Bridge-to-Home: A Case Study of the Mutually Reinforcing Benefits of Patient Engagement-Focused Quality Improvement Initiatives for Transitions out of Hospital.

The Bridge-to-Home program was launched as a 16-month collaborative from 2018 to 2020 to improve care transitions out of hospital using a patient engagement-focused quality improvement (QI) initiative. Teams that participated in the collaborative were able to implement elements of the patient-oriented care transitions bundle, improve experience of care transitions and increase capacity for patient engagement for both patient partners and providers. In this article, we highlight three case studies of teams in different types of organizations with different levels of patient engagement maturation. Key enablers and barriers are identified with a specific lens on engagement efforts to co-produce changes in the processes and experience of care. These cases illustrate that providing support for patient engagement when leading a QI initiative is mutually reinforcing, where patient engagement and QI support and strengthen each other, resulting in increased success of the quality initiative and increased capacity for patient engagement.

What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker. CONCLUSION: Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

Storytelling for impact: the creation of a storytelling program for patient partners in research.

Storytelling is a powerful means to evoke empathy and understanding among people. When patient partners, which include patients, family members, caregivers and organ donors, share their stories with health professionals, this can prompt listeners to reflect on their practice and consider new ways of driving change in the healthcare system. However, a growing number of patient partners are asked to 'share their story' within health care and research settings without adequate support to do so. This may ultimately widen, rather than close, the gap between healthcare practitioners and people affected by chronic disease in this new era of patient and public involvement in research. To better support patient partners with storytelling in the context of a patient-oriented research network, Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) Network adapted an existing in-person storytelling workshop for patient educators within a hospital setting. The result is a 6-week virtual program called Storytelling for Impact, which guides patients, family members, caregivers and organ donors in developing impactful stories and sharing them at health care and research events, e.g., conferences. The online series of synchronous workshops is co-facilitated by story coaches, who are program alumni and Can-SOLVE CKD staff with trained storytelling experience. Each story follows a structure that includes a call to action, which aims to positively impact the priority-setting and delivery of care and research in Canada. The program has been a transformational process for many who have completed it, and numerous other health organizations have expressed interest in sharing this tool with their own patient partners. As result, we have also created an asynchronous online program that can be used by other interested parties outside our network. Patient partners who share their stories can be powerful mediators for inspiring changes in the health care and research landscape, with adequate structured support. We describe two novel programs to support patient partners in impactful storytelling, which are applicable across all health research disciplines. Additional resources are required for sustainability and scale up of training, by having alumni train future storytellers.

Storytelling is a powerful means to evoke empathy and understanding among people. When patient partners share their stories with health professionals, this can prompt listeners to reflect on their practice and consider new ways of improving the healthcare system. However, as a growing number of patient partners are asked to 'share their story' within health care and research settings, there is often not enough tools and resources to support them in preparing their stories in a way that will be impactful for the audience members. Our kidney research network sought to create a novel in-person storytelling program to address this gap within our health research context. The result is a 6-week program called Storytelling for Impact, which guides patient partners­which includes patients, family members, caregivers and organ donors­in developing impactful stories and sharing them in a formal setting. The program is led by story coaches, who are patient partners and staff with trained storytelling experience. Participants are encouraged to include a call to action in their story, which aims to outline clear ways in which health professionals can facilitate positive change in health research or care. Many participants have described the program as transformational, and numerous other health organizations have expressed interest in sharing this tool with their own patient partners. As a result, we have also created a second online program that can be used by other interested parties outside our network. This paper highlights the adaptation process, content, participant feedback and next steps for the program.

