pediatric hospitalizations at all general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with the aim of identifying conditions that could be prioritized for future research. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study used health administrative data from 165 general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Children younger than 18 years with an inpatient hospital encounter between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2019, were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Condition-specific prevalence, cost of pediatric hospitalizations, and condition-specific variation in cost per inpatient encounter across hospitals. Variation in cost was evaluated using (1) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and (2) number of outlier hospitals. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars. Results: Overall, 627 314 inpatient hospital encounters (44.8% among children younger than 30 days and 53.0% among boys) at 165 hospitals (157 general and 8 pediatric) costing $3.3 billion were identified. A total of 408 003 hospitalizations (65.0%) and $1.4 billion (43.8%) in total costs occurred at general hospitals. Among the 50 most prevalent and 50 most costly conditions (of 68 total conditions), the top 10 highest-cost conditions accounted for 55.5% of all costs and 48.6% of all encounters. The conditions with highest prevalence and cost included low birth weight (86.2 per 1000 encounters; $676.3 million), preterm newborn (38.0 per 1000 encounters; $137.4 million), major depressive disorder (20.7 per 1000 encounters; $78.3 million), pneumonia (27.3 per 1000 encounters; $71.6 million), other perinatal conditions (68.0 per 1000 encounters; $65.8 million), bronchiolitis (25.4 per 1000 encounters; $54.6 million), and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (47.9 per 1000 encounters; $46.7 million). The highest variation in cost per encounter among the most costly medical conditions was observed for 2 mental health conditions (other mental health disorders [ICC, 0.28] and anxiety disorders [ICC, 0.19]) and 3 newborn conditions (intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia [ICC, 0.27], other perinatal conditions [ICC, 0.17], and surfactant deficiency disorder [ICC, 0.17]). Conclusions and Relevance: This population-based cross-sectional study of hospitalized children identified several newborn and mental health conditions as having the highest prevalence, cost, and variation in cost across hospitals. Findings of this study can be used to develop a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children that includes general hospitals and to ultimately build a more substantial evidence base and improve patient outcomes.

The Research Family Advisory Committee: the patient and family view of implementing a research-focused patient engagement strategy.

Patient engagement in research, a collaborative practice of including patients and families as active and respected partners in the research process, leads to improved quality of patient care and positively affects outcomes for patients and families. There is strong support for the benefits of patient engagement. What is less clear are the methods by which organizations can achieve authentic patient engagement in research and the ways a committee structure can support an institutional research engagement need beyond the individual investigators. In this report, we describe the mechanisms needed to support the implementation of a research-focused patient engagement strategy and lessons learned from the patient and family perspective.

Patient engagement in research is a way of working in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design and carry out health research, leading to improved patient care. Extensive research has been published on the practices individual research teams can use to positively engage patients and families in research. A current gap in existing research is the methods health care organization can use to achieve authentic patient engagement. In this report, we describe the implementation of a research-focused patient engagement strategy and the lessons learned from the patients and families involved in developing the strategy.

The Transitions to Long-term In Home Ventilator Engagement Study (Transitions to LIVE): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE: We co-developed a multi-component virtual care solution (TtLIVE) for the home mechanical ventilation (HMV) population using the aTouchAway™ platform (Aetonix). The TtLIVE intervention includes (1) virtual home visits; (2) customizable care plans; (3) clinical workflows that incorporate reminders, completion of symptom profiles, and tele-monitoring; and (4) digitally secure communication via messaging, audio, and video calls; (5) Resource library including print and audiovisual material. OBJECTIVES AND BRIEF METHODS: Our primary objective is to evaluate the TtLIVE intervention compared to a usual care control group using an eight-center, pragmatic, parallel-group single-blind (outcome assessors) randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients are children and adults newly transitioning to HMV in Ontario, Canada. Our target sample size is 440 participants (220 each arm). Our co-primary outcomes are a number of emergency department (ED) visits in the 12 months after randomization and change in family caregiver (FC) reported Pearlin Mastery Scale score from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes also measured in the 12 months post randomization include healthcare utilization measured using a hybrid Ambulatory Home Care Record (AHCR-hybrid), FC burden using the Zarit Burden Interview, and health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D. In addition, we will conduct a cost-utility analysis over a 1-year time horizon and measure process outcomes including healthcare provider time using the Care Coordination Measurement Tool. We will use qualitative interviews in a subset of study participants to understand acceptability, barriers, and facilitators to the TtLIVE intervention. We will administer the Family Experiences with Care Coordination (FECC) to interview participants. We will use Poisson regression for a number of ED visits at 12 months. We will use linear regression for the Pearlin Mastery scale score at 12 months. We will adjust for the baseline score to estimate the effect of the intervention on the primary outcomes. Analysis of secondary outcomes will employ regression, causal, and linear mixed modeling. Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. We have Research Ethics Board approval from SickKids, Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario, McMaster Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital-London Health Sciences, Sunnybrook Hospital, London Health Sciences, West Park Healthcare Centre, and Ottawa Hospital. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomized controlled single-blind trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TtLIVE virtual care solution compared to usual care while providing important data on patient and family experience, as well as process measures such as healthcare provider time to deliver the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04180722 . Registered on November 27, 2019.

