IntroductionGiven the recurrent risk of respiratory illness-based pandemics, and the important roles family physicians play during public health emergencies, the development of pandemic plans for primary care is imperative. Existing pandemic plans in Canada, however, do not adequately incorporate family physicians’ roles and perspectives. This policy and planning oversight has become increasingly evident with the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic. This study is designed to inform the development of pandemic plans for primary care through evidence from four provinces in Canada: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario.Methods and analysisWe will employ a multiple-case study of regions in four provinces. Each case consists of a mixed methods design which comprises: (1) a chronology of family physician roles in the COVID-19 pandemic response; (2) a provincial policy analysis; and (3) qualitative interviews with family physicians. Relevant policy and guidance documents will be identified through targeted, snowball and general search strategies. Additionally, these policy documents will be analysed to identify gaps and/or emphases in existing policies and policy responses. Interviews will explore family physicians’ proposed, actual and potential roles during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they have encountered throughout and the influence of gender on their professional roles. Data will be thematically analysed using a content analysis framework, first at the regional level and then through cross-case analyses.Ethics and disseminationApproval for this study has been granted by the Research Ethics of British Columbia, the Health Research Ethics Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board and the Western University Research Ethics Board. Findings will be disseminated via conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Evidence and lessons learnt will be used to develop tools for government ministries, public health units and family physicians for improved pandemic response plans for primary care.

No abstract

Background and Objectives With growing demand for a dementia-capable workforce, attention shifts from disseminating knowledge of care strategies to facilitating teams translating knowledge in practice. Occupational Adaptation (OA) is a theoretical framework used to facilitate people resolving real-world challenges through active problem solving, using relative mastery as its measure. This pilot study evaluated if and how OA-based training improves dementia care teams’ relative mastery and team development more than a skills-based (SB) program. Research Design and Methods We report results of an embedded mixed-methods study with 28 employees of a continuing care retirement community (two groups randomly assigned to nine-week programs). Data collection entailed two surveys conducted pre, mid, and post-intervention; observations; journals; and follow-up interviews. We extended beyond quantitative and qualitative analyses with cross-cutting analyses exploring exemplar and exceptional cases. Results The OA group reported significantly greater improvements in relative mastery and team development (p < .05). Qualitative data supported the statistical findings and illuminated processes that led OA to out-perform SB. OA participants, those who analyzed real cases and alternated collaborative planning with cooperative action, were more likely to indicate pre-post differences in relative mastery and team development. Discussion and Implications We identified features of the OA program that diverse participants deemed effective; features that suggest how OA could underpin clinically relevant learning for workers. Further research is required to develop evidence of clinical effectiveness; however, our findings have relevance for agencies wishing to promote knowledge translation and collaborative problem solving in dementia workforce training.

Background. Dementia workforce training aligned with Occupational Adaptation (OA) theory may facilitate teams resolving challenges in the care environment more than traditional skills-based (SB) training, although comparisons are needed. Purpose. This pilot study compared effectiveness of an OA and SB program on relative mastery and team development for dementia care teams at a continuing care retirement community. Method. In a quasi-experimental study, employees underwent nine sessions in an OA or SB program. Relative Mastery Measurement Scale and Team Development Measure results were collected pre-, mid-, post-intervention. A 3 × 2 ANOVA determined differences in group score changes across time. Findings. Data from 28 employees (14/group) showed group-by-time interaction reached statistical significance for both relative mastery ( F = 3.17, df = 2, p = .05) and team development ( F = 8.38, df = 2, p = .001). Implications. OA-based training may improve dementia care teams’ collaborative mastery over real-world challenges. While preliminary findings inform program developers, further research must explore clinical effectiveness.