Background: Understanding the resilience of healthcare is critically important. A resilient healthcare system might be expected to consistently deliver high quality care, withstand disruptive events and continually adapt, learn and improve. However, there are many different theories, models and definitions of resilience and most are contested and debated in the literature. Clear and unambiguous conceptual definitions are important for both theoretical and practical considerations of any phenomenon, and resilience is no exception. A large international research programme on Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) is seeking to address these issues in a 5-year study across Norway, England, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland (2018-2023). The aims of this debate paper are: 1) to identify and select core operational concepts of resilience from the literature in order to consider their contributions, implications, and boundaries for researching resilience in healthcare; and 2) to propose a working definition of healthcare resilience that underpins the international RiH research programme. Main text: To fulfil these aims, first an overview of three core perspectives or metaphors that underpin theories of resilience are introduced from ecology, engineering and psychology. Second, we present a brief overview of key definitions and approaches to resilience applicable in healthcare. We position our research program with collaborative learning and user involvement as vital prerequisite pillars in our conceptualisation and operationalisation of resilience for maintaining quality of healthcare services. Third, our analysis addresses four core questions that studies of resilience in healthcare need to consider when defining and operationalising resilience. These are: resilience 'for what', 'to what', 'of what', and 'through what'? Finally, we present our operational definition of resilience. Conclusion: The RiH research program is exploring resilience as a multi-level phenomenon and considers adaptive capacity to change as a foundation for high quality care. We, therefore, define healthcare resilience as: the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high quality care. This working definition of resilience is intended to be comprehensible and applicable regardless of the level of analysis or type of system component under investigation.

No abstract

Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic has had an impact on all aspects of the health system. Little is known about how the activities and experiences of patient, family and caregiver partners, as a large group across a variety of settings within the health system, changed due to the substantial health system shifts catalysed by the pandemic. This paper reports on the results of a survey that included questions about this topic. Methods Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners were invited to participate in an online anonymous survey in the Fall of 2020. A virtual snowballing approach to recruitment was used. Survey invitations were shared on social media and emailed to health system and governmental organizations with the request that they share the survey with patient partners. This paper focuses on responses to two questions related to patient partner experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results The COVID‐19 questions were completed by 533 respondents. Over three quarters of respondents (77.9%, n = 415) indicated their patient engagement activities had been impacted by COVID‐19. The majority (62.5%, n = 230) experienced at least a temporary or partial reduction in their patient engagement activities. Some respondents did see increases in their patient engagement activities (11.4%, n = 42). Many respondents provided insights into their experience with virtual platforms for engagement (n = 194), most expressed negative or mixed experiences with this shift. Conclusions This study provides a snapshot of Canadian patient, family and caregiver partners' perspectives on the impact of COVID‐19 on their engagement activities. Understanding how engagement unfolded during a crisis is critical for our future planning if patient engagement is to be fully integrated into the health system. Identifying how patient partners were engaged and not engaged during this time period, as well as the benefits and challenges of virtual engagement opportunities, offers instructive lessons for sustaining patient engagement, including the supports needed to engage with a more diverse set of patient, family and caregiver partners. Patient Contribution Patient partners were important members of the Canadian Patient Partner Study research team. They were engaged from the outset, participating in all stages of the research project. Additional patient partners were engaged to develop and pilot test the survey, and all survey respondents were patient, family or caregiver partners. The manuscript is coauthored by two patient partners.

Background: Emerging data suggest that direct oral anticoagulants may be a suitable choice for anticoagulation for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). However, conducting high-quality trials in CVT is challenging as it is a rare disease with low rates of adverse outcomes such as major bleeding and functional dependence. To facilitate the design of future CVT trials, SECRET (Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis) assessed (1) the feasibility of recruitment, (2) the safety of rivaroxaban compared with standard-of-care anticoagulation, and (3) patient-centered functional outcomes. Methods: This was a phase II, prospective, open-label blinded-end point 1:1 randomized trial conducted at 12 Canadian centers. Participants were aged ≥18 years, within 14 days of a new diagnosis of symptomatic CVT, and suitable for oral anticoagulation; they were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 20 mg daily, or standard-of-care anticoagulation (warfarin, target international normalized ratio, 2.0–3.0, or low-molecular-weight heparin) for 180 days, with optional extension up to 365 days. Primary outcomes were annual rate of recruitment (feasibility); and a composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial hemorrhage, or mortality at 180 days (safety). Secondary outcomes included recurrent venous thromboembolism, recanalization, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and functional and patient-reported outcomes (modified Rankin Scale, quality of life, headache, mood, fatigue, and cognition) at days 180 and 365. Results: Fifty-five participants were randomized. The rate of recruitment was 21.3 participants/year; 57% of eligible candidates consented. Median age was 48.0 years (interquartile range, 38.5–73.2); 66% were female. There was 1 primary event (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage), 2 clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events, and 1 recurrent CVT by day 180, all in the rivaroxaban group. All participants in both arms had at least partial recanalization by day 180. At enrollment, both groups on average reported reduced quality of life, low mood, fatigue, and headache with impaired cognitive performance. All metrics improved markedly by day 180. Conclusions: Recruitment targets were reached, but many eligible participants declined randomization. There were numerically more bleeding events in patients taking rivaroxaban compared with control, but rates of bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were low overall and in keeping with previous studies. Participants had symptoms affecting their well-being at enrollment but improved over time. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03178864.

