Perspectives of substitute decision‐makers and staff about person‐centred physical activity in long‐term care

IntroductionThis paper aims to explore the care processes that best exemplify person‐centred care during physical activity (PA) for long‐term care (LTC) residents with dementia from the perspectives of substitute decision‐makers (SDMs) and LTC home staff. Little is known about how person‐centred care is reflected during PA for residents with dementia, or the barriers and benefits to enacting person‐centred care during PA.MethodsSemistructured interviews were used to collect SDMs and LTC home staffs'' perspectives on the importance of person‐centred care during PA from two LTC homes in Canada. The McCormack and McCance person‐centredness framework was used to guide thematic content analysis of responses.ResultsSDM (n = 26) and staff (n = 21) identified actions categorized under the sympathetic presence or engagement care processes from the person‐centredness framework as most reflecting person‐centred care. Benefits of person‐centred care during PA were categorized into three themes: functional and physical, behavioural and communication and psychosocial improvements. Barriers to person‐centred care during PA identified were lack of time, opportunities for meaningful activity in LTC setting and staff experiences with resident aggression.SignificanceUnderstanding the care processes that are most recognized as person‐centred care and valued by SDMs and LTC home staff has implications for education and training. Insights into SDMs'' care expectations regarding person‐centred care can inform staff about which actions should be prioritized to meet care expectations and can foster relationships to the benefit of residents with dementia.Patient and Public ContributionStudy participants were not involved in the development of research questions, research design or outcome measures of this study.     

Proposals for person‐centred care in the COVID‐19 era. Delphi study

BackgroundIn this COVID‐19 era, we need to rethink the criteria used to measure the results of person‐centred care strategies.ObjectiveTo identify priorities, and criteria that health services can use to pursue actually the goal of achieving person‐centred care.DesignThree‐phase online qualitative study performed during May–July of 2020 using the Delphi technique.Setting and ParticipantsAn online platform was used for a consensus meeting of 114 participants, including health planning experts, health‐care institution managers, clinicians and patients.Main Outcome MeasuresCriteria and indicators for the achievement of person‐centred care.Main ResultsThe first round began with 125 proposals and 11 dimensions. After the second round, 28 ideas reached a high level of consensus among the participants. Ultimately, the workgroup agreed on 20 criteria for goals in the implementation of person‐centred care during the COVID‐19 era and 21 related indicators to measure goal achievement.DiscussionNine dimensions and 28 priorities were identified. These priorities are also in accordance with the quadruple aim approach, which emphasizes the need for care for health‐care professionals, without whom it is impossible to achieve a better quality of care.ConclusionsPerson‐centred care continues to be a key objective. However, new metrics are needed to ensure its continued development during the restoration of public health services beyond the control of COVID‐19.Patient or Public ContributionTwelve professionals and patient representatives participated voluntarily in the construction of the baseline questionnaire and in the selection of the criteria and indicators using an online platform for consensus meetings.     

Interactional practices in person‐centred care: Conversation analysis of nurse‐patient disagreement during self‐management support

BackgroundPerson‐centred care implies a change in interaction between care professionals and patients where patients are not passive recipients but co‐producers of care. The interactional practices of person‐centred care remain largely unexplored.ObjectiveThis study focuses on the analysis of disagreements, which are described as an important part in the co‐production of knowledge in interaction.DesignA qualitative exploratory study using conversation analysis.Setting and participantsData were collected from a nurse‐led person‐centred intervention in a hospital outpatient setting. Interactions between adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome (n = 17) and a registered nurse were audio‐recorded. COREQ guidelines were applied.ResultsDisagreements were found after demonstration of the nurse''s or patients’ respective professional or personal knowledge. Disagreements were also evident when deciding on strategies for self‐management. Although negotiations between opposing views of the nurse and patient were seen as important, the patient generally claimed final authority both in knowing how IBS is perceived and in the right to choose self‐management strategies. The nurse generally oriented towards patient authority, but instances of demonstration of nurse authority despite patient resistance were also found.Discussion and conclusionsThis study provides information on how co‐production of knowledge and decisions occur in the context of a person‐centred care intervention. Negotiations between nurse and patient views require a flexible approach to communication, adapting interaction to each context while bearing in mind the patients having the final authority. To facilitate co‐production, the patient''s role and responsibilities in interaction should be explicitly stated.     

