Raisa Deber

Aim: The aim of the study is to explore the experience and perspectives of healthcare personnel deployed from the hospitals and military into long‐term care (LTC) in Ontario during the pandemic. Background: Personnel from acute care hospitals, community care, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and the Canadian Red Cross were deployed in support of LTC homes across Ontario. Introduction: This article reports on the study of personnel deployed into LTC during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Understanding the experiences and lessons learned will be useful to improve planning and responses to future pandemics and disasters. Methods: A descriptive, exploratory research study design with a demographic questionnaire and semi‐structured interviews was used. Data analysis used a combination of open and process coding to identify thematic categories. The COREQ checklist was used for reporting on the study. Findings: Interviews were conducted with 30 participants who described common challenges of navigating the unknown, defining one's role, and establishing order. Lessons included the importance of adaptability, flexibility, and pragmatism and emphasized the role of leadership. Discussion: The findings highlight challenges that personnel from civilian and military backgrounds experience when responding to disaster, and underscore the importance of communication, effective leadership, and cohesive teams. These findings are consistent with existing literature, contribute to the understanding of how personnel in disasters address challenges, and inform how to better prepare and train personnel for future disasters. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy: These findings can be used to inform disaster theory and practice, including disaster competencies such as the International Council of Nurses Disaster Nursing Competencies, and provide a framework to improve disaster planning and responder training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to thousands of deaths of which a disproportionate number have occurred in long-term care. The papers in this special issue deal w

Background: In recent years, digital tools have become a viable means for patients to address their health and information needs. Governments and health care organizations are offering digital tools such as self-assessment tools, symptom tracking tools, or chatbots. Other sources of digital tools, such as those offered through patient platforms, are available on the internet free of charge. We define patient platforms as health-specific websites that offer tools to anyone with internet access to engage them in their health care process with peer networks to support their learning. Although numerous social media platforms engage users without up-front charges, patient platforms are specific to health. As little is known about their business model, there is a need to understand what else these platforms are trying to achieve beyond supporting patients so that patients can make informed decisions about the benefits and risks of using the digital tools they offer. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore what patient platforms are trying to achieve beyond supporting patients and how their digital tools can be used to generate income. Methods: Textual and visual data collected from a purposeful selection of 11 patient platforms from September 2013 to August 2014 were analyzed using framework analysis. Data were systematically and rigorously coded and categorized according to key issues and themes by following 5 steps: familiarizing, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation. We used open coding to identify additional concepts not captured in the initial thematic framework. This paper reports on emergent findings on the business models of the platforms and their income-generating processes. Results: Our analysis revealed that in addition to patients, the platforms support other parties with interests in health and information exchanges. Patient platforms did not charge up-front fees but generated income from other sources, such as advertising, sponsorship, marketing (eg, sending information to users on behalf of sponsors or providing means for sponsors to reach patients directly), supporting other portals, and providing research services. Conclusions: This study reports on the mechanisms by which some patient platforms generate income to support their operations, gain profit, or both. Although income-generating processes exist elsewhere on social media platforms in general, they pose unique challenges in the health context because digital tools engage patients in health and information exchanges. This study highlights the need to minimize the potential for unintended consequences that can pose health risks to patients or can lead to increased health expenses. By understanding other interests that patient platforms support, our findings point to important policy implications, such as whether (and how) authorities might protect users from processes that may not always be in their best interests and can potentially incur costs to the health system.

BACKGROUND In recent years, digital tools have become a viable means for patients to address their health and information needs. Governments and health care organizations are offering digital tools such as self-assessment tools, symptom tracking tools, or chatbots. Other sources of digital tools, such as those offered through patient platforms, are available on the internet free of charge. We define patient platforms as health-specific websites that offer tools to anyone with internet access to engage them in their health care process with peer networks to support their learning. Although numerous social media platforms engage users without up-front charges, patient platforms are specific to health. As little is known about their business model, there is a need to understand what else these platforms are trying to achieve beyond supporting patients so that patients can make informed decisions about the benefits and risks of using the digital tools they offer. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to explore what patient platforms are trying to achieve beyond supporting patients and how their digital tools can be used to generate income. METHODS Textual and visual data collected from a purposeful selection of 11 patient platforms from September 2013 to August 2014 were analyzed using framework analysis. Data were systematically and rigorously coded and categorized according to key issues and themes by following 5 steps: familiarizing, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation. We used open coding to identify additional concepts not captured in the initial thematic framework. This paper reports on emergent findings on the business models of the platforms and their income-generating processes. RESULTS Our analysis revealed that in addition to patients, the platforms support other parties with interests in health and information exchanges. Patient platforms did not charge up-front fees but generated income from other sources, such as advertising, sponsorship, marketing (eg, sending information to users on behalf of sponsors or providing means for sponsors to reach patients directly), supporting other portals, and providing research services. CONCLUSIONS This study reports on the mechanisms by which some patient platforms generate income to support their operations, gain profit, or both. Although income-generating processes exist elsewhere on social media platforms in general, they pose unique challenges in the health context because digital tools engage patients in health and information exchanges. This study highlights the need to minimize the potential for unintended consequences that can pose health risks to patients or can lead to increased health expenses. By understanding other interests that patient platforms support, our findings point to important policy implications, such as whether (and how) authorities might protect users from processes that may not always be in their best interests and can potentially incur costs to the health system. CLINICALTRIAL

