Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718601›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2021

Organizational capacity for patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: interviews with patient/family advisors, managers and clinicians.

Natalie N Anderson, G Ross Baker, Lesley Moody, Kerseri Scane, Robin Urquhart, Walter P Wodchis, Anna R Gagliardi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie N AndersonToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto M5G2C4, Canada.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto M5T 3M6, Canada.
Lesley MoodyPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada.
Kerseri ScanePatient Partnerships, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON M5G2C4, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, 5790 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 1V7, Canada.
Walter P WodchisInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto M5T 3M6, Canada.
Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON M5G2C4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-809X
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CADalhousie University · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and family engagement (PE) in healthcare planning and improvement achieves beneficial outcomes and is widely advocated, but a lack of resources is a critical barrier. Little prior research studied how organizations support engagement specifically in hospitals.

objectiveWe explored what constitutes hospital capacity for engagement.

methodsWe conducted descriptive qualitative interviews and complied with criteria for rigour and reporting in qualitative research. We interviewed patient/family advisors, engagement managers, clinicians and executives at hospitals with high engagement activity, asking them to describe essential resources or processes. We used content analysis and constant comparison to identify themes and corresponding quotes and interpreted findings by mapping themes to two existing frameworks of PE capacity not specific to hospitals.

resultsWe interviewed 40 patient/family advisors, patient engagement managers, clinicians and corporate executives from nine hospitals (two < 100 beds, four 100 + beds, three teaching). Four over-arching themes about capacity considered essential included resources, training, organizational commitment and staff support. Views were similar across participant and hospital groups. Resources included funding and people dedicated to PE and technology to enable communication and collaboration. Training encompassed initial orientation and project-specific training for patient/family advisors and orientation for new staff and training for existing staff on how to engage with patient/family advisors. Organizational commitment included endorsement from the CEO and Board, commitment from staff and continuous evaluation and improvement. Staff support included words and actions that conveyed value for the role and input of patient/family advisors. The blended, non-hospital-specific framework captured all themes. Hospitals of all types varied in the availability of funding dedicated to PE. In particular, reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and contributions were not provided to patient/family advisors. In addition to skilled engagement managers, the role of clinician or staff champions was viewed as essential.

conclusionThe findings build on prior research that largely focused on PE in individual clinical care or research or in primary care planning and improvement. The findings closely aligned with existing frameworks of organizational capacity for PE not specific to hospital settings, which suggests that hospitals could use the blended framework to plan, evaluate and improve their PE programs. Further research is needed to yield greater insight into how to promote and enable compensation for patient/family advisors and the role of clinician or staff champions in supporting PE.

Indexed as

Hospital PlanningCapacity BuildingHospitalsHumansPatient ParticipationQualitative Researchhospital planninghospitalspatient engagementpatient participationqualitative researchquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID34718601
PMCPMC8678957
OpenAlexW3210034687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.