
Welcome to my Artefacts
See below for videos and presentations related to MHST 631! All artefacts created by Alex MacKinnon

Welcome to my Artefacts
See below for videos and presentations related to MHST 631! All artefacts created by Alex MacKinnon
01 October 7, 2025
Health Belief Model
This artefact demonstrates my understanding of health promotion frameworks and their application to real-world healthcare challenges. The presentation explores the use of the Health Belief Model (HBM) to address low health literacy among older adults and its connection to preventable hospital readmissions. By applying the HBM, the presentation highlights how perceptions of risk, benefits, and self-efficacy can influence patient behavior following discharge. This artefact connects theoretical learning to my professional practice as a healthcare leader, emphasizing the importance of clear communication, patient education, and system-level supports to promote safe transitions and improved outcomes.
02 September 22, 2025
Health Promotion and Population Health
A mini slide show into the Population Health Promotion Model and its application into Virtual Care

03 October 29, 2025
Health Literacy: The Missing Link in Readmission Prevention
This infographic highlights the critical role of health literacy in reducing 30-day hospital readmissions among older adults. It presents statistics on low health literacy in Canada, outlines contributing factors, and introduces an evidence-based intervention using simplified discharge summaries, teach-back education, and follow-up calls. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF), the initiative emphasizes staff training, leadership support, and collaboration to strengthen patient understanding, safety, and continuity of care. Please right click to view in new tab

04 November 18, 2025
Community Engagement: A Case Study that Explores the Importance of a Patient and Family Advisory Council
See below for a full case study that brings to life the engagement process of introducing a PFAC, to a facility. The chart version, can be found on my blog post page!
Organization
Transitional Care Unit PFAC Council
URL Patient and Family Advisory Council | KHSC Kingston Health Sciences Centre
Areas of Focus
-
Transitional care for medically stable but functionally vulnerable adults (often older adults) who are not yet ready to return home or waiting for long-term care.
-
Safe, person- and family-centered transitions from acute care to TCU, and from TCU to home, long-term care, or other community settings.
-
Supporting during the transition phase on the acceptance of Long Term Care
-
Improving patient, family, and caregiver experience, communication, and trust in the TCU environment.
-
Embedding patient and family voice in quality improvement, policy, and operational decisions at the TCU.
Relevant to Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity
-
Age and functional status (frailty, mobility limitations, high care needs).
-
Income and housing security (ability to return safely home, afford supports, or secure appropriate LTC placement).
-
Social support and caregiver capacity (family burnout, distance, and availability).
-
Geography (rural/remote communities who must travel for visits and follow-up).
-
Health literacy and language barriers, especially in complex discharge or placement decisions.
Intended Use
-
Bring former and current TCU patients and family caregivers into ongoing dialogue with hospital leaders, TCU staff, and partner organizations.
-
Inform policies, workflows, communication tools, and environmental changes at the TCU based on lived experience.
-
Identify barriers to safe, person-centered transitions and co-design solutions (e.g., admission information, bedside communication tools, discharge planning supports).
-
Build trust and transparency between the TCU, families, and hospital partners, particularly following periods of heightened complaints or concerns.
Principles/ Values
-
Respect and dignity: Recognizing patients and families as experts in their own experience.
-
Equity and inclusion: Intentionally seeking participation from those most impacted by TCU care (e.g., caregivers of frail older adults, transitioning to LTC)
-
Partnership and co-creation: Working with families to co-designing processes and solutions alongside them.
-
Transparency and accountability: Closing the feedback loop by showing what was heard and what is being changed as a result.
-
Cultural safety and humility: Being attentive to Indigenous, newcomer, and other marginalized communities’ experiences in institutional care.
-
Continuous learning: Using feedback and evaluation to refine PFAC activities and TCU improvements over time.
Tools/ Guides
-
Terms of reference outlining membership, roles, decision-making, and expectations of meetings
-
Recruitment materials (posters, admission packages) to identify interested former patients and family caregivers.
-
Issue/theme trackers to organize feedback into categories (e.g., communication, environment, safety, discharge planning, staff interactions).
-
Draft and revised patient/family information tools, such as:
-
Admission welcome/what-to-expect sheets
-
Discharge planning checklists
-
Contact information/reference sheets
-
-
Complaint/concern metrics from patient relations used as inputs for PFAC conversation and co-design work.
Strategies
-
PFAC meetings centering lived experience and storytelling.
-
Co-design of admission, communication, and discharge materials.
-
Feedback-driven revisions to processes (e.g., expectations on admission, bedside communication).
-
Walkaround observations) guided by PFAC insights.
-
Look for themes in patient/family feedback (complaints, compliments, surveys).
