Rationale Patients with complex care needs who frequently use health services often face challenges in managing their health and with integrated care, leading to frequent decision making. These complex care needs require a good understanding of health issues and their impact on daily life. As the decisional needs of this particular clientele have yet to be described in scientific literature, they warrant further study. Objectives To assess the decision‐making needs of patients with complex care needs (PCCN) who frequently use health care services. Methods We performed a multicenter cross‐sectional qualitative descriptive study in four institutions of the health and social services network of Quebec (Canada). We enrolled a convenience sample of PCCNs who frequently use health care services, health care providers, case managers, and decision‐makers. We conducted interviews and focus groups and investigated decisional needs according to the Ottawa decision support framework: roles played and desired in the decision‐making process, facilitators, and barriers. We conducted qualitative data collection and qualitative deductive/inductive thematic analysis within and across participating groups. Results In total, 16 patients, 38 clinicians, six case managers, and 14 decision‐makers participated in the study. The decisional needs of this clientele are numerous, varied and different from those of the general population. We identified 26 decisional needs grouped under five themes. The most frequent decisions related to visiting the emergency department, moving to a nursing home, and adhering to a plan or treatment. In addition, we identified new themes such as patients' fear and mistrust of health professionals, differences of opinion between health professionals and health professionals' preconceived opinions of patients. Conclusion We observed a wide range of types of decisions that patients face and differences in decision‐making needs across participating groups. Our results should inform future research on the development of a patient decision aid tool.

No abstract

Background Patient engagement could improve the quality of primary care practices. However, we know little about effective patient engagement strategies. We aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of embedding advisory councils of clinicians, managers, patients and caregivers to conduct patient-oriented quality improvement projects in primary care practices. Methods Using a participatory action research approach, we conducted our study in two non-academic primary care practices in Quebec City (Canada). Patient-experts (patients trained in research) were involved in study design, council recruitment and meeting facilitation. Advisory councils were each to include patients and/or caregivers, clinicians and managers. Over six meetings, councils would identify quality improvement priorities and plan projects accordingly. We assessed acceptability and feasibility of the councils using non-participant observations, audio-recordings and self-administered questionnaires. We used descriptive analyses, triangulated qualitative data and performed inductive thematic analysis. Results Between December 2017 and June 2018, two advisory councils were formed, each with 11 patients (36% male, mean age 53.8 years), a nurse and a manager practising as a family physician (25% male, mean age 45 years). The six meetings per practice occurred within the study period with a mean of eight patients per meeting. Councils worked on two projects each: the first council on a new information leaflet about clinic organization and operation, and on communications about local public health programs; the second on methods to further engage patients in the practice, and on improving the appointment scheduling system. Median patient satisfaction was 8/10, and 66.7% perceived councils had an impact on practice operations. They considered involvement of a manager, facilitation by patient-experts, and the fostering of mutual respect as key to this impact. Clinicians and managers liked having patients as facilitators and the respect among members. Limiting factors were difficulty focusing on a single feasible project and time constraints. Managers in both practices were committed to pursuing the councils post-study. Conclusion Our results indicated that embedding advisory councils of clinicians, managers, patients and caregivers to conduct patient-oriented quality improvement projects in primary care practices is both acceptable and feasible. Future research should assess its transferability to other clinical contexts.

Two smooth muscle myosin heavy chain isoforms that differ by the presence ([+]insert) or the absence ([-]insert) of a 7-amino acid insert in the motor domain have a 2-fold difference in their in vitro actin filament velocity. We hypothesized that a preferential expression of the fast (+)insert isoform in airway smooth muscle would increase the rate of bronchoconstriction. To verify our hypothesis we measured the time course of bronchoconstriction following a bolus injection of methacholine (160 microg/kg) in (+)insert isoform knockout (KO) and corresponding wild-type (WT) mice. Neither baseline airway resistance (Raw) (0.424 +/- 0.04 for WT and 0.374 +/- 0.01 cm H(2)O.s.ml(-1) for KO) nor peak Raw (4.1 +/- 0.9 for WT and 4.0 +/- 0.5 cm H(2)O.s.ml(-1) for KO) differed between groups. However, the time to peak Raw was significantly longer in the KO (17.2 +/- 0.6 s) compared with the WT (14.6 +/- 0.8 s) mice (P < 0.05). Differentiating Raw with respect to time revealed a greater rate of bronchoconstriction for the WT during the initial 4 s, presumably reflecting the faster shortening velocities under these relatively unloaded conditions. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed that the (+)insert myosin isoform mRNA content in the WT airways was 47.8 +/- 5.6%. We conclude that the presence of the (+)insert myosin isoform in the airways increases the rate of bronchoconstriction.

Plain English summaryMaking primary care clinics more patient-centered is key to improving patients’ experience of care. If patients themselves were engaged in helping define priorities and suggesting quality improvements in the clinic, care would respond better to their needs. However, patient engagement is a new phenomenon, particularly in community based primary care clinics. How to engage patients in quality improvement in these clinics, or what effect this might have, is not well known. The involvement of patients needs to be adapted to the way these clinics function. The aim of this study is to create and evaluate a new model of patient engagement for quality improvement in community based primary care clinics. Patients, primary care professionals and researchers will create advisory councils in two primary care clinics in Quebec City (Canada). In each clinic, the advisory council will include 12 patients or caregivers registered at the clinic, a clinician and a clinic manager. The advisory council will meet every 6 weeks for a total of six meetings. Two patient-experts will facilitate meetings. During meetings, members of the council will list their needs in order of importance. Then they will suggest improvements in line with these needs. We will study if our advisory council model is well adapted to community based primary care settings and meets participants’ expectations. At the end of the study we will be able to offer guidance about engaging patients with health professionals in quality improvement in primary care clinics.Abstract Background Involvement of end-users, including patients, managers and clinicians, in identifying quality improvement and research priorities might improve the relevance of projects and increase their impact. Few patient engagement initiatives have taken place in community based primary care practices (CBPCPs) and best practices for engaging patients in such settings are not well defined. The aim of this pilot study is to develop and assess the feasibility of a new collaborative model of advisory council involving clinicians, managers, patients and caregivers in CBPCP to strengthen their capacity to conduct quality improvement and patient-oriented research projects. Methods We will conduct a participatory action research project in two non-academic CBPCPs in Quebec City (Canada). In each CBPCP, the advisory council will include 12 patients or caregivers, a clinician and a clinic manager. Patients or their caregivers will be identified by clinicians and contacted by patient-experts. They will be eligible if they are registered at the practice, motivated, and available to attend meetings. The council will meet every 6 weeks for a total of six meetings. Two patient-experts will guide council members to identify quality improvement priorities and patient-oriented research questions based on their experience in the clinic. They will then be supported to plan actions to target these priorities. Analysis of meetings will be based on feasibility criteria, notes by non-participant ob...