Explore the vast range of titles available.

Solutions to healthcare's most persistent and pervasive challenges remain elusive because we approach them as navigating oppositional tensions: the need to drive efficiency versus improve quality, to leverage cutting-edge technology versus maintain human compassion, to address population health versus providing care to the patient in front of you. The key to transforming healthcare lies in the ability of healthcare leaders to recognize when oppositional tensions are in fact paradoxes at play, to increase the capability and collective capacity to navigate them. Paradox science contends sustainable solutions to intractable challenges come not from eliminating the tensions that operate within the complexity but from the ability of those involved to hold opposing ideas in productive balance. It empowers leaders and their teams to find innovative paths by engaging with tensions directly. This perspective piece outlines three steps healthcare leaders can take to apply paradox science in practice, providing descriptions and example actions for each: 1) Clarify the paradox, 2) Encourage experimentation, and 3) Adopt a dynamic view. Moving forward, health leaders must leverage paradox science to drive forward innovation agendas in order to truly transform the healthcare experience for patients, populations, and the health workforce that serves them.

Background Audit and feedback (A&F) often successfully enhances health professionals’ intentions to improve quality of care but does not consistently lead to practice changes. Recipients often cite data credibility and limited resources as barriers impeding their ability to act upon A&F, suggesting the intention-to-action gap manifests while recipients are interacting with their data. While attention has been paid to the role feedback and contextual variables play in contributing to (or impeding) success, we lack a nuanced understanding of how healthcare professionals interact with and process clinical performance data. Methods We used qualitative, semi-structured interviews guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Questions explored the role of data in quality improvement, experiences with the A&F report, perceptions of the data, and interpretations and reflections. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive strategies using reflexive thematic analysis informed by a constructivist paradigm. Results Healthcare professional characteristics (individual quality improvement capabilities and beliefs about data) seem to influence engagement with A&F to a greater degree than feedback variables (i.e., delivered by peers) and observed contextual factors (i.e., strong quality improvement culture). Most participants lacked the capabilities to interpret practice-level data in an actionable way despite a motivation to engage meaningfully. Reasons for the intention-to-action gap included challenges interpreting longitudinal data, appreciating the nuances of common data sources, understanding how aggregate data provides insights into individualized care, and identifying practice-level actions to improve quality. These factors limited effective cognitive participation and collective action, as outlined in NPT. Conclusions A well-designed A&F intervention is necessary but not sufficient to inform practice changes. A&F initiatives must include co-interventions to address recipient characteristics (i.e., beliefs and capabilities) and context to optimize impact. Effective strategies to overcome the intention-to-action gap may include modelling how to use A&F to inform practice change, providing opportunities for social interaction relating to the A&F, and circulating examples of effective actions taken in response to A&F. More broadly, undergraduate medical education and post-graduate training must ensure physicians are equipped with QI capabilities, with an emphasis on the skills required to interpret and act on practice-level data.

High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.

Funding changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic supported the growth of direct-to-consumer virtual walk-in clinics in several countries. Little is known about patients who attend virtual walk-in clinics or how these clinics contribute to care continuity and subsequent health care use. The objective of the present study was to describe the characteristics and measure the health care use of patients who attended virtual walk-in clinics compared to the general population and a subset that received any virtual family physician visit. This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Ontario, Canada. Patients who had received a family physician visit at 1 of 13 selected virtual walk-in clinics from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were compared to Ontario residents who had any virtual family physician visit. The main outcome was postvisit health care use. Virtual walk-in patients (n=132,168) had fewer comorbidities and lower previous health care use than Ontarians with any virtual family physician visit. Virtual walk-in patients were also less likely to have a subsequent in-person visit with the same physician (309/132,168, 0.2% vs 704,759/6,412,304, 11%; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48), more likely to have a subsequent virtual visit (40,030/132,168, 30.3% vs 1,403,778/6,412,304, 21.9%; SMD 0.19), and twice as likely to have an emergency department visit within 30 days (11,003/132,168, 8.3% vs 262,509/6,412,304, 4.1%; SMD 0.18), an effect that persisted after adjustment and across urban/rural resident groups. Compared to Ontarians attending any family physician virtual visit, virtual walk-in patients were less likely to have a subsequent in-person physician visit and were more likely to visit the emergency department. These findings will inform policy makers aiming to ensure the integration of virtual visits with longitudinal primary care.