A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person‐centred care: Content from the first interventional studies

BackgroundPerson‐centred care (PCC) has been suggested as a potential means to improve the care of patients with chronic and long‐term disorders. In this regard, a model for PCC was developed by the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person‐Centred Care (GPCC).ObjectiveThe present study aimed to explore the theoretical frameworks, designs, contexts and intervention characteristics in the first 27 interventional studies conducted based on the ethics for person‐centredness provided by the GPCC.DesignCross‐sectional study.Setting and participantsA questionnaire to the principal investigators of the 27 intervention studies financed by the GPCC and conducted between 2010 and 2016.Main outcome measuresTheoretical frameworks, contexts of studies, person‐centred ethic, and outcome measures.ResultsMost of the interventions were based on the same ethical assumptions for person‐centredness but theories and models in applying the interventions differed. All studies were controlled; 12 randomized and 15 quasi‐experimental. Hospital in‐ and outpatient and primary care settings were represented and the outcome measures were related to the specific theories used. A complexity in designing, introducing and evaluating PCC interventions was evident.ConclusionThe frameworks, designs and interventions in the studies were in line with the established ethical basis of PCC, whereas outcome measures varied widely. Consensus discussions among researchers in the field are needed to make comparisons between studies feasible.Patient or public contributionsPatients or the public made no direct contributions, although most of the studied projects included such initiatives.     

Conceptualizing patient participation in psychiatry: A survey describing the voice of patients in outpatient care

BackgroundWhile increasingly discussed in somatic care, the concept of patient participation remains unsettled in psychiatric care, potentially impeding person‐centred experiences.ObjectiveTo describe outpatient psychiatric care patients’ conceptualization of patient participation.DesignAn exploratory survey.Setting and participantsPatients in four psychiatric outpatient care units.VariablesPatients conceptualized patient participation by completing a semi‐structured questionnaire, including optional attributes and free text. Data were analysed using statistics for ordinal data and content analysis for free text.ResultsIn total, 137 patients (69% of potential respondents) completed the questionnaire. The discrete items were favoured for conceptualizing patient participation, indicating a primary connotation that participation means being listened to, being in a reciprocal dialogue, learning about one''s health care and managing one''s symptoms. Additional free‐text responses acknowledged the attributes previously recognized, and provided supplementary notions, including that patient participation is about mutual respect and shared trust.DiscussionWhat patient participation is and how it can be facilitated needs to be agreed in order to enable preference‐based patient participation. Patients in outpatient psychiatric care conceptualize participation in terms of both sharing of and sharing in, including taking part in joint and solo activities, such as a reciprocal dialogue and managing symptoms by yourself.ConclusionWhile being a patient in psychiatric care has been associated with a lack of voice, an increased understanding of patient participation enables person‐centred care, with the benefits of collaboration, co‐production and enhanced quality of care.Patient contributionPatients provided their conceptualization of patient participation in accordance with their lived experience.     

A nationwide participatory programme to measure person‐centred hospital care in Italy: Results and implications for continuous improvement

BackgroundPatient‐centredness has been targeted by the Italian government as a key theme for the future development of health services.ObjectiveMeasuring patient‐centred health services in partnership with citizens, health professionals and decision makers.DesignNational participatory survey in a large test set of hospitals at national level.Setting and participantsA total of 387 hospital visits conducted in 16 Italian regions by over 1,500 citizens and health professionals during 2017‐2018.Main variables and outcome measuresAn ad hoc checklist was used to assess person‐centredness in hospital care through 243 items, grouped in 4 main areas, 12 sub‐areas and 29 person‐centred criteria (scored 0‐10). GEE linear multivariate regression was used to explore the relation between hospital characteristics and person‐centredness.ResultsPerson‐centred scores were moderately high, with substantial variation overall (median score: 7.0, range: 3.2‐9.5) and by area (Care Processes: 6.8, 2.0‐9.8; Access: 7.4, 2.7‐9.7; Transparency: 6.7, 3.4‐9.5 and Relationship: 7.3, 0.8‐10.0). Multivariate regression found higher scores for increasing volumes of activity (quartile increase: +0.21; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.29) and lower scores in the south and islands (−1.03; −1.62,‐0.45).DiscussionThe checklist has been applied successfully by over 1,500 collaborators who assessed hospitals in 16 distinct Regions and Autonomous Provinces of Italy. Despite an overall positive mark, all scores were highly variable by location and hospital characteristics.Conclusion and patient or public contributionA national participatory programme to improve patient‐centredness in Italian hospitals highlighted critical areas with the direct input of citizens.     

