Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. Methods We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers). Results We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient’s perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. Conclusions We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care

Contextual factors and mechanisms that influence sustainability: a realist evaluation of two scaled, multi-component interventions

Abstract Background In 2012, Alberta Health Services created Strategic Clinical NetworksTM (SCNs) to develop and implement evidence-informed, clinician-led and team-delivered health system improvement in Alberta, Canada. SCNs have had several provincial successes in improving health outcomes. Little research has been done on the sustainability of these evidence-based implementation efforts. Methods We conducted a qualitative realist evaluation using a case study approach to identify and explain the contextual factors and mechanisms perceived to influence the sustainability of two provincial SCN evidence-based interventions, a delirium intervention for Critical Care and an Appropriate Use of Antipsychotics (AUA) intervention for Senior’s Health. The context (C) + mechanism (M) = outcome (O) configurations (CMOcs) heuristic guided our research. Results We conducted thirty realist interviews in two cases and found four important strategies that facilitated sustainability: Learning collaboratives, audit & feedback, the informal leadership role, and patient stories. These strategies triggered certain mechanisms such as sense-making, understanding value and impact of the intervention, empowerment, and motivation that increased the likelihood of sustainability. For example, informal leaders were often hands-on and influential to front-line staff. Learning collaboratives broke down professional and organizational silos and encouraged collective sharing and learning, motivating participants to continue with the intervention. Continual audit-feedback interventions motivated participants to want to perform and improve on a long-term basis, increasing the likelihood of sustainability of the two multi-component interventions. Patient stories demonstrated the interventions’ impact on patient outcomes, motivating staff to want to continue doing the intervention, and increasing the likelihood of its sustainability. Conclusions This research contributes to the field of implementation science, providing evidence on key strategies for sustainability and the underlying causal mechanisms of these strategies that increases the likelihood of sustainability. Identifying causal mechanisms provides evidence on the processes by which implementation strategies operate and lead to sustainability. Future work is needed to evaluate the impact of informal leadership, learning collaboratives, audit-feedback, and patient stories as strategies for sustainability, to generate better guidance on planning sustainable improvements with long term impact

Moving enhanced recovery after surgery from implementation to sustainability across a health system: a qualitative assessment of leadership perspectives

Abstract Background Knowledge Translation evidence from health care practitioners and administrators implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has allowed for the spread and scale of the health care innovation. There is a need to identify at a health system level, what it takes from a leadership perspective to move from implementation to sustainability over time. The purpose of this research was to systematically synthesize feedback from health care leaders to inform further spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS care across a health system. Methods Alberta Health Services (AHS) is the largest Canadian health system with approximately 280,000 surgeries annually at more than 50 surgical sites. In 2013 to 2014, AHS used a structured approach to successfully implement ERAS colorectal guidelines at six sites. Between 2016 and 2018, three of the six sites expanded ERAS to other surgical areas (gynecologic oncology, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy/Whipple’s, and cystectomy). This research was designed to explore and learn from the experiences of health care leaders involved in the AHS ERAS implementation expansion (eg. surgical care unit, hospital site or provincial program) and build on the model for knowledge mobilization develop during implementation. Following informed consent, leaders were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Data were recorded, coded and analyzed qualitatively through a combination of theory-driven immersion and crystallization, and template coding using NVivo 12. Results Forty-four individuals (13 physician leaders, 19 leading clinicians and hospital administrators, and 11 provincial leaders) were interviewed. Themes were identified related to Supportive Environments including resources, data, leadership; Champion and Nurse coordinator role; and Capacity Building through change management, education, and teams. The perception and role of leaders changed through initiation and implementation, spread, and sustainability. Barriers and enablers were thematically aligned relative to outcome assessment, consistency of implementation, ERAS care compliance, and the implementation of multiple guidelines. Conclusions Health care leaders have unique perspectives and approaches to support spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS that are different from site based ERAS teams. These findings inform us what leaders need to do or need to do differently to support implementation and to foster spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS

Co-designing strategies to support patient partners during a scoping review and reflections on the process: a commentary

Abstract Background Patient partners can be described as individuals who assume roles as active members on research teams, indicative of individuals with greater involvement, increased sharing of power, and increased responsibility than traditionally described by patient participants who are primarily studied. A gap still remains in the understanding of how to engage patients. The objective of this commentary is to describe the involvement of four patient partners who worked with researchers during a scoping review. Main body We describe approaches to meaningfully engage patient partners in conducting a scoping review. Patient partners were recruited through existing patient networks. Capacity development in the form of the training was provided to these four patient partners. Engagement strategies were co-designed with them to address potential barriers of involvement and acquiring the necessary skills for the successful completion of this scoping review. Conclusion Involving patients partners early in the project established the foundational relationship so patient partners could contribute to their fullest. We witnessed the success of working alongside patient partners as members of the research team with a clear and mutually agreed upon purpose of the engagement in health research activities and how this seemed to contribute to an effective and rewarding experience for both researcher and patient partner

An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

Implementation science (IS) has emerged as an integral component for evidence-based whole system improvement. IS studies the best methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service delivery and patient care. IS laboratories (IS labs) are one mechanism to integrate implementation science as an evidence-based approach to whole system improvement and to support a learning health system. This paper aims to examine if IS labs are a suitable approach to whole system improvement. We retrospectively analyzed an existing IS lab (Alberta, Canada’s Implementation Science Collaborative) to assess the potential of IS labs to perform as a whole system approach to improvement and to identify key activities and considerations for designing IS labs specifically to support learning health systems. Results from our evaluation show the extent to which IS labs support learning health systems through enabling infrastructures for system-wide improvement and research

Understanding the chronic pain journey and coping strategies that patients use to manage their chronic pain: a qualitative, patient-led, Canadian study

Objective To gain an insight into coping strategies that people living with chronic pain use to self-manage their pain.Design This qualitative Patient-oriented Research study used the Patient and Community Engagement Research approach. It was conducted by people with chronic pain lived experience, ensuring that patient perspective and needs were considered and addressed throughout the research cycle. Purposeful sampling was used for recruiting individuals living with chronic pain. A focus group and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconference. The data were analysed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis and narrative story analysis.Setting Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants Eleven adult participants, between the ages of 18 and 65, who self-identified as living with chronic pain for greater than 2 years.Results Three main themes emerged from the data: (1) the elements of chronic pain, (2) the chronic pain journey to acceptance and (3) daily coping strategies for chronic pain. Participants thought it was important to discuss these three themes because the daily coping strategies that they employed at any given time (theme 3) depended on the factors discussed in themes 1 and 2. Overlaying all of this is also a grieving process that people living with chronic pain may have to go through more than once. Participants also identified recommendations for healthcare professionals to support people living with chronic pain.Conclusions Dealing with chronic pain affects all aspects of a person’s life and involves a grieving process. When treating patients with chronic pain, it is important for healthcare professionals to understand the journey that people living with chronic pain go through, not just coping strategies. Diagnosis is critical for a patient’s acceptance and in helping them find their new normal where they can employ daily coping strategies to manage their pain