-
Completing the feedback loop with concluding evaluations
-
Integration of PFAC themes into quality improvement and accreditation reports.
-
Care-planning discussions informed by PFAC-identified needs.
Barriers/ Risks
-
Power imbalances and fear of speaking honestly in a hospital-led forum.
-
Emotional strain for families revisiting difficult TCU experiences.
-
Limited representation of diverse caregivers (rural, cultural, linguistic).
-
Time constraints for both families and staff.
-
Historical mistrust due to previous concerns or complaints.
-
Staff turnover or inconsistent leadership engagement.
-
Patient turn over due to the temporary transitional care phase
Success Factors
-
Visible, concrete changes resulting from PFAC input
-
Strong leadership commitment and consistent attendance.
-
Safe, inclusive meeting environment that elevates quieter voices.
-
Diversity of PFAC membership reflecting TCU patient population.
-
Integration of PFAC insights into QI, SOPs, audits, and accreditation.
-
Stable support structures like the recognition of advisors
Evaluation
-
Number and diversity of PFAC members.
-
Consistency and frequency of meetings.
-
Volume and themes of issues raised.
-
Implementation of PFAC-informed changes.
-
Trends in patient/family experience, complaints, and compliments.
-
PFAC member perception of influence and respect.
-
Evidence of PFAC impact on policy, QI, or accreditation work.
Other Comments
-
The TCU PFAC lines up with WHO’s idea of community engagement as an ongoing relationship, not a one-time consultation. Right now, it mostly sits at the “involve/collaborate” level, with the hope that over time patients and families will take on an even bigger role in shaping how the TCU runs (WHO, 2020)
National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health. (2013). A guide to community engagement frameworks for action on the social determinants of health and health equity. Antigonish, NS: National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health, St. Francis Xavier University. http://nccdh.ca/images/uploads/Community_Engagement_EN_web.pdf
World Health Organization. (2020). Community engagement: a health promotion guide for universal health coverage in the hands of the people. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010529

06 Situational Awareness
January 27th
2025
What is the situation? Improving health literacy and medication safety among adults aged 65+ following hospital discharge to reduce avoidable ED visits and 30-day readmissions.
What influences are making the situation better and worse?
What possible actions can you take to address the situation?
What impact does the current situation have on health outcomes, quality of life and other societal costs, such as noise, air pollution or increased healthcare spending?
Many older adults leave hospital with complex discharge instructions and medication regimens that are difficult to understand and manage. When health literacy is low and discharge communication is rushed or unclear, older adults are at increased risk of medication errors, missed follow-up care, worsening symptoms, and delayed recognition of red flags.
This issue affects:
-
Health outcomes: adverse drug events, falls, complications, deterioration, re-hospitalization
-
Quality of life: anxiety, loss of confidence, reduced independence, caregiver stress and burden
Societal & system costs: increased ED volumes, hospital bed pressures, increased healthcare spending, and inefficient resource use related to avoidable return visits.
Which groups of people are at higher risk of health problems and poorer quality of life?
-
Older adults (65+) experiencing polypharmacy, multimorbidity, and complex regimens
-
Individuals with low health literacy
-
Patients with cognitive impairment, memory challenges, frailty, or sensory limitations (vision/hearing)
-
People with limited English proficiency or communication barriers
-
Individuals with low socioeconomic status
-
Those who are socially isolated or without reliable caregivers/family support
-
People who lack consistent access to primary care or follow-up services
-
Patients discharged after acute illness, surgery, or rapid discharges during periods of high system pressure
Which settings or situations are high risk, or pose a unique opportunity for intervention?
· The immediate hospital discharge period, approx. 48-72 hours postdischarge, especially when discharge occurs quickly or unexpectedly
· High-turnover environments where communication must happen rapidly (busy inpatient units, short-stay areas)
· Patients discharged with multiple medication changes or new high-risk medications (e.g., anticoagulants, insulin, opioids)
Opportunities:
· Discharge planning moments where teaching + confirmation of understanding can occur
· Medication reconciliation and pharmacist involvement at discharge
· Use of standardized patient-friendly discharge summaries, plain language med lists, and teach-back
· Caregiver engagement at discharge and early follow-up
Linking patients to community supports
How do local stakeholders perceive the situation? What is their capacity to act? What are their interests, mandates, current activities?
-
Discharge is a vulnerable transition point
-
Readmissions and ED visits are frustrating and sometimes preventable
-
Patient understanding is frequently overestimated
-
Workflows make it difficult to spend enough time on education
Stakeholder groups and typical mandates/capacity:
-
Hospital teams (nurses, physicians, unit leaders): responsible for safe discharge, but are limited by time pressures, staffing, bed flow demands, and competing priorities.
