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.

The ILC Maine statement: Time for the fundamental care [r]evolution.

AIM: The aim of this study was to present the third position statement from the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). The ILC is the foremost global organization dedicated to transforming fundamental care. Internationally, fundamental care is reported to be poorly delivered, delayed or missed, negatively impacting patients, their families/carers and healthcare staff and systems. Overcoming this global challenge requires profound transformation in how our healthcare systems value, deliver and evaluate fundamental care. This transformation will take both evolutionary and revolutionary guises. In this position statement, we argue how this [r]evolutionary transformation for fundamental care can and must be created within clinical practice. DESIGN: Position paper. METHODS: This position statement stems from the ILC's annual conference and Leadership Program held in Portland, Maine, USA, in June 2023. The statement draws on the discussions between participants and the authors' subsequent reflections and synthesis of these discussions and ideas. The conference and Leadership Program involved participants (n = 209) from 13 countries working primarily within clinical practice. RESULTS: The statement focuses on what must occur to transform how fundamental care is valued, prioritized and delivered within clinical practice settings globally. To ensure demonstrable change, the statement comprises four action-oriented strategies that must be systematically owned by healthcare staff and leaders and embedded in our healthcare organizations and systems: Address non-nursing tasks: reclaim and protect time to provide high-value fundamental care. Accentuate the positive: change from deficit-based to affirmative language when describing fundamental care. Access evidence and assess impact: demonstrate transformation in fundamental care by generating relevant indicators and impact measures and rigorously synthesizing existing research. Advocate for interprofessional collaboration: support high-quality, transdisciplinary fundamental care delivery via strong nursing leadership. CONCLUSION: The ILC Maine Statement calls for ongoing action - [r]evolution - from healthcare leaders and staff within clinical practice to prioritize fundamental care throughout healthcare systems globally. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We outline four action-oriented strategies that can be embedded within clinical practice to substantially transform how fundamental care is delivered. Specific actions to support these strategies are outlined, providing healthcare leaders and staff a road map to continue the transformation of fundamental care within our healthcare systems. IMPACT: Fundamental care affects everyone across their life course, regardless of care context, clinical condition, age and/or the presence of disability. This position statement represents a call to action to healthcare leaders and staff working specifically in clinical practice, urging them to take up the leadership challenge of transforming how fundamental care is delivered and experience globally. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, service users and caregivers were involved in the ILC annual conference, thus contributing to the discussions that shaped this position statement. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: The strategies and actions outlined in this position statement are relevant to all clinical settings globally, providing practical strategies and actions that can be employed to enhance fundamental care for all patients and their families/carers. By outlining the importance of both evolutionary and revolutionary change, we identify ways in which healthcare systems globally can begin making the necessary steps towards radical fundamental care transformation, regardless of where they are in the change journey.

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.

Evaluating Skill-Mix Models of Care: A Rapid Scoping Review of Measures and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature on measures and outcomes for skill-mix models of care. BACKGROUND: To address the human health resource crisis, changes to skill mix within models of care are being implemented emphasizing the need to synthesize evaluation methods for skill-mix models in the future. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature using a rigorous search strategy and selection process was completed to identify articles that examined skill-mix models in an effort to identify related concepts. RESULTS: Ten studies examined skill-mix models. Areas of measurement in assessing the impact of skill-mix models included patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, nurse satisfaction, cost, and nurse perceptions of role changes, model effectiveness, and quality of care. Studies examining nurse satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and/or cost generally reported improvements upon skill-mix model implementation. Studies examining patient outcomes related to skill mix were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Factors for consideration upon implementation of a skill-mix change include education of role clarity, the number of unregulated staff who require supervision, and professional practice support.

Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions. METHODS: The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline. RESULTS: The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CONCLUSIONS: The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50463.

Exploring the impact of evaluation on learning and health innovation sustainability: protocol for a realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Within the Learning Health System (LHS) model, learning routines, including evaluation, allow for continuous incremental change to take place. Within these learning routines, evaluation assists in problem identification, data collection, and data transformation into contextualized information, which is then re-applied to the LHS environment. Evaluation that catalyzes learning and improvement may also contribute to health innovation sustainability. However, there is little consensus as to why certain evaluations seem to support learning and sustainability, while others impede it. This realist synthesis seeks to understand the contextual factors and underlying mechanisms or drivers that best support health systems learning and sustainable innovation. METHODS: This synthesis will be guided by Pawson and colleagues' 2005 and Emmel and colleagues' 2018 guidelines for conducting realist syntheses. The review process will encompass five steps: (1) scoping the review, (2) building theories, (3) identifying the evidence, (4) evidence selection and appraisal, and (5) data extraction and synthesis. An Expert Committee comprised of leaders in evaluation, innovation, sustainability, and realist methodology will guide this synthesis. Review findings will be reported using the RAMESES guidelines. DISCUSSION: The use of a realist review will allow for exploration and theorizing about the contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that make evaluations 'work' (or 'not work') to support learning and sustainability. Depending on results, we will attempt to synthesize findings into a series of recommendations for evaluations with the intention to support health systems learning and sustainability. Finalized results will be presented at national and international conferences, as well as disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This realist synthesis protocol has been registered with PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/  ID 382690).

