To advocate for patients to be more actively involved with the healthcare services they receive, particularly patients living with chronic illness, the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Montreal and its affiliated hospitals developed the Patients as Partners concept where the patient is considered a full-fledged partner of the health care delivery team and the patient’s experiential knowledge is recognized. This study aims to show how patients view their engagement with healthcare professionals regarding their direct care. Using theoretical sampling, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with chronic illness who were familiar with the concept of Patients as Partners. Data analysis followed a constructivist grounded theory approach. Patients describe themselves as proactively engaging in three types of practice, regardless of health professionals’ openness to their role as partners. The first is a process of continuous learning that allows them to acquire experiential knowledge about their health, as well as scientific information and technical know-how. The second involves their assessment of the healthcare they receive, in terms of its quality and how it aligns with their personal preferences. It includes their assessment of the quality of their relationship with the health professional and of the latter’s scientific knowledge and technical know-how. The third type, adaptation practices, builds on patients’ learning and assessments to compensate for and adapt to what has been perceived as optimal or non-optimal health or healthcare circumstances. Patients appear to play a more active and less docile role in their own direct care than suggested so far in the literature, regardless of the degree of reciprocity of the partnership or the degree to which the health professional seeks to encourage patient engagement.

The prevalence of chronic diseases today calls for new ways of working with patients to manage their care. Although patient-centered approaches have contributed to significant advances in care and to treatments that more fully respect patients' preferences, values, and personal experiences, the reality is that health care professionals still hold a monopoly on the role of healer. Patients live with their conditions every day and are experts when it comes to their own experiences of illness; this expertise should be welcomed, valued, and fostered by other members of the care team. The patient-as-partner approach embodies the ideal of making the patient a bona fide member of the health care team, a true partner in his or her care. Since 2010, the University of Montreal, through the Direction of Collaboration and Patient Partnership, has embraced this approach. Patients are not only active members of their own health care team but also are involved in research and provide valuable training to health sciences students. Including patients as full partners in the health care team entails a significant shift in both the medical practice and medical education cultures. In this perspective, the authors describe this innovative approach to patient care, including the conceptual framework used in its development and the main achievements of patient partners in education, health care, and research.

Critical evaluations of the current movement of corporate social responsibility (CSR) commodification have neglected an important question: How do CSR professionals manage the tensions resulting from the search for both profit and social responsibility? This article addresses this question by analyzing the discourse of CSR consultants with the aim of understanding how they deal with such tensions through identity work. Our findings suggest that people who claim, or who are ascribed, paradoxical professional identities may engage in ‘paradoxical identity mitigation’ – a process whereby the concomitant and paradoxical use of linguistic strategies is aimed at simultaneously embracing and distancing oneself from contradictory identity demands. In uncovering how CSR professionals discursively manage the tensions engendered by CSR commodification, our results also advance current knowledge of CSR by shedding light on the underlying processes whereby new ‘hybrid’ identities are constituted and mobilized by actors to make sense of their professional activities.

Context Partnership between patients and health‐care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs. Objective To co‐construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs. Design The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co‐construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients’ and HCPs’ viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance. Results The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity. Conclusions The CADICEE tool is developed in co‐construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health‐care settings. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co‐constructed it, pre‐tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

Background: Around 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. Methods: In-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. Results: Our 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. Conclusion: This 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.

Background: Patient engagement in care is a priority and a key component of clinical practice. Different approaches to care have been introduced to foster patient engagement. There is a lack of a recent review on tools for assessing the main concepts and dimensions related to patient engagement in care.Objective: Our scoping review sought to map and summarize recently validated tools for assessing various concepts and dimensions of patient engagement in care.Search Strategy: A scoping review of recent peer-reviewed articles describing tools that assess preferences in and experience with patient engagement in care was conducted in four databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL-EBSCO). We adopted a broad definition based on the main concepts of patient engagement in care: patient-centredness, empowerment, shared decision-making and partnership in care.Main Results: Of 2161 articles found, 16, each describing a different tool, were included and analysed. Shared decision-making and patient-centredness are the two main concepts evaluated, often simultaneously in most of the tools. Only four scales measure patient-centredness, empowerment and shared decision-making at the same time, but no tool measures the core dimensions of partnership in care. Most of the tools did not include patients in their development or validation or just consulted them during the validation phase. Discussion and Conclusion:There is no tool coconstructed with patients from development to validation, which can be used to assess the main concepts and dimensions of patient engagement in care at the same time.

Background Quebec is one of the Canadian provinces with the highest rates of cancer incidence and prevalence. A study by the Rossy Cancer Network (RCN) of McGill university assessed six aspects of the patient experience among cancer patients and found that emotional support is the aspect most lacking. To improve this support, trained patient advisors (PAs) can be included as full-fledged members of the healthcare team, given that PA can rely on their knowledge with experiencing the disease and from using health and social care services to accompany cancer patients, they could help to round out the health and social care services offer in oncology. However, the feasibility of integrating PAs in clinical oncology teams has not been studied. In this multisite study, we will explore how to integrate PAs in clinical oncology teams and, under what conditions this can be successfully done. We aim to better understand effects of this PA intervention on patients, on the PAs themselves, the health and social care team, the administrators, and on the organization of services and to identify associated ethical and legal issues. Methods/design We will conduct six mixed methods longitudinal case studies. Qualitative data will be used to study the integration of the PAs into clinical oncology teams and to identify the factors that are facilitators and inhibitors of the process, the associated ethical and legal issues, and the challenges that the PAs experience. Quantitative data will be used to assess effects on patients, PAs and team members, if any, of the PA intervention. The results will be used to support oncology programs in the integration of PAs into their healthcare teams and to design a future randomized pragmatic trial to evaluate the impact of PAs as full-fledged members of clinical oncology teams on cancer patients’ experience of emotional support throughout their care trajectory. Discussion This study will be the first to integrate PAs as full-fledged members of the clinical oncology team and to assess possible clinical and organizational level effects. Given the unique role of PAs, this study will complement the body of research on peer support and patient navigation. An additional innovative aspect of this study will be consideration of the ethical and legal issues at stake and how to address them in the health care organizations.

Les changements qui touchent l’identité de l’organisation ou de ses membres sont parmi ceux qui risquent le plus d’échouer ou de causer des dommages. En effet, ils peuvent entraîner des résistances farouches, aussi bien à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur de l’organisation. Or, il n’est pas toujours facile de cerner en quoi un changement peut menacer l’identité de l’organisation, d’un groupe ou d’une personne. C’est pourquoi les résistances d’origine identitaire sont pour la plupart inattendues et mystérieuses aux yeux des porteurs du changement. Cet article met en lumière ce que sont les menaces identitaires, et leurs impacts potentiels en termes d’insécurité et de réactions défensives. Afin de prévenir ou d’apaiser ces menaces, l’article passe en revue quelques conditions de succès à respecter et propose cinq balises identitaires auxquelles prêter attention dans la lecture et l’accompagnement du changement. Enfin, il fait quelques mises en garde éthiques et pratiques à considérer lorsque le changement touche directement l’identité.