Background: Comprehensive multi-institutional patient portals that provide patients with web-based access to their data from across the health system have been shown to improve the provision of patient-centered and integrated care. However, several factors hinder the implementation of these portals. Although barriers and facilitators to patient portal adoption are well documented, there is a dearth of evidence examining how to effectively implement multi-institutional patient portals that transcend traditional boundaries and disparate systems. Objective: This study aims to explore how the implementation approach of a multi-institutional patient portal impacted the adoption and use of the technology and to identify the lessons learned to guide the implementation of similar patient portal models. Methods: This multimethod study included an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during an evaluation of the multi-institutional MyChart patient portal that was deployed in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Descriptive statistics were performed to understand the use patterns during the first 15 months of implementation (between August 2018 and October 2019). In addition, 42 qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 administrative stakeholders, 16 patients, 7 health care providers, and 1 informal caregiver to understand how the implementation approach influenced user experiences and to identify strategies for improvement. Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Between August 2018 and October 2019, 15,271 registration emails were sent, with 67.01% (10,233/15,271) registered for an account across 38 health care sites. The median number of patients registered per site was 19, with considerable variation (range 1-2114). Of the total number of sites, 55% (21/38) had ≤30 registered patients, whereas only 2 sites had over 1000 registered patients. Interview participants perceived that the patient experience of the portal would have been improved by enhancing the data comprehensiveness of the technology. They also attributed the lack of enrollment to the absence of a broad rollout and marketing strategy across sites. Participants emphasized that provider engagement, change management support, and senior leadership endorsement were central to fostering uptake. Finally, many stated that regional alignment and policy support should have been sought to streamline implementation efforts across participating sites. Conclusions: Without proper management and planning, multi-institutional portals can suffer from minimal adoption. Data comprehensiveness is the foundational component of these portals and requires aligned policies and a key base of technology infrastructure across all participating sites. It is important to look beyond the category of the technology (ie, patient portal) and consider its functionality (eg, data aggregation, appointment scheduling, messaging) to ensure that it aligns with the underlying strategic priorities of the deployment. It is also critical to establish a clear vision and ensure buy-ins from organizational leadership and health care providers to support a cultural shift that will enable a meaningful and widespread engagement.

Digital tools have shown great potential to enhance health services’ capacity to achieve the goals of the triple aim (enhance patient experience, improve health outcomes, and control or reduce costs), but their actual impact remains variable. In this commentary, we suggest that shifting from a perspective focused on “implementing” new digital tools in health care settings toward one focused on “service design” will help teams execute more successful digital technology adoption projects. We present value proposition design (VPD) as a service design strategy requiring that stakeholders are brutally honest in determining the value of a new digital tool for their everyday work. Incorporating a perspective focused on how the value proposition of a technology is understood by each team member, and implications for their work routines, will help project teams to better understand how services can be reinvented during technology adoption initiatives. We present the simple heuristic [Tool+Team+Routine] as a reminder of the central considerations that make up a service design initiative, and present an illustrative case scenario of designing the use of a digital care coordination platform in an actual digital technology adoption project. We conclude by outlining two important challenges that need to be addressed to advance service design approaches to technology adoption in health care.

Background Implementation strategies are deliberate systematic actions used to support the uptake of innovations in health and social care. While widely used taxonomies such as ERIC and EPOC have emerged from consensus exercises, few implementation strategies are explicitly derived from theory and tested against empirical data. This study develops a taxonomy of implementation strategies grounded in Normalization Process Theory (NPT), an implementation theory that explains how new practices become embedded and sustained. Methods We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies that reported implementation projects informed by NPT. Studies were identified through citation tracking and database searches, screened using pre-specified criteria, and appraised for methodological quality. Using the NPT coding manual, we identified implementation mechanisms described in each study and translated these into candidate implementation strategies. These were then tested against all included studies through iterative qualitative content analysis. Result Searches led to 9,147 references, and we then eliminated 5,708 duplicates. After title and abstract screening a further 1,443 were eliminated. Full text screening was undertaken with 1,996 papers, and 1,411 of these were eliminated. This left 585 papers subjected to quality assessment, of which 522 were eliminated. Finally, 63 papers were included in the review. Qualitative analysis of included papers yielded 24 general strategies linked to NPT’s theoretical constructs and 96 micro-strategies representing four domains of implementation activity: leadership, information, empowerment, and service user involvement. Each strategy was explicitly linked to an NPT construct. Conclusions This study provides a theory-based and empirically grounded set of actionable implementation strategies. These are grounded in qualitative descriptions of implementation work. These strategies support practical decision-making across the planning, delivery, and sustainment phases of implementation, and offer context-sensitive guidance for adapting interventions to diverse settings. Unlike consensus-based taxonomies, these strategies are tied to observable mechanisms of action, enabling users to better understand and respond to the dynamic and socially organised nature of implementation. The NPT taxonomy of implementation strategies can support the design, tailoring, and operationalisation of implementation efforts across varied health and social care contexts.