Health‐care professionals’ assessment of a person‐centred intervention to empower self‐management and health across chronic illness: Qualitative findings from a process evaluation study

BackgroundPerson‐centred care (PCC) empowers patients to manage their chronic illness and promote their health in accordance with their own beliefs, values and preferences. Drawing on health‐care professional''s (HCP’s) experiences implementing an empowerment‐focused, person‐centred intervention called the Bodyknowledging Program (BKP), we undertook a process evaluation that aimed to assess the impact on patient health and well‐being.MethodsWe used individual in‐depth interviews and semi‐structured focus groups comprising n = 8 interprofessional HCP who facilitated intervention sessions with n = 58 patients situated in Norwegian specialist care sites. Content analysis was used to analyse the data and summarize major themes.ResultsHealth‐care professional interviews revealed four main ways in which the intervention operated in support of health‐related patient outcomes: (i) addressing the whole person; (ii) hope and affirmation; (iii) expanding recovery; and (iv) social support and revitalized relationships. The intervention provided new tools for patients to understand the social, emotional and physical impact of their illness. Health‐care professional reported new insights to facilitate patient engagement and to promote patients’ health.ConclusionsThe Bodyknowledging Program facilitated patient engagement through the promotion of patient‐centred care while developing the patients’ ability to exploit their own resources for effectively managing their health within illness. The process evaluation supported the underlying theoretical basis of the intervention and was suggestive of its potential transferability elsewhere.     

The manifestation of participation within a co‐design process involving patients,significant others and health‐care professionals

BackgroundDespite intentions to increase user participation in the development of health services, the concept of participation and how it unfolds within studies with a participatory design has rarely been addressed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe how user participation manifests itself within a co‐design process involving patients, significant others and health‐care professionals, including potential enablers or barriers.MethodsThis study was conducted in the context of a co‐design process of a new person‐centred transition from a hospital to continued rehabilitation in the home involving three patients with stroke, one significant other and 11 professionals. Data were collected by observations during the workshops, semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires.ResultsFour categories: ‘Composition of individuals for an adaptive climate’; ‘The balancing of roles and power’; ‘Different perspectives as common ground for a shared understanding’; and ‘Facilitating an unpredictable and ever‐adaptive process’, with all together nine subcategories, resulted from the analysis. Participation varied between individuals, groups and steps within the process, and on the topic of discussions and the motivation to contribute.Discussion/ConclusionParticipation is not something that is realized by only applying participatory design methodology. Participation manifests itself through the interaction of the participants and their skills to handle different perspectives, roles and assignments. Participation is enabled by individual, group and facilitating aspects. Co‐design processes should allow for varying levels of participation among the participants and throughout the process.Patient or public contributionPatients, significant others and health‐care professionals participated as co‐designers of a care transition model between hospital and home.     

Aged care residents’ prioritization of care: A mixed‐methods study

BackgroundEliciting residents’ priorities for their care is fundamental to delivering person‐centred care in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Prioritization involves ordering different aspects of care in relation to one another by level of importance. By understanding residents’ priorities, care can be tailored to residents’ needs while considering practical limitations of RACFs.ObjectivesTo investigate aged care residents’ prioritization of care.DesignA mixed‐methods study comprising Q methodology and qualitative methods.Setting and participantsThirty‐eight residents living in one of five Australian RACFs.MethodParticipants completed a card–sorting activity using Q methodology in which they ordered 34 aspects of care on a pre‐defined grid by level of importance. Data were analysed using inverted factor analysis to identify factors representing shared viewpoints. Participants also completed a think‐aloud task, demographic questionnaire, post‐sorting interview and semi‐structured interview. Inductive content analysis of qualitative data was conducted to interpret shared viewpoints and to identify influences on prioritization decision making.ResultsFour viewpoints on care prioritization were identified through Q methodology: Maintaining a sense of spirituality and self in residential care; information sharing and family involvement; self‐reliance; and timely access to staff member support. Across the participant sample, residents prioritized being treated with respect, the management of medical conditions, and their independence. Inductive content analysis revealed four influences on prioritization decisions: level of dependency; dynamic needs; indifference; and availability of staff.ConclusionsRecommendations for providing care that align with residents’ priorities include establishing open communication channels with residents, supporting residents’ independence and enforcing safer staffing ratios.     