Understanding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity: protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care and other health services have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the consequences of these service disruptions on patients' care experiences remain largely unstudied. People with mental-physical multimorbidity are vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic, and to sudden service disruptions. It is thus essential to better understand how their care experiences have been impacted by the current pandemic. This study aims to improve understanding of the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity during the pandemic and identify strategies to enhance these experiences. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods study with multi-phase approach involving four distinct phases. Phase 1 will be a qualitative descriptive study in which we interview individuals with mental-physical multimorbidity and health professionals in order to explore the impacts of the pandemic on care experiences, as well as their perspectives on how care can be improved. The results of this phase will inform the design of study phases 2 and 3. Phase 2 will involve journey mapping exercises with a sub-group of participants with mental-physical multimorbidity to visually map out their care interactions and experiences over time and the critical moments that shaped their experiences. Phase 3 will involve an online, cross-sectional survey of care experiences administered to a larger group of people with mental disorders and/or chronic physical conditions. In phase 4, deliberative dialogues will be held with key partners to discuss and plan strategies for improving the delivery of care to people with mental-physical multimorbidity. Pre-dialogue workshops will enable us to synthesize an prepare the results from the previous three study phases. DISCUSSION: Our study results will generate much needed evidence of the positive and negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity and shed light on strategies that could improve care quality and experiences.

Program Report: Can-SOLVE CKD Network Presents an Inclusive Method for Developing Patient-Oriented Research Tools.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Given the growing interest in patient-oriented research (POR) initiatives, there is a need to provide relevant training and education on how to engage with patients as partners on research teams. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: As part of its mandate to develop appropriate training materials, the patient-oriented renal research network, Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD), established a training and Mentorship Committee (TMC). METHODS: The committee brings together a unique combination of Indigenous and non-Indigenous patient partners (including caregivers, family members, and living donors), researchers, as well as patient engagement and knowledge translation experts, combining a multitude of perspectives and expertise. Following an assessment of training needs within the network, the TMC undertook the co-development of 5 learning modules to address the identified gaps. Subsequently, the committee divided into working groups tasked with developing content using a consultive and iterative approach informed by the DoTTI framework for building web-based tools for patients. In addition, the TMC embodied the guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building as set out by the Patient Engagement Framework through the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. KEY FINDINGS: The 5 new modules include: A Patient Engagement Toolkit, Storytelling for Impact, Promoting Kidney Research in Canada (KidneyPRO), Wabishki Bizhiko Skaanj Learning Pathway, and Knowledge Translation. The TMC's approach to developing these modules demonstrates how a diverse group of stakeholders working together can create tools to support high-quality POR. This also provides a roadmap for other health research entities interested in developing similar tools within their unique domains. LIMITATIONS: The landscape of patient engagement in research is constantly evolving. This underscores the need for sustained resources to keep POR tools and training relevant and up-to-date. Sustaining such resources may not be feasible for all research entities. IMPLICATIONS: Collaborative approaches integrating patients in the development of POR tools ensure the content is relevant and meaningful to patients. Broader adoption of such approaches has great potential to address existing gaps and enhance the Canadian POR landscape.

