Results indicate that migrant women may not be receiving the care they and their newborns need once a concern is identified. This suggests conceiving of a different approach to the care of this population post-birth, which could include partnering with social or religious networks.

There is a paucity of literature on how to conduct research with migrants, particularly those who do not speak the host country language, those who are newly arrived, and those who have a precarious immigration status. In qualitative research, interviewing is a common method for obtaining rich data and participants' points of view. Gathering and presenting all perspectives when interviewing vulnerable migrant women on health-seeking behaviors is challenging. In this article, we explore the process of developing and implementing a data collection plan and an interview guide for a study carried out with migrant women to explore the inhibitors/facilitators for following through on professional referrals for postbirth care. Adaptability and careful attention to multiple factors throughout the process are essential to maximizing participation and enhancing the trustworthiness of the data. Appropriate health policy and care delivery can only originate from health research with diverse migrant populations.

Interprofessional collaboration is central to quality patient care; however, little is known about developing interprofessional care plans, particularly in oncology. This article describes the development of an interprofessional care plan for an older adult woman with breast cancer. Two collaborative expert workshops were used; 15 clinical experts reviewed an online patient case and were asked to prepare a uniprofessional care plan. In workshop 1, participants worked from a draft interprofessional care plan, synthesized from the uniprofessional care plans by research associates, to arrive at consensus on an ideal interprofessional care plan. Using qualitative inductive content analysis of workshop transcripts, specific changes and overall key principles were identified and used to revise the draft plan. Based on these findings, a generalized interprofessional care plan/oncology model was developed. Revisions and proposed model were validated through consensus by participants during workshop 2. Participants highlighted the iterative, cyclical, and multilayered nature of patient care experiences; the importance of central patient profiles, which are contributed to and validated by all healthcare professionals; and the importance of assessing patient understanding. Participation of a patient representative provided an invaluable contribution. The process and model provide a unique framework for interprofessional care plan development in other settings and patient populations.

Intentional partnering elucidates the relational components of working together and the strategizing that occurs as each partner deliberates on what he or she is willing to accept, risk and put into place to reap the benefits of collaborating.

Aims and objectives To explore how change‐of‐shift handoffs relate to nurses' clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration. Background The transfer of responsibility for patients' care comes with an exchange of information about their condition during change‐of‐shift handoff. However, it is unclear how this exchange affects nurses' clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration. Design A sequential explanatory mixed‐methods study reported according to the STROBE and COREQ guidelines. Methods Over four months, 62 nurses from one surgical and two medical units at a single Canadian hospital recorded their handoffs at change of shift. After each handoff, the two nurses involved each rated the patient's risk of experiencing cardiac arrest or being transferred to an intensive care unit in the next 24 hr separately. The information shared in handoffs was subjected to content analysis; code frequencies were contrasted per nurses' ratings of patient risk to identify characteristics of information that facilitated or hindered nurses' agreement. Results Out of 444 recorded handoffs, there were 125 in which at least one nurse judged that a patient was at risk of deterioration; nurses agreed in 32 cases (25.6%) and disagreed in 93 (74.4%). These handoffs generally included information on abnormal vital signs, breathing problems, chest pain, alteration of mental status or neurological symptoms. However, the quantity and seriousness of clinical cues, recent transfers from intensive care units, pain without a clear cause, signs of delirium and nurses' knowledge of patient were found to affect nurses' agreement. Conclusions Nurses exchanged more information regarding known indicators of deterioration in handoffs when they judged that patients were at risk. Disagreements most often involved incoming nurses rating patient risk as higher. Relevance to clinical practice This study suggests a need to sensitise nurses to the impact of certain cues at report on their colleagues' subsequent clinical judgments. Low levels of agreement between nurses underscore the importance of exchanging impressions regarding the likely evolution of a patient's situation to promote continuity of care.