Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Rural emergency care 360°: mobilising healthcare professionals, decision-makers, patients and citizens to improve rural emergency care in the province of Quebec, Canada: a qualitative study protocol
  1. Richard Fleet1,2,3,
  2. Gilles Dupuis4,
  3. Jean-Paul Fortin3,5,
  4. Jocelyn Gravel6,
  5. Mathieu Ouimet7,
  6. Julien Poitras1,2,
  7. France Légaré3,8
  1. 1 Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Québec, Canada
  2. 2 Research Chair in Emergency Medicine, CHAU-Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis (Université Laval), Lévis, Québec, Canada
  3. 3 Institut universitaire de première ligne en santé et services sociaux -Université Laval, Québec city, Québec, Canada
  4. 4 Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  5. 5 Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Canada
  6. 6 CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
  7. 7 Department of Political Science, Université Laval, Quebec City, Québec, Canada
  8. 8 Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Knowledge Transfer and Health Technology Assessment Group of the CHU de Québec Research Centre, Unité de Recherche Évaluative, Université Laval, Quebec City, Québec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Richard Fleet; rfleet{at}videotron.ca

Abstract

Introduction Emergency departments (EDs) are an important safety net for rural populations. Results of our earlier studies suggest that rural Canadian hospitals have limited access to advanced imaging services and intensive care units and that patients are transferred over large distances. They also revealed significant geographical variations in rural services. In the absence of national standards, our studies raise questions about inequities in rural access to emergency services and the risks for citizens. Our goal is to build recommendations for improving services by mobilising stakeholders interested in rural emergency care. With help and full engagement of stakeholders, we will (1) identify solutions for improving quality and performance in rural EDs; (2) formulate and prioritise recommendations; (3) transfer knowledge of the recommendations to rural EDs and support operationalisation and (4) assess knowledge transfer and explore further impacts of this participatory action research project.

Methodology We will use a participatory action research approach. We will plan for a governance structure that includes all stakeholders’ representatives, so throughout this project, stakeholders are fully engaged at every step. Our sample will be 26 EDs in rural Quebec. We will conduct semistructured individual and focus group interviews with relevant and representative participants, including patients and citizens (estimated n=200). Interviews will be thematically analysed to extract potential solutions and other qualitative information.

An expert panel (±15) will use an analysis grid to develop consensus recommendations from solutions suggested and will evaluate feasibility, impacts, costs, conditions for implementation and establish monitoring indicators. Recommendations will be transferred to stakeholders using tailored knowledge translation strategies (web platform, meetings and so on).

Discussion and expected results This study will result in a comprehensive consensus list of feasible and high-priority recommendations enabling decision-makers in emergency care to implement improvements in rural emergency care in Quebec.

Ethics and dissemination This protocol has been approved by the CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project number: MP 2017-009). The qualitative material will be kept confidential and the data will be presented in a way that respects confidentiality. The dissemination plan for the study includes publications in scientific and professional journals. We will also use social media to disseminate our findings and activities such as communications in public conferences.

  • Rural emergency departments
  • Health care
  • Performance
  • Unwarranted variations in practice
  • Participatory action research

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors RF was responsible for the original idea, literature review and study design. He drafted the initial manuscript and its revised versions. GD, JPF, JG, FL, MO and JP contributed significantly to the manuscript drafting and preparation, revision and formatting the manuscript. RF has contributed to various aspects of the study design with input relating to their specific expertise in the field. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors declare not having any financial or other conflicts of interest related to the submission. The research project is supported from the "Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé(FRQS) " 32825.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement NA.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.