Codesigning person‐centred quality indicators with diverse communities: A qualitative patient engagement study

IntroductionEffective engagement of underrepresented communities in health research and policy remains a challenge due to barriers that hinder participation. Our study had two objectives: (1) identify themes of person‐centred care (PCC) from perspectives of diverse patients/caregivers that would inform the development of person‐centred quality indicators (PC‐QIs) for evaluating the quality of PCC and initiatives to improve PCC and (2) explore innovative participatory approaches to engage ethnocultural communities in qualitative research.MethodsDrawing on participatory action research methods, we partnered with a community‐based organization to train six ‘Community Brokers’ from the Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Latino‐Hispanic, East African and Syrian communities, who were engaged throughout the study. We also partnered with the provincial health organization to engage their Patient and Family Advisory, who represented further aspects of diversity. We conducted focus group discussions with patients/caregivers to obtain their perspectives on their values, preferences and needs regarding PCC. We identified themes through our study and engaged provincial stakeholders to prioritize these themes for informing the development of PC‐QIs and codesign initiatives for improving PCC.ResultsEight focus groups were conducted with 66 diverse participants. Ethnocultural communities highlighted themes related to access and cost of care, language barriers and culture, while the Patient and Family Advisory emphasized patient and caregiver engagement. Together with provincial stakeholders, initiatives were identified to improve PCC, such as codesigning innovative models of training and evaluation of healthcare providers.ConclusionIncorporating patient and community voices requires addressing issues related to equity and understanding barriers to effective and meaningful engagement.Patient or Public ContributionPatient and public engagement was central to our research study. This included partnership with a community‐based organization, with a broad network of ethnocultural communities, as well as the provincial health service delivery organization, who both facilitated the ongoing engagement of diverse patients/caregiver communities throughout our study including designing the study, recruiting participants, collecting and organizing data, interpreting findings and mobilizing knowledge. Drawing from participatory action research methods, patients and the public were involved in the codesign of the PC‐QIs and initiatives to improve PCC in the province based on the findings from our study.     

Assessment of functioning in Dutch primary care: Development study of a consultation tool for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity

BackgroundIn primary care, a shift from a disease‐oriented approach for patients with multimorbidity towards a more person‐centred approach is needed.AimTo transform a self‐report questionnaire for patients with chronic conditions in primary care, the Primary Care Functioning Scale (PCFS), into an understandable, visually attractive and feasible consultation tool for patients and health care providers. The consultation tool consists of a web‐based version of the PCFS, which is filled in by the patient and is processed to a feedback report that summarizes and visualizes the main findings. The feedback report can be discussed with the patient to facilitate a more person‐centred conversation for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in general practice.Design and SettingIn this qualitative study, we developed the consultation tool by using design thinking in a participatory developmental process.MethodsIn the first phase, we constructed five different feedback report templates to summarize and display the results of a completed PCFS questionnaire in a series of two expert meetings with patients and general practitioners (GPs). In the second phase, we performed an exploratory qualitative interview study involving dyads of patients with chronic conditions and their practice nurses. In an iterative process, we explored their experiences with the consultation tool.ResultsPatients, as well as GPs, preferred a clear manner of presenting the results of the questionnaire in a feedback report. In 18 interviews with patients and practice nurses during three different interview rounds, we adjusted the feedback report and consultation tool based on the input from patients and practice nurses. After the final interview round, patients and practice nurses consented that the consultation tool was useful for having a more in‐depth consultation about functioning and patients'' preferences when integrated into the regularly scheduled consultations.ConclusionWe were able to develop an understandable and feasible consultation tool that is applicable in already existing chronic disease management programmes in general practice in the Netherlands.Patient or Public ContributionTo increase the understandability and feasibility of the consultation tool, we collaborated with end‐users and actively involved patients, GPs and practice nurses in a participatory development process.     

