Introduction: Evidence to date indicates that patients from ethnic minority backgrounds may experience disparity in the quality and safety of health care they receive due to a range of socio-cultural factors. Although heightened risk of patient safety events is of key concern, there is a dearth of evidence regarding the nature and rate of patient safety events occurring amongst ethnic minority consumers, which is critical for the development of relevant intervention approaches to enhance the safety of their care. Objectives: To establish how ethnic minority populations are conceptualised in the international literature, and the implications of this in shaping of our findings; the evidence of patient safety events arising among ethnic minority healthcare consumers internationally; and the individual, service and system factors that contribute to unsafe care. Method: A systematic review of five databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were undertaken using subject headings (MeSH) and keywords to identify studies relevant to our objectives. Inclusion criteria were applied independently by two researchers. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to heterogeneity of the study designs of included studies followed by a study appraisal process. Results: Forty-five studies were included in this review. Findings indicate that: (1) those from ethnic minority backgrounds were conceptualised variably; (2) people from ethnic minority backgrounds had higher rates of hospital acquired infections, complications, adverse drug events and dosing errors when compared to the wider population; and (3) factors including language proficiency, beliefs about illness and treatment, formal and informal interpreter use, consumer engagement, and interactions with health professionals contributed to increased risk of safety events amongst these populations. Conclusion: Ethnic minority consumers may experience inequity in the safety of care and be at higher risk of patient safety events. Health services and systems must consider the individual, inter-and intra-ethnic variations in the nature of safety events to understand the where and how to invest resource to enhance equity in the safety of care. Review registration: This systematic review is registered with Research Registry: reviewregistry761.

Background: The increasing prioritisation of healthcare quality across the six domains of efficiency, safety, patient-centredness, effectiveness, timeliness and accessibility has given rise to accelerated change both in the uptake of initiatives and the realisation of their outcomes to meet external targets. Whilst a multitude of change management methodologies exist, their application in complex healthcare contexts remains unclear. Our review sought to establish the methodologies applied, and the nature and effectiveness of their application in the context of healthcare. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts followed by the full-text articles that were potentially relevant against the inclusion criteria. An appraisal of methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was also conducted by two further reviewers. Results: Thirty-eight studies were included that reported the use of 12 change management methodologies in healthcare contexts across 10 countries. The most commonly applied methodologies were Kotter's Model (19 studies) and Lewin's Model (11 studies). Change management methodologies were applied in projects at local ward or unit level (14), institutional level (12) and system or multi-system (6) levels. The remainder of the studies provided commentary on the success of change efforts that had not utilised a change methodology with reference to change management approaches. Conclusion: Change management methodologies were often used as guiding principle to underpin a change in complex healthcare contexts. The lack of prescription application of the change management methodologies was identified. Change management methodologies were valued for providing guiding principles for change that are well suited to enable methodologies to be applied in the context of complex and unique healthcare contexts, and to be used in synergy with implementation and improvement methodologies.

BACKGROUND: While medication is an integral component of the effective management of COPD, contemporary studies report that more than half of all people who are prescribed medication for the management of their COPD do not adhere to therapy. Enhancing medication adherence and improving health outcomes for those living with COPD are among the key challenges for the global health community. This systematic review aims to identify the rate of nonadherence among people who are prescribed controller medication for the management of their COPD, and identifies the barriers and facilitators that influence their medication use behavior. METHODS: A systematic search of medical databases (ie, MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE) was conducted using key words to identify literature in the English language, published between January 2003 and December 2019. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 1,474 studies were identified from the initial database search, of which 38 met the inclusion criteria. Of these 38 studies, 37 reported on rates of nonadherence (ranging from 22% to 93%), 30 reported on barriers to adherence, 24 reported on enablers to adherence, and 16 reported on both. The majority (33) of the studies were conducted in high-income nations. The quality of articles ranged from 47% to 90%. Medication-taking behavior was reported to be influenced by several factors such as subjects' beliefs about medication, their experiences of and satisfaction with medication effectiveness, their concerns regarding medication side effects, their personal circumstances, habits and health status, and their relationships with health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to COPD medication was generally low, with the majority of studies identifying the presence of depression and subjects' concern about the harmful effects of the medicine as barriers to adherence. Variability exists on the reported rates of nonadherence, possibly due to different measures utilized to assess adherence. Future research in low-income nations is needed.

Background Engagement frameworks provide the conceptual structure for consumer engagement in healthcare decision making, but the level to which these frameworks support culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) consumer engagement is not known. Objective This study aimed to investigate how consumer engagement is conceptualised and operationalized and to determine the implications of current consumer engagement frameworks for engagement with CALD consumers. Method Altheide's document analysis approach was used to guide a systematic search, selection and analytic process. Australian Government health department websites were searched for eligible publicly available engagement frameworks. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results Eleven engagement frameworks published between 2007 and 2019 were identified and analysed. Only four frameworks discussed engagement with CALD consumers distinctly. Organisational prerequisites to enhance engagement opportunities and approaches to enable activities of engagement were highlighted to improve CALD consumers' active participation in decision making; however, these largely focused on language, with limited exploration of culturally sensitive services. Conclusion There is limited discussion of what culturally sensitive services look like and what resources are needed to enhance CALD consumer engagement in high‐level decision making. Health services and policy makers can enhance opportunities for engagement with CALD consumers by being flexible in their approach, implementing policies for reimbursement for participation and evaluating and adapting the activities of engagement in collaboration with CALD consumers. Patient/Public Contribution This study is part of a wider ‘CanEngage’ project, which includes a consumer investigator, and is supported by a consumer advisory group. The study was conceived with inputs from the consumer advisory group, which continued to meet regularly with the project team to discuss the methodology and emerging findings.

Background Patient experience is a complex phenomenon that presents challenges for appropriate and effective measurement. With the lack of a standardized measurement approach, efforts have been made to simplify the evaluation and reporting of patient experience by using single‐item measures, such as the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Although NPS is widely used in many countries, there has been little research to validate its effectiveness and value in the healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence that is available about the application of NPS in healthcare settings. Methods Studies were identified using words and synonyms that relate to NPS, which was applied to five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Proquest, Business Journal Premium, and Scopus. Titles and abstracts between January 2005 and September 2020 were screened for relevance, with the inclusion of quantitative and qualitative studies in the healthcare setting that evaluated the use of NPS to measure patient experience. Results Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies identified benefits associated with using NPS, such as ease of use, high completion rates and being well‐understood by a range of patients. Three studies questioned the usefulness of the NPS recommendation question in healthcare settings, particularly when respondents are unable to select their service provider. The free‐text comments section, which provides additional detail and contextual cues, was viewed positively by patients and staff in 4 of 12 studies. According to these studies, NPS can be influenced by a wide range of variables, such as age, condition/disease, intervention and cultural variation; therefore, caution should be taken when using NPS for comparisons. Four studies concluded that NPS adds minimal value to healthcare improvement. Conclusion The literature suggests that many of the proposed benefits of using NPS are not supported by research. NPS may not be sufficient as a stand‐alone metric and may be better used in conjunction with a larger survey. NPS may be more suited for use in certain healthcare settings, for example, where patients have a choice of provider. Staff attitudes towards the use of NPS for patient surveying are mixed. More research is needed to validate the use of NPS as a primary metric of patient experience. Patient or Public Contribution Consumer representatives were provided with the research findings and their feedback was sought about the study. Consumers commented that they found the results to be useful and felt that this study highlighted important considerations when NPS data is used to evaluate patient experience.