RÉSUMÉ: La demande croissante de lits en établissements publics subventionnés de soins de longue durée (ÉPSLD) occasionne de longues listes d’attentes en Ontario. Ces temps d’attente doivent être absorbés par les autres types d’hébergements, incluant les résidences non subventionnées (RNS). Cette étude compare les ÉPSLD et les RNS en termes de services fournis, de régimes de financement et des implications de ces sources de financement pour les personnes âgées. Des données descriptives pour les ÉPSLD et les RNS ont été collectées à partir de sources publiques et privées afin de représenter l’offre de services, leur disponibilité, leurs coûts et les sources de financement de ces types d’hébergement. Les services offerts par les ÉPSLD et les RNS se chevauchent en partie, particulièrement dans les niveaux de soins les plus élevés. Bien que les secteurs public et privé facturent des frais d’hébergement aux résidents, la plus grande partie des coûts en ÉPSLD sont couverts par des fonds publics, tandis que les résidents en RNS assument personnellement ces frais, en règle générale. Compte tenu des listes d’attente des ÉPSLD, plusieurs personnes âgées doivent se tourner vers d’autres établissements de soins, tels que les RNS. Plusieurs politiques alternatives existantes pourraient être considérées en vue d’améliorer l’équité dans l’accès aux soins en résidence pour les personnes âgées.

Our overarching study objective is to further our understanding of the work psychology of Health Support Workers (HSWs) in long-term care and home and community care settings in Ontario, Canada. Specifically, we seek novel insights about the relationships among aspects of these workers’ work environments, their work attitudes, and work outcomes in the interests of informing the development of human resource programs to enhance elder care. We conducted a path analysis of data collected via a survey administered to a convenience sample of Ontario HSWs engaged in the delivery of elder care over July–August 2015. HSWs’ work outcomes, including intent to stay, organizational citizenship behaviors, and performance, are directly and significantly related to their work attitudes, including job satisfaction, work engagement, and affective organizational commitment. These in turn are related to how HSWs perceive their work environments including their quality of work life (QWL), their perceptions of supervisor support, and their perceptions of workplace safety. HSWs’ work environments are within the power of managers to modify. Our analysis suggests that QWL, perceptions of supervisor support, and perceptions of workplace safety present particularly promising means by which to influence HSWs’ work attitudes and work outcomes. Furthermore, even modest changes to some aspects of the work environment stand to precipitate a cascade of positive effects on work outcomes through work attitudes.

Health Support Workers (HSWs) provide up to 80% of care to residents and clients in the long-term care (LTC) and home and community care (HCC) sectors but have received little research attention compared with the regulated professions. The authors explore similarities and differences in the work psychology of HSWs employed in LTC and HCC settings. Data were collected via survey from 276 LTC and 184 HCC HSWs. Descriptive statistics and path analyses were conducted. HSWs in LTC and HCC settings have significant, positive associations between organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization (OCB-Os) and psychological empowerment, as well as intention to stay (ITS) and job satisfaction. For LTC sector HSWs, there are significant relationships between OCB-Os and quality of work life (QWL), ITS and work engagement, and individual performance and both job satisfaction and QWL. For the HCC sector, OCB-Os and ITS are significantly and directly related to organizational commitment. This study has implications for organizations interested in developing targeted interventions to improve the retention of HSWs.

