Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31703678›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Partnering with patients in quality improvement: towards renewed practices for healthcare organization managers?

Nathalie Clavel, Marie-Pascale Pomey, Djahanchah Philip Sacha Ghadiri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Engaging patients as partners in cancer care: An innovative strategy to implement screening for distress?Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
  17. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nathalie ClavelDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. nathalie.clavel@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0438-6655
Marie-Pascale PomeyDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Djahanchah Philip Sacha GhadiriDepartment of Management, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 318871Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé 259552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround the world, many healthcare organizations engage patients as a quality improvement strategy. In Canada, the University of Montreal has developed a model which consists in partnering with patient advisors, providers, and managers in quality improvement. This model was introduced through its Partners in Care Programs tested with several quality improvement teams in Quebec, Canada. Partnering with patients in quality improvement brings about new challenges for healthcare managers. This model is recent, and little is known about how managers contribute to implementing and sustaining it using key practices.

methodsIn-depth multi-level case studies were conducted within two healthcare organizations which have implemented a Partners in Care Program in quality improvement. The longitudinal design of this research enabled us to monitor the implementation of patient partnership initiatives from 2015 to 2017. In total, 38 interviews were carried out with managers at different levels (top-level, mid-level, and front-line) involved in the implementation of Partners in Care Programs. Additionally, seven focus groups were conducted with patients and providers.

resultsOur findings show that managers are engaged in four main types of practices: 1-designing the patient partnership approach so that it makes sense to the entire organization; 2-structuring patient partnership to support its deployment and sustainability; 3-managing patient advisor integration in quality improvement to avoid tokenistic involvement; 4-evaluating patient advisor integration to support continuous improvement. Designing and structuring patient partnership are based on typical management practices used to implement change initiatives in healthcare organizations, whereas managing and evaluating patient advisor integration require new daily practices from managers. Our results reveal that managers at all levels, from top to front-line, are concerned with the implementation of patient partnership in quality improvement.

conclusionThis research adds empirical support to the evidence regarding daily managerial practices used for implementing patient partnership initiatives in quality improvement and contributes to guiding healthcare organizations and managers when integrating such approaches.

Indexed as

Professional-Patient RelationsCommunity Health ServicesHealth Services AdministrationHospitalsHumansLongitudinal StudiesQuality ImprovementQuebecHealthcare organization managersImplementation of changeManagerial practicesPatient partnershipQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31703678
PMCPMC6839263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.