In Canada, many families want to breastfeed, but there are several common challenges they may encounter. Currently, 91% of Canadian families initiate breastfeeding after giving birth, yet only 38% of babies are breastfed exclusively to 6 months. In 1991, the Breastfeeding Committee for Canada (BCC) was established to implement the World Health Organization’s Ten-Step Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, a series of evidence-based in-hospital practices to support families to breastfeed. Then, in recognition of the need to support breastfeeding beyond the hospital setting, the BCC expanded the Baby-Friendly Initiative (BFI) to apply the Ten Steps to both hospitals and community health settings. However, uptake of the BFI Ten Steps in community settings has been low and methodology on how to optimise implementation of the Ten Steps in community is not well developed. Therefore, the objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a quality improvement collaborative with 25 community health services from across Canada to learn how to best support the implementation of the BFI Ten Steps in community, with the ultimate goal of improving breastfeeding outcomes.

This protocol describes the activities of the Community Baby-Friendly Initiative Collaborative (CBFI-C) and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness. We will use the Institute for Healthcare Information Breakthrough Series (IHI-BTS) model, a proven quality improvement model that has been widely used in clinical settings, but is not yet widely used in community settings. The IHI-BTS combines three virtual learning sessions with action cycles that allow the participating sites time to test and track small practice changes. Sites will be asked to track care indicator and breastfeeding outcome data, engage in monthly webinars, receive coaching from trained mentors, participate in focus groups and participate in a final summative workshop. We will use a multi-site case study approach, combining aggregate care indicator data and qualitative data from webinars, focus groups and workshops to evaluate how the CBFI-C model supports community sites in the process of implementing the BFI Ten Steps.

Ethics approval for this evaluation was obtained from the CHIPER Health Research Ethics Board (Number HS26947-H2025:157)). The results of the CBFI-C evaluation will be shared in a report, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to government and academic audiences. The findings will inform effective quality improvement strategies to enhance uptake of the BFI in community health settings.

Patients with acute psychiatric symptoms are often referred to the emergency department (ED) for medical evaluation to exclude medical causes before psychiatric admission. The absence of a prospectively validated medical screening tool leads to wide practice variation. This study aims to develop a new, evidence-based and consensus-based medical screening tool through a collaborative, interdisciplinary, international Delphi approach.

This modified Delphi study will include representatives from emergency medicine and psychiatry societies across four continents, as well as patient representatives with prior experience of medical screening in the ED. A minimum sample size of 24 participants is planned to account for potential dropouts. The Delphi procedure consists of four rounds. Round 1 will present current evidence and identify key items for the new medical screening tool. Round 2 will evaluate and refine statements from Round 1. Round 3 will seek consensus on the variables to be included in a medical screening tool. In Round 4, hypothetical clinical vignettes will be used to assess the agreement on the recommendations of the newly developed medical screening tool in order to test for content and construct validity. Surveys will be conducted via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), with participants rating statements on a 6-point Likert scale. Response stability will be evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient, and consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Results will be reported according to the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document guidelines and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 short form.

The Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland exempted the project from committee approval under the Human Research Act on 11 September 2024. Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Results of this study will be summarised as a medical screening tool which will be validated in a prospective, multicentre study in a second step.

NCT06936826.

This qualitative study explores the experiences of medical students involved in clinical work and learning under distant supervision, aiming to understand their adaptation, challenges and learning processes in the context of clinical uncertainty and reduced oversight.

This study employed a constructivist grounded theory (CGT). CGT was chosen for its strength in examining complex social interactions and uncovering emergent themes that are not fully explained by existing theoretical frameworks. Data were collected through 13 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with medical students who actively participated in clinical care under conditions of limited supervision and high responsibility.

Faculty of Medicine, Switzerland.

We conducted interviews with 13 medical students who worked in Mobile SWAB Teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Students described a shift from observation to actively taking on a professional role. This experience provided a unique opportunity for medical students to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world settings, develop a sense of autonomy and foster personal growth. Acknowledging the importance of effective communication, teamwork and decision-making in providing patient care, they embraced the concept of self-regulated learning (SRL).

Creating a supportive learning environment that promotes SRL encourages collaboration and enables medical students to take on clinical tasks with increasing autonomy. In our study, working under distant supervision promoted reflection, strengthened communication and supported both clinical development and identity formation. This approach highlights the value of integrating supported responsibility and guided reflection into future models of clinical education.