Health systems worldwide struggle to identify, adopt, and implement in a timely and system-wide manner the best—evidence-informed—policy-level practices. Yet, there is still only limited evidence about individual and institutional best practices for fostering the use of scientific evidence in policy-making processes The present project is the first national-level attempt to (1) map and structurally analyze—quantitatively—health-relevant policy-making networks that connect evidence production, synthesis, interpretation, and use; (2) qualitatively investigate the interaction patterns of a subsample of actors with high centrality metrics within these networks to develop an in-depth understanding of evidence circulation processes; and (3) combine these findings in order to assess a policy network’s “absorptive capacity” regarding scientific evidence and integrate them into a conceptually sound and empirically grounded framework. The project is divided into two research components. The first component is based on quantitative analysis of ties (relationships) that link nodes (participants) in a network. Network data will be collected through a multi-step snowball sampling strategy. Data will be analyzed structurally using social network mapping and analysis methods. The second component is based on qualitative interviews with a subsample of the Web survey participants having central, bridging, or atypical positions in the network. Interviews will focus on the process through which evidence circulates and enters practice. Results from both components will then be integrated through an assessment of the network’s and subnetwork’s effectiveness in identifying, capturing, interpreting, sharing, reframing, and recodifying scientific evidence in policy-making processes. Knowledge developed from this project has the potential both to strengthen the scientific understanding of how policy-level knowledge transfer and exchange functions and to provide significantly improved advice on how to ensure evidence plays a more prominent role in public policies.

There has been much emphasis on accountability in health care in all jurisdictions across Canada. Using document analysis and key informant interviews, we assessed the extent to which the findings from our earlier Ontario-based study, Approaches to Accountability, applied across Canada. Accountability done well improves performance, improves the patient experience and promotes efficient use of resources. If implemented poorly, it can waste valuable resources, create perverse incentives and encourage gaming in the system. The findings of this study reinforced the earlier findings. Our respondents stressed that it was important to focus on the goals being sought and transition points in the system; they emphasized that resources and stable leadership were key. Although good metrics are essential, they are not always available. Accordingly, what is easily measured tends to be what is reported. Organizations are also reluctant to be held accountable for what they cannot control. They noted that too many organizations are asking for too many indicators in too many forms. Although this is particularly problematic for small organizations, it is not exclusive to them. Moving forward, it will be important to streamline and prioritize reporting metrics, ensure adequate resources are available to support accountability and educate users as to the value of reporting accountability activities, by showing them that there is something in it for them. In addition, it is important to encourage coordination and sharing among the multiple bodies that request similar information in different forms. Finally, it is important to ensure that that which is difficult to measure is not lost in the shuffle. L’on a beaucoup insisté sur la responsabilité dans les soins de santé dans toutes les provinces et territoires du Canada. Par le biais de l’utilisation de l'analyse documentaire et des entretiens avec des informateurs clés, nous avons évalué la mesure dans laquelle les résultats de notre étude antérieure basée en Ontario, Approches à la responsabilité, s’appliquaient à travers le Canada. Mise en œuvre de la bonne façon, la responsabilisation peut améliorer la performance, améliorer l'expérience des patients et favoriser une utilisation plus efficace des ressources. Si elle est mal appliquée, elle peut gaspiller des ressources précieuses, créer des effets pervers et encourager le  contournement du système. Les résultats de cette étude ont renforcé les conclusions antérieures. Nos répondants ont souligné qu'il était important de se concentrer sur les objectifs recherchés et les points de transition dans le système; ils ont souligné que les ressources et un leadership stable ont été la clé. Bien que les bonnes mesures soient indispensables, elles ne sont pas toujours disponibles; en conséquence, ce qui est facile à mesurer a tendance à être ce qui est rapporté. Les organisations sont également réticents à être tenus responsables pour ce qu'ils ne peuvent pas contrôler. Ils ont noté que trop d'organisations demandent trop d'indicateurs de formes trop nombreuses. Bien que cette situation soit particulièrement problématique pour les petits organisations, le problème ne les affecte pas exclusivement. À l'avenir, il sera important de rationaliser et prioriserles mesures à la base des rapports, d’assurer que les ressources suffisantes soient disponibles pour appuyer la redevabilité et d’éduquer les utilisateurs quant à la valeur des rapports sur les activités de reddition de comptes, en leur montrant qu'ils y trouveront leur compte. En outre, il est important d'encourager la coordination et le partage entre les multiples organisations qui demandent des informations similaires sous différentes formes. Enfin, il est important de veiller à ne pas perdre de vue ce qui difficilement mesurable.