Advanced Patient Navigation Certificate - Lesson 7: Patient Navigation Models

Please watch the following recorded lecture and respond to the discussion question below.

Powered by elearningfreak.com
Would one of these models be useful for patient navigation in your setting? If yes, list which one(s)?
If not, describe how your model would be different (e.g., what would be required) in one or two sentences.

Instructions: You must post your responses in the comments section below before the next live lesson. The instructor will review your comments and have a debrief discussion at the start of the next live session. The comments section will not be moderated otherwise.

For security purposes, you will need to sign up with your email to post a comment but your email will not be shared.

5 comments on “Advanced Patient Navigation Certificate - Lesson 7: Patient Navigation Models

  1. I think the PCCP and Risk based models would be a good start for elderly patients and long term care patients. Being able to connect with a patient navigator to help them to understand all of the possible issues, appointments, and calm them by organizing their appointments, and transportation to those appointments as well as having perhaps meals on wheels or a similar type of service to ensure they have the food they need is there and easy to access. Assessing their needs, concerns and abilities will help ease their concerns.

  2. The H&S stroke navigation model currently fits very well within the navigator role slide. I think looking at it from our stroke clients perspective if we wanted to be more integrated with acute/primary care, either the conceptual model or the risk-based model or care may be good options for our clients. For the conceptual model I would tweak the model for integration on the patient navigator throughout cancer centre treatment, I would also change the clinical consultations to team-based care and integrate other support staff such as navigator in earlier. I would also do follow up with clients following no active related diagnosis. May still need mental health or condition support for a different diagnosis or healthy behaviour change/health promotion support.

    For the risk-based model we can determine variety of supports for referral/language needs, etc. It also takes into consideration co-morbidities, which is important. It acknowledges mental health. I would build in resource/community service navigation even if they are "low risk because they may not have time time/ability/awareness to find their own resources.

  3. The Navigation Role model aligns well with my role as Stroke Navigator and the clients we see. It includes a lot of criteria within our current model and program we offer clients. Our model focuses on 3 major pillars - Support, Educate and Connect.

    One of the challenges I see is with the hand-off from hospital at discharge, that isn't always efficiently done and this can create gaps for referral to our Stroke Navigation program.

  4. I think the Navigator Role Model represents how I could best support clients in my role. Communicating with patients and families, identifying goals, community resources and identifying barriers to care, as well as working with clients to problem solve to remove barriers. By facilitating and coordinating health care resources and having a system to communicate information efficiently amongst the team for the best coordination of care. As well as, addressing patient education, follow -up with client and team members.

  5. I think the PCCP care model would be a good starting point. Using a "distress assessment tool" may help both the patient and navigator learn what is most bothersome/concerning to the patient and can be a good way to open dialogue and start discussions, especially if the navigator and patient do not already have a therapeutic relationship. However if the outcome of the assessment requires a referral to the MRP, then there is potential for the patients concerns to be missed (ie message not received, fax didn't go through, MRP away). I feel that there could be a simple step added to confirm that the providers office received the information and a f/u is booked with the patient. Without this step there likely would be valuable time lost prior to the navigator realizing that there has been an issue with the transmission of the message

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*