-
Pharmacists: strong interest and capacity to support medication reconciliation, teaching, and medication lists, but may be limited by resourcing or inconsistent integration at discharge.
-
Primary care providers: want continuity and accurate medication lists but often receive incomplete information and have limited ability to see patients quickly post-discharge.
-
Home care/community agencies: can support adherence and safety but depend on timely referrals and capacity.
-
Patients and caregivers: may feel overwhelmed, tired, or unsure what questions to ask.
What are the needs, perceptions and supported directions of key influential community members, and the community-at-large?
-
Clear, respectful, plain-language discharge instructions
-
Med lists that are accurate and easy to follow
-
Consistent follow-up and reassurance after discharge
-
Greater caregiver involvement when appropriate
-
Better communication between hospital and community providers
-
Increased system accountability so the burden doesn’t fall entirely on the patient
Community-at-large (especially families supporting older adults) often supports:
-
More proactive discharge support and planning
-
Improved navigation and understanding of what services exist
What high-risk or negative health behaviours by various groups of people are affecting the situation?
-
Taking medications incorrectly (wrong dose/time, duplications, stopping early)
-
Missing follow-up appointments or not booking follow-up at all
-
Delayed help-seeking when symptoms worsen
-
Not using available written resources (because they are confusing or inaccessible)
-
Not engaging fully in discharge education due to fatigue, stress, or rushed discharge
-
Not being present at discharge teaching
-
Misunderstanding instructions themselves
-
Being overwhelmed by responsibility and system complexity
-
Inconsistent medication reconciliation processes
-
Overreliance on written materials that are not health-literacy friendly
-
Discharge teaching that is not standardized or not reinforced
-
Lack of confirmation of understanding (no teach-back)
-
Gaps in communication to primary care/community pharmacy/home care
Which underlying causes or conditions are driving these behaviours (e.g. individual, community, organizational or system-level causes)? Are there protective factors that can help avoid or alleviate the situation (such as ensuring walkable communities or encouraging strong parent-child relationships)?
Individual-level causes
-
Low functional or critical health literacy
-
Cognitive decline or memory impairment
-
Language barriers and sensory impairments
-
Anxiety, stress, and fatigue at discharge
Interpersonal-level causes
-
Limited caregiver support or caregiver burnout
-
Family members not included in planning or teaching
Organizational-level causes
-
Discharge workflow pressures and limited staff time
-
Variation in how discharge instructions are delivered
-
Lack of standardized tools, scripts, or consistent expectations
-
Fragmentation between teams (medicine, pharmacy, nursing, care coordination)
System-level causes
-
Limited access to primary care follow-up
-
Home care capacity constraints
-
Inequities in social determinants (income, housing, transportation)
Protective factors
-
Teach-back and repeated reinforcement of key messages
-
Simplified medication summaries (plain language, large font, visuals)
-
Post-discharge follow-up calls within 48–72 hours
-
Pharmacist counselling and strong medication reconciliation
-
Remote monitoring and virtual care supports (when appropriate)
-
Strong caregiver involvement and community supports
Which strengths and weaknesses present in your organization may affect your course of action? Which opportunities and threats in your environment may affect your course of action?
-
Existing discharge foundation processes already in place
-
Staff who value patient safety and patient experience
-
Many evidence-based tools already exist (teach-back, discharge bundles)
-
Potential capacity for follow-up calls, pharmacy support, virtual care
-
-
Time pressure and staffing constraints
-
Variation in discharge teaching quality across units
-
Discharge information can be complex, inconsistent, or “too much at once”
-
Communication gaps between acute care and community follow-up
-
-
Growing emphasis on reducing readmissions and ED pressures
-
Momentum toward equity, quality improvement, and system sustainability
-
Remote/virtual tools can support follow-up and reinforcement
-
Partnerships with pharmacies, primary care, home care, PFAC
-
-
High patient volumes and ongoing health human resource shortages
-
Competing organizational priorities and “initiative fatigue”
-
Limited community capacity for follow-up services
-
Risk of interventions becoming “extra work” instead of embedded workflow
What are other organizations doing, or what have they done in the past, to address this situation? Specifically, what local policies, programs and environmental supports are being developed or implemented within the community? What evaluation data are available for these activities?
