August 10, 2021

HSO was pleased to receive over 250 applications for our National Long-Term Care Services Standard Technical Committee. The 32 members selected for the Technical Committee, from 11 of Canada’s provinces and territories, bring an impressive range of personal and professional perspectives, with research and practical expertise in fields including policy, dementia, mental health, palliative care, ethics, nutrition, rehabilitation and infection prevention and control.

The Standards Council of Canada (SCC), Health Standards Organization (HSO) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA Group) are working collaboratively on developing two new national standards for LTC that will be shaped by the needs of residents, families and Canada’s LTC workforce.

The standards will address the delivery of safe, reliable and high-quality LTC services (HSO) as well as the operation and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in LTC homes (CSA Group). HSO will begin developing this standard in March 2021 and aims to launch a public review of a draft standard in late 2021 or early 2022.

PURPOSE: Organizational context influences the effect of facilitation efforts on research use in care settings. The interactions of these factors are complex. Therefore, the use of traditional statistical methods to examine their interrelationships is often impractical. Big Data analytics can automatically detect patterns within the data. We applied the chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) algorithm and classification tree technique to explore the dynamic and interdependent relationships between the implementation science concepts-context, facilitation, and research use. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study based on survey data collected from a representative sample of nursing homes in western Canada. METHODS: We assessed three major constructs: (a) Conceptual research utilization (CRU) using the CRU scale; (b) facilitation of research use measured by the frequency of contacts between the frontline staff and a clinical educator, or person who brings new ideas to the care unit; and (c) organizational context at the unit level using the Alberta Context Tool (ACT). CHAID analysis was performed to detect the interactions between facilitation and context variables. Results were illustrated in a classification tree to provide a straightforward visualization. FINDINGS: Data from 312 care units in three provinces were included in the final analysis. Results indicate significant multiway interactions between facilitation and various aspects of the organizational context, including leadership, culture, evaluation, structural resources, and organizational slack (staffing). Findings suggested the preconditions of the care settings where research use can be maximized. CONCLUSIONS: CHAID analysis helped transform data into usable knowledge. Our findings provide insight into the dynamic relationships of facilitators’ efforts and organizational context, and how these factors’ interplay and their interdependence together may influence research use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of the combined effects of facilitators’ efforts and various aspects of organizational context on research use can contribute to effective strategies to narrow the evidence-practice gap in care settings.

Background: Many LTC residents are transferred to Emergency Departments (EDs) with conditions that could be cared for in LTC, perhaps with additional support (e.g. Community Paramedics). Communication between sites and EDs has also been lacking. These lead to long lengths of stay in EDs, unnecessary use of resources, and sub-optimal health outcomes. Two INTERACT tools will support initial management of the concern at the LTC site. Then a Care and Referral Pathway will help facilitate needed conversations and optimal transfers between LTC and ED. Implementation: Beginning in April 2019, standalone LTC sites in Calgary and Central zones have been invited to participate. Using a randomized stepped wedge design, we implement at 4-5 new sites every 3 months, with a total goal of implementing this change in 40 sites in Calgary and 9 sites in the Central zone. Early engagement with site medical directors, LTC and ED physicians, and managers at RAAPID (Referral, Access, Advice, Placement, Information and Destination) call centre and Community Paramedics was instrumental in getting the project initiated. Quarterly meetings with a project steering committee assists with ongoing project details and risk/issues. Operational leads and unit managers meet with our Senior Practice Consultant to be introduced to the project. This is followed by an implementation session at which site staff are given information about the specific tools and pathway, potential barriers are mitigated, and a site implementation plan is developed. Quarterly reports using data from a project Tableau dashboard are prepared by our Research Coordinator and distributed to LTC sites for them to monitor their performance compared to zone averages on a number of performance indicators. Evaluation Methods: The project will be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative measures. Key Performance Indicators include a reduction in transfers to EDs, improved satisfaction, and increased use of available resources. Residents, families and healthcare providers will participate in interviews or focus groups to assess their experiences with the interventions. Quantitative evaluation includes an economic analysis to determine how the interventions have led to cost savings within the healthcare system, as well as examination of the number transfers to ED, hospital admissions, calls to RAAPID, and visits by Community Paramedics. This will help to determine if the intervention has led to better resource utilization, increased satisfaction among residents and families, and improved patient and health system outcomes. At this stage of the project, no unintended consequences have been identified. Results: Currently, we have implemented at 6 of 11 Cohorts (26 sites). Data from April 2019 (start of project) until December 2020 show a downward trend in number of ED visits and hospital admissions, as well as increased utilization of RAAPID. Formal evaluation will be completed when the project ends in June 2022. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to note that this may have an effect on our current trends and this will further be explored at the end of the project period. Anecdotal evidence is also beginning to indicate success of the right care being provided in the right place. Advice and Lessons Learned: 1) Firstly, partnerships with key stakeholders are vital to ensure successful utilization of theLTC-ED Care and Referral pathway. Specifically, RAAPID is key to the facilitation ofcommunication between LTC sites and the EDs, and the services provided by CommunityParamedics allow many residents to remain at their LTC homes. 2) Secondly, good engagement with Site Medical Directors and Operational leads is needed toensure LTC staff and physicians are supported to use the interventions, and to care for theirresidents on site if appropriate. 3) Finally, tailored implementation strategies for each individual LTC site (and units in somecases) help mitigate site specific barriers, leverage strengths, and work within the site culture.

BACKGROUND: Engaging youth throughout the research process improves research quality and outcomes. Youth advisory groups provide one way for youth to express their opinions on relevant issues. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify research- and health-related youth advisory groups (‘groups’) in Canada and understand the best practices of these groups. METHODS: Google searches and supplementary methods were used to identify relevant groups in Canada. Group information was extracted from websites or through interviews with key informants. RESULTS: We identified 40 groups. Groups were commonly part of a hospital/healthcare facility, nonprofit/health organization or research group. The majority focused on a specific content area, most commonly, mental health. Over half the groups advised on health services. Members’ ages ranged from 9 to 35 years. The number of members ranged from 5 to 130. Interviews (n = 12) identified seven categories relating to group practices: (a) group purpose/objectives, (b) group development, (c) group operations, (d) group structure, (e) adult involvement, (f) membership and recruitment and (g) group access. Challenges and facilitators to the success of groups were described within the following themes: (a) retaining engagement, (b) creating a safe environment and (c) putting youth in positions of influence. Advice and recommendations were provided regarding the development of a new group. CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive overview of research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada. This information can be used to identify groups that stakeholders could access as well as inform the development of a new group. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Youth advisory group representatives were interviewed as part of the study.