The relationship between moral distress, burnout, and considering leaving a hospital job during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal survey.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that moral distress contributes to burnout in nurses and other healthcare workers. We hypothesized that burnout both contributed to moral distress and was amplified by moral distress for hospital workers in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also aimed to test if moral distress was related to considering leaving one's job. METHODS: A cohort of 213 hospital workers completed quarterly surveys at six time-points over fifteen months that included validated measures of three dimensions of professional burnout and moral distress. Moral distress was categorized as minimal, medium, or high. Analyses using linear and ordinal regression models tested the association between burnout and other variables at Time 1 (T1), moral distress at Time 3 (T3), and burnout and considering leaving one's job at Time 6 (T6). RESULTS: Moral distress was highest in nurses. Job type (nurse (co-efficient 1.99, p < .001); other healthcare professional (co-efficient 1.44, p < .001); non-professional staff with close patient contact (reference group)) and burnout-depersonalization (co-efficient 0.32, p < .001) measured at T1 accounted for an estimated 45% of the variance in moral distress at T3. Moral distress at T3 predicted burnout-depersonalization (Beta = 0.34, p < .001) and burnout-emotional exhaustion (Beta = 0.38, p < .008) at T6, and was significantly associated with considering leaving one's job or healthcare. CONCLUSION: Aspects of burnout that were associated with experiencing greater moral distress occurred both prior to and following moral distress, consistent with the hypotheses that burnout both amplifies moral distress and is increased by moral distress. This potential vicious circle, in addition to an association between moral distress and considering leaving one's job, suggests that interventions for moral distress may help mitigate a workforce that is both depleted and burdened with burnout.

"Seeing the day-to-day situation": A grounded theory of how persons living with dementia and their family caregivers experience the hospital to home transition and beyond.

Most older adults with dementia live at home, they primarily receive care provided by family members and friends. Given the decline in memory and other cognitive functions, there to be higher rates of touch points with the health system for those living with dementia. Evidence has shown that these care transitions mark critical changes in the lives of older people, including significant and far-reaching changes to family caregivers. Therefore, it is imperative that complex social processes enacted by persons with dementia and their family caregivers in response to care transitions be more thoroughly explained. This study took place in Canada between 2019 and 2021 and adopted a constructivist grounded theory design. Twenty-five people participated in 20 interviews: 4 people living with dementia and 21 caregivers. We report on six concepts grounded in the data that are linked to a core process engaged in by the participants throughout the care transition journey and beyond: Seeing the day-to-day situation. This study contributes theoretically to the care transition literature by making explicit not only the visible work done by patient-caregiver days during the care transition journey, but it has also illuminated the ongoing processes engaged in by caregivers who are navigating the health and social care systems with their family member living with dementia. During the care transition, and beyond, the caregiver is forced to take over and connect the dots. Even though the caring experience is fraught with traumatic and very challenging situations, for many caregivers, they rise above and can reconcile their suffering with a desire to help their family member and others who may be going through similar experiences. This theory provides a foundation on which to develop theory-driven interventions that focus on support the patient-caregiver dyad during care transitions.