ObjectivesTo examine the sociodemographic characteristics, activities, motivations, experiences, skills and challenges of patient partners working across multiple health system settings in Canada.DesignOnline cross-sectional survey of self-identified patient partners.SettingPatient partners in multiple jurisdictions and health system organisations.Participants603 patient partners who had drawn on their experiences with the health system as a patient, family member or informal caregiver to try to improve it in some way, through their involvement in the activities of a group, organisation or government.ResultsSurvey respondents predominantly identified as female (76.6%), white (84%) and university educated (70.2%) but were a heterogeneous group in the scope (activities and organisations), intensity (number of hours) and longevity (number of years) of their role. Primary motivations for becoming a patient partner were the desire to improve the health system based on either a negative (36.2%) or positive (23.3%) experience. Respondents reported feeling enthusiastic (83.6%), valued (76.9%) and needed (63.3%) always or most of the time; just under half felt they had always or often been adequately compensated in their role. Knowledge of the health system and the organisation they partner with are key skills needed. Two-thirds faced barriers in their role with over half identifying power imbalances. Less than half were able to see how their input was reflected in decisions or changes always or most of the time, and 40.3% had thought about quitting.ConclusionsThis survey is the first of its kind to examine at a population level, the characteristics, experiences and dynamics of a large sample of self-identified patient partners. Patient partners in this sample are a sociodemographically homogenous group, yet heterogeneous in the scope, intensity and longevity of roles. Our findings provide key insights at a critical time, to inform the future of patient partnership in health systems.

Background: Recent evidence shows that patient engagement is an important strategy in achieving a high performing healthcare system. While there is considerable evidence of implementation initiatives in direct care context, there is limited investigation of implementation initiatives in decision-making context as it relates to program planning, service delivery and developing policies. Research has also shown a gap in consistent application of system-level strategies that can effectively translate organizational policies around patient and family engagement into practice. Methods: The broad objective of this initiative was to develop a system-level implementation strategy to include patient and family advisors (PFAs) at decision-making points in primary healthcare (PHC) based on wellestablished evidence and literature. In this opportunity sponsored by the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI) a co-design methodology, also well-established was applied in identifying and developing a suitable implementation strategy to engage PFAs as members of quality teams in PHC. Diabetes management centres (DMCs) was selected as the pilot site to develop the strategy. Key steps in the process included review of evidence, review of the current state in PHC through engagement of key stakeholders and a co-design approach. Results: The project team included a diverse representation of members from the PHC system including patient advisors, DMC team members, system leads, providers, Public Engagement team members and CFHI improvement coaches. Key outcomes of this 18-month long initiative included development of a working definition of patient and family engagement, development of a Patient and Family Engagement Resource Guide and evaluation of the resource guide. Conclusion: This novel initiative provided us an opportunity to develop a supportive system-wide implementation plan and a strategy to include PFAs in decision-making processes in PHC. The well-established co-design methodology further allowed us to include value-based (customer driven quality and experience of care) perspectives of several important stakeholders including patient advisors. The next step will be to implement the strategy within DMCs, spread the strategy PHC, both locally and provincially with a focus on sustainability.

Physical activity questionnaires exist, but effective implementation in primary care remains an issue. We sought to develop a physical activity screen (PAS) for electronic medical record (EMR) integration by: 1) identifying healthcare professionals’ (HCPs), patients’ and stakeholders’ barriers to and preferences for physical activity counseling in primary care; and 2) using the information to co-create the PAS. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care HCPs, patients and stakeholders, and used content and thematic analyses to inform iterative co-design of the PAS. Interviews with 38 participants (mean age 41 years) resulted in two themes: 1) HCPs are willing to conduct physical activity screening, but acknowledge they don’t do it well; and 2) HCPs have limited opportunity and capacity to discuss physical activity, and need a streamlined process for EMR that goes beyond quantifying physical activity. HCPs, patients and stakeholders co-designed a physical activity screen for integration into the EMR that can be tested for feasibility and effects on HCP behaviour and patients’ physical activity levels. Novelty: • EMR-integration of physical activity screening needs to go beyond just asking about physical activity minutes. • Primary care professionals have variable knowledge and time, and need physical activity counselling prompts and resources. • We co-developed a physical activity EMR tool with patients and primary care providers.

Background Patient and public engagement (PPE) in research is growing internationally, and with it, the interest for its evaluation. In Canada, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has generated national momentum and opportunities for greater PPE in research and health-system transformation. As is the case with most countries, the Canadian research community lacks a common evaluation framework for PPE, thus limiting our capacity to ensure integrity between principles and practices, learn across projects, identify common areas for improvement, and assess the impacts of engagement. Objective This project aims to build a national adaptable framework for the evaluation of PPE in research, by: Building consensus on common evaluation criteria and indicators for PPE in research; Defining recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to specific populations. Methods Using a collaborative action-research approach, a national coalition of patient-oriented research leaders, (patient and community partners, engagement practitioners, researchers and health system leaders) will co-design the evaluation framework. We will develop core evaluation domains of the logic model by conducting a series of virtual consensus meetings using a nominal group technique with 50 patient partners and engagement practitioners, identified through 18 national research organizations. We will then conduct two Delphi rounds to prioritize process and impact indicators with 200 participants purposely recruited to include respondents from seldom-heard groups. Six expert working groups will define recommendations to implement and adapt the framework to research with specific populations, including Indigenous communities, immigrants, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, caregivers, and people with low literacy. Each step of framework development will be guided by an equity, diversity and inclusion approach in an effort to ensure that the participants engaged, the content produced, and the adaptation strategies proposed are relevant to diverse PPE. Discussion The potential contributions of this project are threefold: 1) support a national learning environment for engagement by offering a common blueprint for collaborative evaluation to the Canadian research community; 2) inform the international research community on potential (virtual) methodologies to build national consensus on common engagement evaluation frameworks; and 3) illustrate a shared attempt to engage patients and researchers in a strategic national initiative to strengthen evaluation capacity for PPE.