UNASSIGNED: Fragility fractures are a serious and common consequence of falls in older adults. Orthogeriatric models of care reduce mortality and morbidity, but, despite this evidence, orthogeriatric programs (OGPs) are not standardized across Canada. The aim of this study was to better understand the facilitators and barriers of OGPs across Canada.
UNASSIGNED: Data on OGPs across Canada were gathered via email survey to all Canadian Geriatric Society (CGS) members and distributed April 1st to May 1st 2021. Respondents answered 15 questions, using SKIP LOGIC, and data analysis was conducted with QualtricsXM software.
UNASSIGNED: 62 CGS members completed the survey. Respondents came from nine provinces/territories, with most being physicians from academic centres. 77% respondents indicated an existing OGP at their site, commonly an optional or automatic geriatrician consult. 23% indicated no formal OGP, of which 56% had an alternative service automatically consulted for older adults with fragility fracture, commonly internal medicine or a hospitalist. Responders indicated the most important factor in establishing an OGP is clinical leadership (56%, 10/18), and the most common barriers are lack of hospital prioritization and lack of funding (41%, 62/153).
UNASSIGNED: The survey found that clinical leadership, hospital prioritization, and available funding are imperative to establishing OGPs. Limitations include the survey being distributed only to CGS members, a lower response rate, and respondents predominantly from academic centres in Ontario. Further qualitative data from other specialties (for example, orthopedics) and greater representation from community hospitals would be helpful to understand additional perceived barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple long-term conditions requires understanding the existing care models to address their complex and multifaceted health needs. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive overview of the essential components, impacts, challenges, and facilitators of these care models, prompting this scoping review.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. Our search encompassed articles from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. The World Health Organization\'s health system framework was utilized to synthesis the findings. This framework comprises six building blocks (service delivery, health workforce, health information systems, access to essential medicines, financing, and leadership/governance) and eight key characteristics of good service delivery models (access, coverage, quality, safety, improved health, responsiveness, social and financial risk protection, and improved efficiency). Findings were synthesized qualitatively to identify components, impacts, barriers, and facilitators of care models.
RESULTS: A care model represents various collective interventions in the healthcare delivery aimed at achieving desired outcomes. The names of these care models are derived from core activities or major responsibilities, involved healthcare teams, diseases conditions, eligible clients, purposes, and care settings. Notable care models include the Integrated, Collaborative, Integrated-Collaborative, Guided, Nurse-led, Geriatric, and Chronic care models, as well as All-inclusive Care Model for the Elderly, IMPACT clinic, and Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT). Other care models (include Care Management Plus, Value Stream Mapping, Preventive Home Visits, Transition Care, Self-Management, and Care Coordination) have supplemented the main ones. Care models improved quality of care (such as access, patient-centeredness, timeliness, safety, efficiency), cost of care, and quality of life for patients that were facilitated by presence of shared mission, system and function integration, availability of resources, and supportive tools.
CONCLUSIONS: Care models were implemented for the purpose of enhancing quality of care, health outcomes, cost efficiency, and patient satisfaction by considering careful recruitment of eligible clients, appropriate selection of service delivery settings, and robust organizational arrangements involving leadership roles, healthcare teams, financial support, and health information systems. The distinct team compositions and their roles in service provision processes differentiate care models.

Multiple factors contribute to the widening gap between supply and demand of endocrinology services. In addition to the inadequate growth of the workforce, the inefficient utilization of endocrinologists\' expertise coupled with the rising prevalence of endocrine conditions has generated a crisis in access to specialty care. This mismatch is magnified in underserved communities and among certain racial/ethnic groups that carry a disproportionate burden of chronic diseases, like diabetes and osteoporosis, thus perpetuating the cycle of health disparities in vulnerable populations. Reorienting the framework of endocrine care toward more effective and equitable access will require comprehensive changes in operational processes, system-based policies, and in the diversity of our workforce. Specifically, the progressive transition to outcome-driven, team-based models of care can extend endocrinology services beyond the traditional boundaries of in-office referrals and promote job satisfaction. Further, the implementation of policies that directly tackle structural determinants of health is a prerequisite to a more precise and equitable deployment of specialty care. In this view, the recruitment and professional growth of clinicians underrepresented in medicine along the career ladder, including leadership roles, is a key conduit to revitalize our field and to innovate the delivery of endocrine care across all communities.

BACKGROUND: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS) is a debilitating, complex, multisystem illness. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the multiple and interconnected barriers to optimal care will help advance strategies and care models to improve quality of life for people living with ME in Canada.
OBJECTIVE: To: (1) identify and systematically map the available evidence; (2) investigate the design and conduct of research; (3) identify and categorize key characteristics; and (4) identify and analyse knowledge gaps related to healthcare system barriers for people living with ME in Canada.
METHODS: The protocol was preregistered in July 2022. Peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched, and patient partners retrieved additional records. Eligible records were Canadian, included people with ME/CFS and included data or synthesis relevant to healthcare system barriers.
RESULTS: In total, 1821 records were identified, 406 were reviewed in full, and 21 were included. Healthcare system barriers arose from an underlying lack of consensus and research on ME and ME care; the impact of long-standing stigma, disbelief, and sexism; inadequate or inconsistent healthcare provider education and training on ME; and the heterogeneity of care coordinated by family physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: People living with ME in Canada face significant barriers to care, though this has received relatively limited attention. This synthesis, which points to several areas for future research, can be used as a starting point for researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers who are new to the area or encountering ME more frequently due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Health systems have long been interested in the best practices for staffing in the acute care setting. Studies on staffing often focus on registered nurses and nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. There were fewer studies on the relationship between interprofessional team members or contextual factors such as hospital and community characteristics and patient outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to refine an explanatory model by soliciting hospital personnel feedback on staffing and patient outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to understand hospital personnel\'s perspectives and experiences of factors that affect acute care inpatient outcomes. Interviews were conducted in 2022 with 38 hospital personnel representing 19 hospitals across Washington state in the United States of America.
RESULTS: Findings support a model of characteristics impacting patient outcomes to include the complex and interconnected relationships between community, hospital, patient, and staffing characteristics. Within the model, patient characteristics were positioned into hospital characteristics, and in turn these were positioned within community characteristics to highlight the importance of setting and context when evaluating outcomes. Together, these factors influenced both staff characteristics and patient outcomes, but these two categories also share a direct relationship.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings can be applied to hospitals and health systems in a variety of contexts to examine how external factors such as community resource availability impact care delivery. Future research should expand on this work with specific attention to how staffing changes and interprofessional team composition can improve patient outcomes.