Relationship between three aspects of resilience-adaptive characteristics, withstanding stress, and bouncing back-in hospital workers exposed to prolonged occupational stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The term resilience is used to refer to multiple related phenomena, including: (i) characteristics that promote adaptation to stressful circumstances, (ii) withstanding stress, and (iii) bouncing back quickly. There is little evidence to understand how these components of resilience are related to one another. Skills-based adaptive characteristics that can respond to training (as opposed to personality traits) have been proposed to include living authentically, finding work that aligns with purpose and values, maintaining perspective in the face of adversity, managing stress, interacting cooperatively, staying healthy, and building supportive networks. While these characteristics can be measured at a single time-point, observing responses to stress (withstanding and bouncing back) require multiple, longitudinal observations. This study's aim is to determine the relationship between these three aspects of resilience in hospital workers during the prolonged, severe stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of a cohort of 538 hospital workers at seven time-points between the fall of 2020 and the spring of 2022. The survey included a baseline measurement of skills-based adaptive characteristics and repeated measures of adverse outcomes (burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic symptoms). Mixed effects linear regression assessed the relationship between baseline adaptive characteristics and the subsequent course of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: The results showed significant main effects of adaptive characteristics and of time on each adverse outcome (all p < .001). The size of the effect of adaptive characteristics on outcomes was clinically significant. There was no significant relationship between adaptive characteristics and the rate of change of adverse outcomes over time (i.e., no contribution of these characteristics to bouncing back). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that training aimed at improving adaptive skills may help individuals to withstand prolonged, extreme occupational stress. However, the speed of recovery from the effects of stress depends on other factors, which may be organizational or environmental.

Randomized trial of personalized psychological feedback from a longitudinal online survey and simultaneous evaluation of randomized stepped wedge availability of in-person peer support for hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We tested if automated Personalized Self-Awareness Feedback (PSAF) from an online survey or in-person Peer Resilience Champion support (PRC) reduced emotional exhaustion among hospital workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Among a single cohort of participating staff from one hospital organization, each intervention was evaluated against a control condition with repeated measures of emotional exhaustion at quarterly intervals for 18 months. PSAF was tested in a randomized controlled trial compared to a no-feedback condition. PRC was tested in a group-randomized stepped-wedge design, comparing individual-level emotional exhaustion before and after availability of the intervention. Main and interactive effects on emotional exhaustion were tested in a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Among 538 staff, there was a small but significant beneficial effect of PSAF over time (p = .01); the difference at individual timepoints was only significant at timepoint three (month six). The effect of PRC over time was non-significant with a trend in the opposite direction to a treatment effect (p = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In a longitudinal assessment, automated feedback about psychological characteristics buffered emotional exhaustion significantly at six months, whereas in-person peer support did not. Providing automated feedback is not resource-intensive and merits further investigation as a method of support.

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.

"I Had Bills to Pay": a Mixed-Methods Study on the Role of Income on Care Transitions in a Public-Payer Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Income disparities may affect patients' care transition home. Evidence among patients who have access to publicly funded healthcare coverage remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between low income and post-discharge health outcomes and explore patient and caregiver perspectives on the role of income disparities. DESIGN: Mixed-methods secondary analysis conducted among participants in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants from a multicenter study in Ontario, Canada, were classified as low income if annual self-reported salary was below $29,000 CAD, or between $30,000 and $50,000 CAD and supported ≥ 3 individuals. MAIN MEASURES: The associations between low income and the following self-reported outcomes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression: patient experience, adherence to medications, diet, activity and follow-up, and the aggregate of emergency department (ED) visits, readmission, or death up to 3 months post-discharge. A deductive direct content analysis of patient and caregivers on the role of income-related disparities during care transitions was conducted. KEY RESULTS: Individuals had similar odds of reporting high patient experience and adherence to instructions regardless of reported income. Compared to higher income individuals, low-income individuals also had similar odds of ED visits, readmissions, and death within 3 months post-discharge. Low-income individuals were more likely than high-income individuals to report understanding their medications completely (OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4) in fully adjusted regression models. Two themes emerged from 25 interviews which (1) highlight constraints of publicly funded services and costs incurred to patients or their caregivers along with (2) the various ways patients adapt through caregiver support, private services, or prioritizing finances over health. CONCLUSIONS: There were few quantitative differences in patient experience, adherence, ED visits, readmissions, and death post-discharge between individuals reporting low versus higher income. Several hidden costs for transportation, medications, and home care were reported however and warrant further research.

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.

Can fundamental care be advanced using the science of care framework?

AIMS: This manuscript aims to provide a description of an evidence-informed Science of Care practice-based research and innovation framework that may serve as a guiding framework to generate new discoveries and knowledge around fundamental care in a more integrated manner. BACKGROUND: New ways of thinking about models of care and implementation strategies in transdisciplinary teams are required to accelerate inquiry and embed new knowledge and innovation into practice settings. A new way of thinking starts with an explicit articulation and commitment to the core business of the healthcare industry which is to provide quality fundamental care. DESIGN: This discursive paper delineates an iteratively derived Science of Care research and innovation framework (Science of Care Framework) that draws from a targeted literature review. METHOD: The Science of Care Framework integrates caring science with safety and symptom sciences with implementation, improvement, innovation and team sciences. Each science dimension is described in terms of seminal and evolving evidence and theoretical explanations, focusing on how these disciplines can support fundamental care. CONCLUSIONS: The Science of Care Framework can serve as a catalyst to guide future efforts to propel new knowledge and discoveries around fundamental care and how best to implement it into clinical practice through a transdisciplinary lens. IMPACT ON NURSING SCIENCE, PRACTICE, OR DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE: The Science of Care Framework can accelerate nursing discipline-specific knowledge generation alongside inter and transdisciplinary insights. The novel articulation of the Science of Care Framework can be used to guide further inquiries that are co-designed, and led, by nurses into integrated models of care and innovations in clinical practice.