Knowledge sharing to support long‐term condition self‐management—Patient and health‐care professional perspectives

BackgroundIncreased self‐management is a suggested solution to the burden on health‐care services of long‐term conditions (LTCs). This requires effective sharing of knowledge between health‐care professionals and patients, and is an underexplored area.ObjectiveTo understand how patients and health‐care professionals (HCPs) share and utilize knowledge in the social context of health‐care interactions within long‐term condition management.MethodsThematic analysis of 93 hours of observations of health‐care interactions and 33 semi‐structured interviews involving patients, carers and HCPs.Results3 themes were identified: normative social roles, differing professional roles and the value of knowledge. Knowledge sharing was a complex process heavily influenced by social and cultural norms within the health‐care context. Not all knowledge was easily shared within routine health‐care interactions.DiscussionThe social context in which health‐care is practised influences what knowledge is shared and how this is achieved. It favours sharing of clinical knowledge from HCPs to patients and disadvantages patients in their ability to share their unique knowledge based on lived experience of illness. The opportunities for patients to be supported in their knowledge, skills and confidence within routine health‐care interactions are limited.ConclusionBoth patients and HCPs need support to recognize the characteristics of the social context of health care and their understandings of their roles within this in order for them to move beyond accepted behaviours to develop more effective partnership working.Patient or Public ContributionPatients were involved in initial design of the study, particularly ethics of ethnographic observation.     

The healthcare experiences of women with cardiac disease in pregnancy and postpartum: A qualitative study

IntroductionCardiac disease affects an estimated 1%–4% of all pregnancies and is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of data on the healthcare experiences of affected women to inform health service delivery and person‐centred care. This study sought to explore and understand the healthcare experiences of women with cardiac disease in pregnancy and postpartum.MethodsThis qualitative study used semi‐structured interviews with women who had cardiac disease in pregnancy or the first 12 months postpartum. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants were 25 women with pre‐existing or newly diagnosed acquired, genetic and congenital cardiac disease. Analysis of the interviews highlighted the discrepancy between care aspirations and experiences. The participants had a wide range of cardiac diseases and timing of diagnoses, but had similar healthcare experiences of being dismissed, not receiving the information they required, lack of continuity of care and clinical guidelines and of feeling out of place within a healthcare system that did not accommodate their combined needs as a mother and a cardiac patient.ConclusionThis study identified a lack of person‐centred care and responsiveness of the healthcare system in providing fit‐for‐purpose healthcare for women with complex disease who are pregnant or new mothers. In particular, cardiac and maternity care providers have an opportunity to listen to women who are the experts on their emergent healthcare needs, contributing to development of the knowledge base on the healthcare experiences of having cardiac disease in pregnancy and postpartum.Patient or Public ContributionPublic and patient input into the value and design of the study was gained through NSW Heart Foundation forums, including the Heart Foundation''s women''s patient group.     

"Care is not care if it isn't person‐centred": A content analysis of how Person‐Centred Care is expressed on Twitter

BackgroundPerson‐Centred Care (PCC) has been the subject of growing interest in recent decades. Even though there is no conceptual consensus regarding PCC, many health‐care institutions have implemented elements into their care.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the PCC topics presented by different stakeholder groups on Twitter and to explore the perceptions of PCC within the content of the tweets.MethodTweets with mentions of PCC in various translations were collected through a Twitter Application Programming Interface in October 2019. The tweets were analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analysis.ResultsFive stakeholder groups and ten topics were identified within 1540 tweets. The results showed that the PCC content focused on providing information and opinions rather than expressing experiences of PCC in practice. Qualitative content analysis of 428 selected tweets revealed content on a vision that all care should be person‐centred but that the realization of that vision was more complicated.ConclusionsTwitter has shown to be a quick and non‐intrusive data collection tool for uncovering stakeholders'' expressions concerning PCC. The PCC content revealed that stakeholders feel a need to ''educate'' others about their perception of PCC when experiences and real‐life applications are missing. More action should be taken for the implementation of PCC rather than circulating PCC vision without operationalization in care.Public ContributionThe public provided the data through their posts on Twitter, and it is their perception of PCC that is studied here.     