-
Standardized discharge summaries written in plain language
-
Medication reconciliation programs (pharmacy-led discharge processes)
-
Teach-back discharge education model
-
Follow-up calls within 48–72 hours after discharge
-
Caregiver inclusion policies and discharge planning supports
-
Remote monitoring for high-risk populations when appropriate
-
Quality improvement initiatives often include:
-
readmission reduction strategies
-
discharge pathway standardization
-
patient education toolkits
-
ED avoidance pathways (surgery clinics)
-
-
Evaluation data
-
30-day readmission rates
-
ED visits within 7–30 days
-
medication discrepancy rates
-
patient satisfaction / understanding measures surveys
-
What is the best available evidence that exists to support various courses of action?
Best available evidence suggests that reducing post-discharge harm and utilization requires both:
-
patient-level supports (health literacy + medication understanding), and
-
system-level changes that reduce complexity and improve follow-up.
Evidence-informed directions supporting your model include:
-
Health literacy strongly influences safe self-management after discharge and impacts readmission risk.
-
Teach-back improves patient comprehension and can reduce readmissions in chronic disease populations.
-
Simplified medication lists and discharge summaries improve adherence and reduce confusion.
-
Follow-up calls identify problems early and support safer transitions.
-
Caregiver involvement improves understanding and continuity.
Equity-informed approaches are necessary because discharge safety is strongly shaped by access to supports and social determinants
References
Agarwal, G., Habing, K., Pirrie, M., Angeles, R., Marzanek, F., & Parascandalo, J. (2018). Assessing health literacy among older adults living in subsidized housing: A cross-sectional study. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 109(3), 401–409.
Alper, E., O’Malley, T. A., Greenwald, J., Aronson, M., & Park, L. (2017). Hospital discharge and readmission. UpToDate.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2024). 1 in 7 visits to the emergency department are for conditions that could potentially have been managed in primary care. https://www.cihi.ca/en/news/1-in-7-visits-to-the-emergency-department-are-for-conditions-that-could-potentially-have-been
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556109.pdf
Chesser, A. K., Keene Woods, N., Smothers, K., & Rogers, N. (2016). Health literacy and older adults: A systematic review. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 2, 1–13.
Commission on Social Determinants of Health. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-IER-CSDH-08.1
Coughlin, S. S., Vernon, M., Hatzigeorgiou, C., & George, V. (2020). Health literacy, social determinants of health, and disease prevention and control. Journal of Environment and Health Sciences, 6(1), 30–61.
Government of Canada. (2001). Population health promotion: An integrated model of population health and health promotion. Public Health Agency of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population-health/population-health-promotion-integrated-model-population-health-health-promotion/developing-population-health-promotion-model.html
Government of Canada. (2015). Population health promotion: Developing a population health promotion model. Public Health Agency of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population-health/population-health-promotion-integrated-model-population-health-health-promotion/developing-population-health-promotion-model.html
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1–47.
Linkens, A. E. M. J. H., Milosevic, V., Van Der Kuy, P. H. M., Damen-Hendriks, V. H., Mestres Gonzalvo, C., & Hurkens, K. P. G. M. (2020). Medication-related hospital admissions and readmissions in older patients: An overview of literature. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 42(5), 1243–1251.
Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D. (2010). Social determinants of health: The Canadian facts. York University School of Health Policy and Management. https://thecanadianfacts.org
Mitchell, S. E., Sadikova, E., Jack, B. W., & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. (2012). Health literacy and 30-day postdischarge hospital utilization. Journal of Health Communication, 17(sup3), 325–338.
Mulholland, A. D., & Watt, J. (2025). Improving care transitions for older adults. Canadian Family Physician, 71(5), 337–338.
Nutbeam, D., McGill, B., & Premkumar, P. (2018). Improving health literacy in community populations: A review of progress. Health Promotion International, 33(5), 901–911.
Oh, S., Choi, H., Oh, E. G., & Lee, J. Y. (2023). Effectiveness of discharge education using teach-back method on readmission among heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 107, 107559.
Pickerel, A. (2019). Addressing health literacy needs of the older adult focused on improving medication adherence: An online education program for nurse practitioners (Master’s thesis). University of Northern Colorado.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The Transtheoretical Model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48.
Shahid, R., Shoker, M., Chu, L. M., Frehlick, R., Ward, H., & Pahwa, P. (2022). Impact of low health literacy on patients’ health outcomes: A multicenter cohort study. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 1148.
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 80.
Thompson, S. R., Watson, M. C., & Tilford, S. (2018). The Ottawa Charter 30 years on: Still an important standard for health promotion. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 56(2), 73–84.
World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/health-promotion/population-health/ottawa-charter-health-promotion-international-conference-on-health-promotion/charter.pdf
Wolf, M. S., Davis, T. C., Tilson, H. H., Bass III, P. F., & Parker, R. M. (2006). Misunderstanding of prescription drug warning labels among patients with low literacy. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 63(11), 1048–1055.