Enculturating, embedding and investing in fundamental care in an academic health science centre.

AIM: This manuscript aims to provide a discursive description of how one academic health care centre is enculturating, embedding and investing in the fundamental care framework and lessons learned that can serve as a blueprint for other organizations. BACKGROUND: A call to action to focus on fundamental care is not new as the initial Fundamentals of Care (FoC) Framework has been evolving over the last decade through efforts lead by the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for leaders to influence a humane, compassionate evidence-informed approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond by embedding an FoC framework and focusing on fundamental care as part of their academic mandate and daily care practices. DESIGN: This discursive paper delineates an evolving and ongoing enculturation, embeddedness and investment in advancing fundamental care as part of a larger academic practice strategy and quality improvement plan that is evidence-informed and collaborative in nature. METHOD: The action framework (value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care) developed by ILC guides efforts to how the FoC framework was embedded into one academic health science centre's strategic directions, academic practice strategy, professional practice model, quality plan and research and innovation platform. CONCLUSION: An overview of how we leveraged the FoC and ILC Leadership frameworks in our efforts to enculturate, embed and invest in advancing fundamental care and lessons learned that may inform other healthcare organizations in their efforts. IMPACT ON NURSING SCIENCE, PRACTICE OR DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE: Underpinning all of our efforts is the integral value we place on fundamental care to guide how we practice, educate and learn, discover and innovate and lead at x. We shared how we value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care by having it embedded into our strategic directions, academic practice strategy, professional practice model, quality aims and research and innovation platform. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Focusing on fundamentals of care in an ICU setting during a pandemic.

AIMS: This manuscript aims to describe one acute care hospital's ICU journey during the COVID-19 pandemic and how fundamental care was central to the implementation of team-based models of care. BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, team-based and alternative models of care are being employed to manage and address global shortages and surge capacity. Employing these alternate models of care required attention to ensure fundamental care needs of patients were being met. DESIGN/METHOD: The following paper describes an ICU's journey of focusing on the delivery of the fundamentals of care through the implementation of team-based models of care to address the surge in patient care demands experienced in response to our global pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an evidence-informed approach to optimizing models of care and staffing in the ICU amid the evolving COVID-19 waves in one acute-care hospital is provided. This local approach focused on meeting patients' fundamental care needs throughout the necessary introduction of team-based care models and staffing changes and drew from evolving evidence, the ILC Fundamentals of Care Framework, and regulatory guidance.

'No more heroes': The ILC Oxford Statement on fundamental care in times of crises.

AIM: To outline the International Learning Collaborative (ILC) Oxford Statement, explicating our commitment to ensuring health and care systems are equipped to meet patients' fundamental care needs during times of unprecedented crisis. DESIGN/METHOD: Discussion paper. The content was developed via a co-design process with participants during the ILC's international conference. KEY ARGUMENTS: We, the ILC, outline what we do and do not want to see within our health and care systems when faced with the challenges of caring for patients during global pandemics and other crises. Specifically, we want fundamental care delivery to be seen as the minimum standard rather than the exception across our health and care systems. We want nursing leaders to call out and stand up for the importance of building fundamental care into systems, processes and funding priorities. We do not want to see the voices of nursing leaders quashed or minimized in favour of other agendas. In turn, what we want to see is greater recognition of fundamental care work and greater respect for the people who do it. We expect nurses to have a 'seat at the table' where the key health and care decisions that impact patients and staff are made. CONCLUSION: To achieve our goals we must (1) ensure that fundamental care is embedded in all health and care systems, at all levels; (2) build on and strengthen the leadership skills of the nursing workforce by clearly advocating for person-centred fundamental care; (3) co-design systems that care for and support our staff's well-being and which foster collective resilience rather than overly rely on individual resilience; (4) improve the science and methodologies around reporting and measuring fundamental care to show the positive impact of this care delivery and (5) leverage the COVID pandemic crisis as an opportunity for transformational change in fundamental care delivery.