IntroductionDigital health interventions (DHIs) are defined as health services delivered electronically through formal or informal care. DHIs can range from electronic medical records used by providers to mobile health apps used by consumers. DHIs involve complex interactions between user, technology and the healthcare team, posing challenges for implementation and evaluation. Theoretical or interpretive frameworks are crucial in providing researchers guidance and clarity on implementation or evaluation approaches; however, there is a lack of standardisation on which frameworks to use in which contexts. Our goal is to conduct a scoping review to identify frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be conducted using methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual and will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies will be included if they report on frameworks (ie, theoretical, interpretive, developmental) that are used to guide either implementation or evaluation of DHIs. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO will be searched in addition to grey literature and reference lists of included studies. Citations and full text articles will be screened independently in Covidence after a reliability check among reviewers. We will use qualitative description to summarise findings and focus on how research objectives and type of DHIs are aligned with the frameworks used.Ethics and disseminationWe engaged an advisory panel of digital health knowledge users to provide input at strategic stages of the scoping review to enhance the relevance of findings and inform dissemination activities. Specifically, they will provide feedback on the eligibility criteria, data abstraction elements, interpretation of findings and assist in developing key messages for dissemination. This study does not require ethical review. Findings from review will support decision making when selecting appropriate frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.

Walk-in clinics (WICs), appreciated for their accessibility and convenience, have become an increasingly popular healthcare option in Ontario for patients with and without primary care enrolment. Despite their utility, WICs face criticism for delivering lower-quality care compared to comprehensive, enrolment-based primary care models. Critics argue that WICs contribute to system inefficiencies and encourage practice patterns misaligned with population health goals. This study explored physician perspectives on two key outcomes often associated with low-quality care in WICs: repeat primary care visits and potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Ontario-based family physicians (N = 19) who had experience practicing in both WICs and enrolment-based primary care. The findings highlight systemic challenges, including limited access to enrolment-based primary care and increasing healthcare demands, which have pushed WICs beyond their intended role. This misalignment has created tensions between their structure and purpose, resulting in visits that participants described as more transactional than those in primary care. These constraints—rooted in a lack of informational and relational continuity—often limited participants’ ability to provide in-depth engagement or follow-up care. Repeat visits were frequently linked to efforts to ensure continuity for complex or chronic conditions. Similarly, participants acknowledged the reality of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, attributing it to the high patient volume, desire to satisfy patient expectations, and a tendency to “err on the side of caution” when the nature of the illness is in question. The findings underscore how health system pressures and well-intended policies, such as Ontario’s primary care access bonus, can produce unintended consequences, including inequities in access and difficulties with care coordination across settings. Addressing these challenges requires reforms to better integrate WICs with the primary care system, alongside tailored training to support physician decision-making in episodic care contexts.

Objective Virtual care presents a promising opportunity to create new communication channels and increase access to healthcare. However, concerns have been raised around the potential for unintended emotional distances created through virtual care environments that could strain patient–provider relationships. While compassionate care is an enabler of emotional connectivity and a core tenant of nursing, little is known about whether or how nurses have adapted their compassion skills into virtual interactions. These concerns are particularly relevant in primary care, where there is a focus on relational continuity (i.e. relationship-based, longitudinal care) and a broad uptake of virtual care. The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of compassionate virtual care and to uncover how nurses operationalized compassionate care through virtual interactions in primary care. Methods We used a qualitative interpretive descriptive lens to conduct semistructured interviews with primary care nurses (Ontario, Canada) who had provided virtual care (i.e. video visits, remote patient monitoring, or asynchronous messaging). We used a thematic approach to analyze the data. Results We interviewed 18 nurse practitioners and two registered nurses. Participants described how: (1) compassionate care was central to nursing practice, (2) compassionate care was evolving through virtual nurse–patient interaction, and (3) nurses balanced practice with patients’ expectations while providing virtual compassionate care. Conclusions There is an opportunity to better align nurses’ understanding and operationalization of compassionate care in virtual primary care contexts. Exploring how compassionate care is operationalized in primary care settings is a necessary first step to building compassionate competencies across the nursing profession to support the continued virtual evolution of health service delivery.