Decision-making for Parents of Children With Medical Complexities: Activity Theory Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative approach to reach decisional agreement, has been advocated as an ideal model of decision-making in the medical encounter. Frameworks for SDM have been developed largely from the clinical context of a competent adult patient facing a single medical problem, presented with multiple treatment options informed by a solid base of evidence. It is difficult to apply this model to the pediatric setting and children with medical complexity (CMC), specifically since parents of CMC often face a myriad of interconnected decisions with minimal evidence available on the multiple complex and co-existing chronic conditions. Thus, solutions that are developed based on the traditional model of SDM may not improve SDM practices for CMCs and may be a factor contributing to the low rate of SDM practiced with CMCs. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our study was to address the gaps in the current approach to SDM for CMC by better understanding the decision-making activity among parents of CMCs and exploring what comprises their decision-making activity. METHODS: We interviewed 12 participants using semistructured interviews based on activity theory. Participants identified as either a parent of a CMC or a CMC over the age of 18 years. Qualitative framework analysis and an activity theory framework were employed to understand the complexity of the decision-making process in context. RESULTS: Parents of CMCs in our study made decisions based on a mental model of their child's illness, informed by the activities of problem-solving, seeking understanding, obtaining tests and treatment, and caregiving. These findings suggest that the basis for parental choice and values, which are used in the decision-making activity, was developed by including activities that build concrete understanding and capture evidence to support their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our interviews with parents of CMCs suggest that we can address both the aims of each individual activity and the related outcomes (both intended and unintended) by viewing the decision-making activity as a combination of caregiving, problem-solving, and seeking activities. Clinicians could consider using this lens to focus decision-making discussions on integrating the child's unique situation, the insights parents gain through their decision-making activity, and their clinical knowledge to enhance the understanding between parents and health care providers, beyond the narrow concept of parental values.

TOwards enhancing Paediatric Intensive Care for Children with Medical Complexity (ToPIC CMC): a mixed-methods study protocol using Experience-based Co-design.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in medical technology and postoperative care have led to increased survival of children with medical complexity (CMC). Parents of CMC develop substantial caregiver expertise and familiarity with paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff and treatment procedures which may give rise to tensions regarding respective roles, caretaking preferences, treatment goals and expected outcomes. A therapeutic alliance built through strong partnerships constitutes the foundation of patient and family-centred care (PFCC), contributing to improvements in experiences and outcomes. Yet acute care settings continue to struggle with integrating PFCC into practice. This study aims to enhance PFCC for CMC in the PICU using an innovative approach to integrated knowledge translation. METHODS: A mixed-method concurrent triangulation design will be used to develop, implement and evaluate PFCC practice changes for CMC in the PICU. Qualitative data will be collected using an Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) approach. Parents, CMC and staff will reflect on their PICU care experiences (stages 1 and 2), identify priorities for improvement (stage 3), devise strategies to implement changes (stage 4), evaluate practice changes and study process, and disseminate findings (stage 5). The quantitative arm will consist of a prepractice and postpractice change evaluation, compared with a control site. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data will provide insights regarding the impact of PICU practice changes on PFCC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board (Ref. #2019-5021) and the Hospital for Sick Children Research Ethics Board (Ref. #1000063801) approved the study. Knowledge users and researchers will be engaged as partners throughout the study as per our participatory approach. Knowledge products will include a short film featuring themes and video/audio clips from the interviews, recommendations for improvements in care, and presentations for healthcare leaders and clinical teams, in addition to traditional academic outputs such as conference presentations and publications.

Building a culture of engagement at a research centre for childhood disability.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and family members as partners in research studies has become a widespread practice in healthcare. However, relatively little has been documented about what happens after the research study ends. For example, is patient and family engagement embedded in the wider infrastructure of organizations, and if so how? What are the long-term effects of engaging parents on research teams on the culture of how research is conducted? This study seeks to address these two gaps by examining how a culture of family engagement has been built over time at CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study is based on ethnographic research methodology and combines elements of organizational ethnography, interviews, and collaborative auto-ethnography with parent partners, researchers, staff, and trainees. RESULTS: Since the inception of CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in 1989, parents have been involved in research studies. Over time, this involvement evolved from being consulted on research studies to undertaking decision-making roles as partners and most recently as co-principal investigators. A growing infrastructure fosters a community of engagement that goes beyond the individual research study, and often beyond CanChild. This infrastructure consists of training, knowledge mobilization and social networking. In addition, the "softer" building blocks of CanChild's culture of engagement are an openness to learning from others, a commitment to relationship building, and a drive to grow and improve. These values are espoused by the leadership and are instilled in the next generation of researchers to inform both research and clinical work. While some challenges should be acknowledged when researchers and family partners work together on research studies, we identify a number of strategies that we have used in our studies to foster authentic and meaningful family-researcher partnerships. CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and families as partners in research constitutes a culture shift in health research, whereby studies about patients and families are carried out with them. Developing a community of engagement that transcends an individual research study is a step towards creating a culture of research that is truly shaped by the people about whom the research is being done.

More and more patients and family members are getting involved in health research studies as partners. However we do not know much about what happens after the research study ends. This article looks at how parents have been involved in research studies at CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. CanChild researchers, staff, students and parents were asked about their experiences of working together on research studies. One of the researchers then pooled together all of these stories, shared them with everyone to get their feedback, and wrote the initial draft of this article. All the people interviewed were invited to read the article and to add their thoughts and opinions until everyone was satisfied with the final product. Our shared stories show that a lot has changed since CanChild was established in 1989. At first, researchers consulted with parents when they were doing a study. Now, many parents are partners and co-principal investigators on research studies. CanChild has also developed opportunities for parents and researchers to get training in patient-family engagement and to network with each other outside of research studies. Researchers, staff, students and parents talked about what makes research partnerships successful, including: being open to learning from each other; taking the time to get to know each other as people; and always trying to do better. They also shared some of the challenges that come up on research studies and suggested strategies for working through them.