An alternate level of care plan: Co‐designing components of an intervention with patients,caregivers and providers to address delayed hospital discharge challenges

ObjectiveTo engage with patients, caregivers and care providers to co‐design components of an intervention that aims to improve delayed hospital discharge experiences.DesignThis is a qualitative study, which entailed working groups and co‐design sessions utilizing World Café and deliberative dialogue techniques to continually refine the intervention.Setting and ParticipantsOur team engaged with 61 participants (patients, caregivers and care providers) in urban and rural communities across Ontario, Canada. A 7‐member Patient and Caregiver Advisory Council participated in all stages of the research.ResultsKey challenges experienced during a delayed discharge by patients, caregivers and care providers were poor communication and a lack of care services. Participants recommended a communication guide to support on‐going conversation between care providers, patients and caregivers. The guide included key topics to cover and questions to ask during initial and on‐going conversations to manage expectations and better understand the priorities and goals of patients and caregivers. Service recommendations included getting out of bed and dressed each day, addressing the psycho‐social needs of patients through tailored activities and having a storyboard at the bedside to facilitate on‐going engagement.Discussion and ConclusionsOur findings outline ways to meaningfully engage patients and caregivers during a delayed hospital discharge. Combining this with a minimal basket of services can potentially facilitate a better care experience and outcomes for patients, their care providers and families.     

COVID‐19: The Time for Collaboration Between Long‐Term Services and Supports,Health Care Systems,and Public Health Is Now

Policy Points

• To address systemic problems amplified by COVID‐19, we need to restructure US long‐term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near‐term and long‐term policy solutions.
• Seven near‐term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID‐19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations.
• Long‐term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age‐friendly public health system.

ContextThe heavy toll of COVID‐19 brings the failings of the long‐term services and supports (LTSS) system in the United States into sharp focus. Although these are not new problems, the pandemic has exacerbated and amplified their impact to a point that they are impossible to ignore. The primary blame for the high rates of COVID‐19 infections and deaths has been assigned to formal LTSS care settings, specifically nursing homes. Yet other systemic problems have been unearthed during this pandemic: the failure to coordinate the US public health system at the federal level and the effects of long‐term disinvestment and neglect of state‐ and local‐level public health programs. Together these failures have contributed to an inability to coordinate with the LTSS system and to act early to protect residents and staff in the LTSS care settings that are hotspots for infection, spread, and serious negative health outcomes.MethodsWe analyze several impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the US LTSS system and policy arrangements. The economic toll on state budgets has been multifaceted, and the pandemic has had a direct impact on Medicaid, the primary funder of LTSS, which in turn has further exacerbated the states’ fiscal problems. Both the inequalities across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the increased burden on unpaid caregivers are clear. So too is the need to better integrate LTSS with the health, social care, and public health systems.FindingsWe propose seven near‐term actions that US policymakers could take: implementing a uniform public reporting of COVID‐19 cases in LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering support for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing the barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for our most vulnerable populations. Our analysis also demonstrates that our nation requires comprehensive reform to build the LTSS system we need through comprehensive workforce development, universal coverage through comprehensive financing reform, and the creation of an age‐friendly public health system.ConclusionsCOVID‐19 has exposed the many deficits of the US LTSS system and made clear the interdependence of LTSS with public health. Policymakers have an opportunity to address these failings through a substantive reform of the LTSS system and increased collaboration with public health agencies and leaders. The opportunity for reform is now.     

Stakeholders’ perspectives on models of care in the emergency department and the introduction of health and social care professional teams: A qualitative analysis using World Cafés and interviews

BackgroundThere is some evidence that health and social care professional (HSCP) teams contribute to enhanced patient and process outcomes in increasingly crowded emergency departments (EDs), but the views of service users and providers on this model of care need investigation to optimize implementation.ObjectiveThis qualitative study investigated the perspectives of key ED stakeholders about HSCP teams working in the ED.MethodsUsing a participatory design, we conducted World Café focus groups and individual interviews in two Irish hospital sites with 65 participants (purposive sampling) including ED patients and carers/relatives, ED doctors and nurses, HSCPs and pre‐hospital staff. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo software.ResultsParticipants reported that ED‐based HSCP teams could improve quality and integration of care and staff experience (Theme 1) and would be appropriate for older adults with complex needs and non‐urgent complaints (Theme 2). Concerns were raised about operational and relational barriers to implementation (Theme 3), and changes in processes and culture were considered necessary for HSCPs to work successfully in the ED (Theme 4). In contrast to service providers, service users’ concerns centred on the importance of positive communication and relations (Theme 5).ConclusionsOur study indicates potential acceptability of HSCP teams working in the ED, especially to care for older adults; however, operational and relational aspects, particularly developing interdisciplinary and integrated care, need addressing to ensure successful implementation. Differences in priorities between service users and providers (relational vs operational) highlighted the usefulness of gathering views from multiple stakeholders to understand ED processes.