Knowledge, perspectives and health outcome expectations of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a top threat to global health. However, the public has an incomplete understanding of AMR and its consequences. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore patients' understanding, perspective and health outcome expectations for antibiotic therapy within an inpatient internal medicine population. Methods: A mixed methods study, combining a cross-sectional survey with qualitative methods. Fourteen questions (10 paper survey and four open ended interview questions) were used, and were completed by the participant in one sitting. Participants were recruited from General Internal Medicine units at two academic hospitals in Canada (convenience sample). Findings: Thirty participants were included. Out of a scale of 1-100%, participants indicated moderate concern (mean of 40%) about getting an infection that could not be cured by antibiotics. The majority agreed that they trusted their healthcare team to decide on appropriate antibiotic therapy (mean of 81%). The participants strongly agreed (mean of 90%) that it was important to understand the rationale for their antibiotic therapy. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: 1) varying levels of knowledge; 2) viewing antibiotics as beneficial while emphasizing effectiveness; and 3) trusting the healthcare team with expectations for inclusion in decision making. Conclusion: The study results showed varying levels of patients' antibiotic knowledge and large gaps in awareness related to AMR. Exploring the role and workflow of interdisciplinary healthcare professionals may be a potential strategy to minimize patients' knowledge gap related to antimicrobial therapy and AMR.

Towards defining quality in home care for persons living with dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Accelerating rates of dementia worldwide coupled with older adults living longer in the community calls for greater focus on quality home care support services. Few frameworks for quality dementia home care exist though prior findings have found elements considered to be important for "good" home care for people living with dementia. This study aimed to identify core components of a quality home care experience for people with dementia and their caregivers. METHODS: As part of a larger research study, in-depth interviews were conducted with persons living with dementia and caregivers (n = 25) to explore hospital-to-home care transitions. The design used for this study was a qualitative description. We used deductive-inductive thematic analysis, which was informed by previous work in this area. Open codes were mapped to pre-determined themes, and for codes not accommodated by an a piori framework, new themes were developed. FINDINGS: Our findings resulted in 4 overarching themes. Two themes were identified deductively (Availability and Acceptability of Home Care Services) and two inductively (Adaptability and Affordability of Home Care Services). Findings highlight the roles of family-care provider partnerships and responsive support in receiving quality home care, and the cost associated with unmet needs. INTERPRETATION: With an aging population, an increase in home care client acuity, and post-COVID-19 concerns over long-term care, more attention is needed to improve the quality of home care. The demand for these services will continue to increase particularly for those living with dementia and their families. The findings of availability, acceptability, adaptability, and affordability as core to quality care can help lay the groundwork for a home care framework for persons living with dementia and their caregivers. Future research could benefit from comparative analyses to evaluate the applicability of the findings to non-dementia home care service users and caregivers.

Identifying and adapting interventions to reduce documentation burden and improve nurses' efficiency in using electronic health record systems (The IDEA Study): protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Although EHR systems have become a critical part of clinical care, nurses are experiencing a growing burden due to documentation requirements, taking time away from other important clinical activities. There is a need to address the inefficiencies and challenges that nurses face when documenting in and using EHRs. The objective of this study is to engage nurses in generating ideas on how organizations can support and optimize nurses' experiences with their EHR systems, thereby improving efficiency and reducing EHR-related burden. This work will ensure the identified solutions are grounded in nurses' perspectives and experiences and will address their specific EHR-related needs. METHODS: This mixed methods study will consist of three phases. Phase 1 will evaluate the accuracy of the EHR system's analytics platform in capturing how nurses utilize the system in real-time for tasks such as documentation, chart review, and medication reconciliation. Phase 2 consists of a retrospective analysis of the nursing-specific analytics platform and focus groups with nurses to understand and contextualize their usage patterns. These focus groups will also be used to identify areas for improvement in the utilization of the EHR. Phase 3 will include focus groups with nurses to generate and adapt potential interventions to address the areas for improvement and assess the perceived relevance, feasibility, and impact of the potential interventions. DISCUSSION: This work will generate insights on addressing nurses' EHR-related burden and burnout. By understanding and contextualizing inefficiencies and current practices, opportunities to improve EHR systems for nursing professional practice will be identified. The study findings will inform the co-design and implementation of interventions that will support adoption and impact. Future work will include the evaluation of the developed interventions, and research on scaling and disseminating the interventions for use in different organizations, EHR systems, and jurisdictions in Canada.