Building Engagement‐Capable Environments for Health System Transformation: Development and Early Implementation of a Capability Framework for Patient, Family and Caregiver Engagement in Ontario Health Teams
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Despite widespread calls to involve patients, families and caregivers (PFCs) as partners at all levels of health system planning and design, there is unevenness in how engagement efforts are supported across these settings. The concept of 'engagement-capable environments' offers a way forward to uncover the key requirements for sustainable, high-quality engagement, but more work is needed to identify the specific competencies required to create these environments. We addressed this gap by developing a capability framework for Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), a newly established structure for planning, designing, organizing and delivering care in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The framework was co-developed by a Working Group of OHT staff and leaders, PFC partners, researchers and government personnel. Project activities occurred over four phases: (1) planning, (2) evidence review and surveying of intended users to identify key competencies, (3) framework design and (4) implementation. RESULTS: An evidence review identified more than 90 potential competencies for this work. These results were contextualized and expanded through a survey of OHT stakeholders to brainstorm potential competencies, supports and enablers for engagement. Surveys were completed by 69 individuals; 689 knowledge and skill competency statements, 462 attitude and behaviour competency statements and 250 supports and enablers were brainstormed. The statements were analysed and organized into initial competency categories, which were reviewed, discussed and iteratively refined by Working Group members and through broader consultations with the OHT community. The final framework includes six competency domains and four support and enabler domains, each with sub-domain elements, mapped across a three-stage maturity model. The framework has been disseminated across OHTs, and its adoption and implementation are now requirements within OHT agreements. CONCLUSION: The framework combines a strong conceptual foundation with actionable elements informed by the literature and consultations with the intended users of the framework. Although developed for OHTs, the framework should be broadly applicable to other health system organizations seeking similar health system transformation goals. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patient, family and caregiver partners were involved at all stages and in all aspects of the work. As end users of the framework, their perspectives, knowledge and opinions were critical.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».