This article reviews the contemporary and inclusive definition of cancer survivorship, including patients with and without disease who have completed or continue to undergo treatment. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) describes in this article the needs of these patients and outlines a care model based on an estimation of cancer incidence and identification of patient needs, to enable the provision of practical actions to achieve effective care. The objectives of this review are to identify the main effects of cancer on survivors and to establish appropriate ways of measuring these effects, as well as discussing the management of physical, psychological and social, occupational, financial, and other health-related needs. We suggest a multidisciplinary care model and training programs for the different professionals involved in care, and highlight challenges and the future role of the SEOM and health-care policy in ensuring optimum care of cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: To strengthen palliative care for children in the Nordic countries, an updated status of current needs, resources, clinical services, education, and research is necessary to align and consolidate future research. A Nordic research collaboration initiative for children with palliative care needs was assembled in 2023. Building on this initiative, this paper presents an overview of pediatric palliative care (PPC) in the Nordic countries\' (a) population characteristics, (b) care models and setting of care, (c) education and training, and (d) research.
METHODS: The Nordic initiative researchers collaboratively gathered and assessed available data on the characteristics of PPC within Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Sweden, and Åland. Data were compiled in a matrix with population characteristics, models- and setting of care, education and training, and areas of research in a Nordic context. The findings are narratively and descriptively presented, providing an overview of Nordic PPC.
RESULTS: In total, the Nordic child population comprises around six million children (0-19 years), of which about 41.200 are estimated to be living with a life-limiting and/or life-threatening condition. Healthcare services are provided through various care models, ranging from specialized care to homecare settings. Overall, there remain few opportunities for education and training with some exceptions. Also, Nordic research within PPC has been shown to be a growing field although much remains to be done.
CONCLUSIONS: This overview is the first outline of the current PPC in Nordic countries. Although some differences remain important to acknowledge, overall, the strengths and challenges faced within PPC in the Nordic countries are comparable and call for joint action to increase evidence, services, and education to better serve the children, families, and healthcare personnel within PPC. Despite the varying structural premises for PPC, research endeavors aiming to provide evidence in this field seem increasing, timely and relevant for the Nordic countries, as well as the international context.

Primary care in the United States is undergoing bursts of evolution in response to health system stresses, changing demographics, and expansion of risk and value-based reimbursement structures. The impact of primary care remains substantive and associated with improved population health. However, the spectrum of services, the nature of the physicians involved and new ways of including the patient in her, or his own care suggests that a new definition of primary care be considered, and patient expectations be heeded and understood. Evolutionary bursts yield new traits and in primary care, they are spawning new care models with significant implications for general internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics trained individuals and medicine subspecialties given the focus of these models on Medicare Advantage. Ultimately, changes in reimbursement and creative incentives will be two factors among many that will solidify the next stage of primary care in the United States.

UNASSIGNED: Health systems have long been interested in the best practices for staffing in the acute care setting. Studies on staffing often focus on registered nurses and nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. There are fewer studies on the relationship between interprofessional team members or contextual factors such as hospital and community characteristics and patient outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to refine a causal model by soliciting hospital stakeholder feedback on staffing and patient outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to understand hospital stakeholder perspectives and their experiences of factors that affect acute care inpatient outcomes. Interviews were conducted in 2022 with 38 hospital stakeholders representing 19 hospitals across Washington State.
UNASSIGNED: Findings support a model of characteristics impacting patient outcomes to include the complex and interconnected relationships between community, hospital, patient, and staffing characteristics. Within the model, patient characteristics are nested into hospital characteristics, and in turn these were nested within community characteristics to highlight the importance of setting and context when evaluating outcomes. Together, these factors influenced both staff characteristics and patient outcomes, while these two categories also share a direct relationship.
UNASSIGNED: Findings can be applied to hospitals and health systems across the globe to examine how external factors such as community resource availability impact care delivery. Future research should expand on this work with specific attention to how staffing changes and interprofessional team composition can improve patient outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: Multimorbidity is a growing challenge in the care for older people with mental illness. To address both physical and mental illnesses, integrated care management is required. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify core components of integrated care models for older adults with depression and physical comorbidity, and map reported outcomes and implementation strategies.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched independently by two reviewers for studies concerning integrated care interventions for older adults with depression and physical comorbidity. We used the SELFIE framework to map core components of integrated care models. Clinical and organisational outcomes were mapped.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-eight studies describing thirteen care models were included. In all care models, a multidisciplinary team was involved. The following core components were mainly described: continuity, person-centredness, tailored holistic assessment, pro-activeness, treatment interaction, individualized care planning, and coordination tailored to complexity of care needs. Twenty-seven different outcomes were evaluated, with more attention given to clinical than to organisational outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The core components that comprise integrated care models are diverse. Future studies should focus more on implementation aspects of the intervention and describe financial parts, e.g., the cost of the intervention for the healthcare user, more transparently.