OBJECTIF DU PROGRAM: L'intérêt croissant pour les initiatives de recherche axée sur le patient met en évidence le besoin de sensibiliser les chercheurs et d'offrir une formation pertinente sur les façons d'impliquer les patients comme partenaires dans les équipes de recherche. SOURCES: Dans le cadre de son mandat consistant à élaborer des documents de formation appropriés, le réseau dédié à l'avancement de la recherche en santé rénale axée sur le patient, le réseau CAN-SOLVE CKD (Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease), a créé un Comité de formation et de mentorat (CFM). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Le CFM réunit une combinaison unique de patients partenaires autochtones et non autochtones (incluant soignants, membres des familles, donneurs vivants), des chercheurs et des experts de l'application des connaissances et de l'implication des patients à la recherche, ce qui permet de conjuguer une multitude de points de vue et d'expertises. Après une évaluation des besoins en formation dans le réseau, le CFM a entrepris l'élaboration conjointe de cinq modules d'apprentissage pour combler les lacunes mises en évidence. Le comité s'est ensuite divisé en groupes de travail chargés d'en élaborer les contenus par le biais d'une approche consultative et itérative guidée par le cadre de perfectionnement DoTTI pour la création d'outils Web destinés aux patients. De plus, le CFM a intégré les principes directeurs d'inclusion, de soutien, de respect mutuel et de co-création énoncés dans le Cadre d'engagement des patients de la stratégie de recherche axée sur le patient (RAP) des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Les cinq nouveaux modules sont: une trousse d'outils sur l'implication des patients, le partage de récits qui ont un impact, la promotion de la recherche dans le domaine rénal au Canada (KidneyPRO -Promoting Kidney Research in Canada), le cheminement d'apprentissage Wabishki Bizhiko Skaanj et l'application des connaissances. L'approche adoptée par le CFM pour développer ces modules a montré comment un groupe diversifié d'intervenants qui travaille ensemble peut mener à la création d'outils pour soutenir une RAP d'excellente qualité. Ces travaux ont également fourni une feuille de route pour d'autres entités de recherche en santé qui souhaiteraient élaborer des outils similaires dans leurs domaines respectifs. LIMITES: L'implication des patients dans la recherche est en constante évolution. Cette étude souligne le besoin de ressources durables pour garder les outils et les formations en RAP pertinents et à jour. Le maintien de telles ressources pourrait ne pas être possible pour toutes les entités de recherche. IMPLICATIONS: Les approches collaboratives qui impliquent les patients dans le développement d'outils de RAP garantissent que les contenus soient pertinents et significatifs pour les patients. L'adoption à plus grande échelle de telles approches a le potentiel de combler les lacunes existantes et d'améliorer le domaine de la RAP au Canada.

Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. OBJECTIVE: This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: 1. Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; 2. Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. METHODS: Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. DISCUSSION: The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.

Developing recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease: the role of the patient's perspective in a controversial environment.

CONTEXT: The Ministry of Health in Québec requested the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services to produce clinical and implementation recommendations for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease. OBJECTIVES: (i) Describe the process of trialing different modalities of patient engagement as a means to integrate a diversity of patient perspectives and (ii) Describe the learning process of INESSS regarding the integration of the patient perspective. METHODOLOGY: All documents were analyzed, and a survey with all advisory committee members and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and imported into QDA miner software for the purposes of analysis. Data analysis was carried out concurrently with data collection to allow for an iterative approach between data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Five methods to integrate the perspectives of patients were used: (i) interviews with patients, (ii) inclusion of patient partners within the advisory committee, (iii) literature review, (iv) focus groups with one patient association, and (v) feedback from patient associations on recommendations intended for decision makers and other targeted stakeholders. The patient partners influenced decisions by sharing their experiential knowledge. The patient interviews and the literature review added an in-depth perspective on the disease and experience with the healthcare system. The patient association members shared their perspectives and helped disseminate the recommendation to sustain a practice change. CONCLUSION: The combination of methods to collect and integrate patients' knowledge and patient associations' perspectives helped develop a comprehensive understanding of a controversial object of evaluation.

Growing a Healthy Ecosystem for Patient and Citizen Partnerships.

Patient and citizen engagement is taking root in a number of healthcare organizations. These initiatives show promising results but require a supportive environment to bring systemic and sustainable impacts. In this synthesis article, we propose an ecosystemic perspective on engagement in health, outlining key elements at the individual, organizational and systemic levels supporting reciprocal and effective relationships among all partners to provide conditions for the co-production of health and care. We argue that growing a healthy engagement ecosystem requires: (1) building local and national "hubs" to facilitate learning and capacity building across engagement domains, populations and contexts; (2) supporting reciprocal partnerships based on co-leadership; and (3) strengthening capacities for research, evaluation and co-training of all partners to support reflective engagement practices that bring about effective change.

Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. METHODS: We searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject-matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability. RESULTS: In total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public. CONCLUSION: A growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting.