Shifting gears: Creating equity informed leaders for effective learning health systems.

Leadership is vital to a well-functioning and effective health system. This importance was underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic. As disparities in infection and mortality rates became pronounced, greater calls for equity-informed healthcare emerged. These calls led some leaders to use the Learning Health System (LHS) approach to quickly transform research into healthcare practice to mitigate inequities causing these rates. The LHS is a relatively new framework informed by many within and outside health systems, supported by decision-makers and financial arrangements and encouraged by a culture that fosters quick learning and improvements. Although studies indicate the LHS can enhance patients' health outcomes, scarce literature exists on health leaders' use and incorporation of equity into the LHS. This article begins addressing this gap by examining how equity can be incorporated into LHS activities and discussing ways leaders can ensure equity is considered and achieved in rapid learning cycles.

Fairness for Whom? Learning Health Systems' Approach to Equity in Healthcare.

Many healthcare systems use "equity" as a catch-all term to underscore their commitment to delivering care matching users' needs. Despite its ubiquity, it is often haphazardly used and applied to care and improvement efforts. As the learning health systems (LHSs) approach gains prominence, LHS researchers have sought to embed equity into their work while navigating systems with differing views of equity. We examine several components of equity, its definitions within LHSs and knowledge from LHSs' equity approach that could be implemented across systems. We conclude by suggesting various ways in which readers can embed equity into their respective LHSs.

Saying and doing are different things: a scoping review on how health equity is conceptualized when considering healthcare system performance.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring healthcare systems provide equitable, high quality care is critical to their users' overall health and wellbeing. Typically, systems use various performance frameworks and related indicators to monitor and improve healthcare. Although these frameworks usually include equity, the extent that equity is reflected in these measurements remains unclear. In order to create a system that meets patients' needs, addressing this uncertainty is important. This paper presents findings from a scoping review that sought to answer the question 'How is equity conceptualized in healthcare systems when assessing healthcare system performance?'. METHODS: Levac's scoping review approach was used to locate relevant articles and create a protocol. Included, peer-reviewed articles were published between 2015 to 2020, written in English and did not discuss oral health and clinician training. These healthcare areas were excluded as they represent large, specialized bodies of literature beyond the scope of this review. Online databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus) were used to locate articles. RESULTS: Eight thousand six hundred fifty-five potentially relevant articles were identified. Fifty-four were selected for full review. The review yielded 16 relevant articles. Six articles emanated from North America, six from Europe and one each from Africa, Australia, China and India respectively. Most articles used quantitative methods and examined various aspects of healthcare. Studies centered on: indicators; equity policies; evaluating the equitability of healthcare systems; creating and/or testing equity tools; and using patients' sociodemographic characteristics to examine healthcare system performance. CONCLUSION: Although equity is framed as an important component of most healthcare systems' performance frameworks, the scarcity of relevant articles indicate otherwise. This scarcity may point to challenges systems face when moving from conceptualizing to measuring equity. Additionally, it may indicate the limited attention systems place on effectively incorporating equity into performance frameworks. The disjointed and varied approaches to conceptualizing equity noted in relevant articles make it difficult to conduct comparative analyses of these frameworks. Further, these frameworks' strong focus on users' social determinants of health does not offer a robust view of performance. More work is needed to shift these narrow views of equity towards frameworks that analyze healthcare systems and not their users.

Aligning goals of for-profit, not-for-profit, and public healthcare organizations by governing for quality: A model for change in the U.S. and other jurisdictions.

There has been widespread criticism of privately owned or operated healthcare organizations in Canada and beyond. However, governments have limited resources to infuse the capital and provide the scale necessary to rapidly address the post-pandemic needs of healthcare systems. Ensuring that healthcare providers regardless of ownership or for-profit or not-for-profit status, provide high quality care and ensure health equity is paramount. Here, we propose the use of a governance for quality model based on the Excellent Care for All Act (2010) developed for public hospitals in Ontario for all healthcare organizations regardless of ownership or profit status, to better align all forms of healthcare providers with quality outcomes and equitable and positive patient experience. We believe that this framework is applicable to healthcare organizations both public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit in Canada, the U.S. and beyond.

Effects of quality-based procedure hospital funding reform in Ontario, Canada: An interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: The Government of Ontario, Canada, announced hospital funding reforms in 2011, including Quality-based Procedures (QBPs) involving pre-set funds for managing patients with specific diagnoses/procedures. A key goal was to improve quality of care across the jurisdiction. METHODS: Interrupted time series evaluated the policy change, focusing on four QBPs (congestive heart failure, hip fracture surgery, pneumonia, prostate cancer surgery), on patients hospitalized 2010-2017. Outcomes included return to hospital or death within 30 days, acute length of stay (LOS), volume of admissions, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: At 2 years post-QBPs, the percentage of hip fracture patients who returned to hospital or died was 3.13% higher in absolute terms (95% CI: 0.37% to 5.89%) than if QBPs had not been introduced. There were no other statistically significant changes for return to hospital or death. For LOS, the only statistically significant change was an increase for prostate cancer surgery of 0.33 days (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.59). Volume increased for congestive heart failure admissions by 80 patients (95% CI: 2 to 159) and decreased for hip fracture surgery by 138 patients (95% CI: -183 to -93) but did not change for pneumonia or prostate cancer surgery. The percentage of patients who lived in the lowest neighborhood income quintile increased slightly for those diagnosed with congestive heart failure (1.89%; 95% CI: 0.51% to 3.27%) and decreased for those who underwent prostate cancer surgery (-2.08%; 95% CI: -3.74% to -0.43%). INTERPRETATION: This policy initiative involving a change to hospital funding for certain conditions was not associated with substantial, jurisdictional-level changes in access or quality.

Association between the regional variation in premature mortality and immigration in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Health region differences in immigration patterns and premature mortality rates exist in Ontario, Canada. This study used linked population-based databases to describe the regional proportion of immigrants in the context of provincial health region variation in premature mortality. METHODS: We analyzed all adult premature deaths in Ontario from 1992 to 2012 using linked population files, Canadian census, and death registry databases. Geographic boundaries were analyzed according to 14 health service regions, known as Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs). We assessed the role of immigrant status and regional proportion of immigrants in the context of these health region variations and assessed the contribution using sex-specific multilevel negative binomial models, accounting for age, individual- and area-level immigration, and area-level material deprivation. RESULTS: We observed significant premature mortality variation among health service regions in Ontario between 1992 and 2012. Average annual rates ranged across LHINs from 3.03 to 6.40 per 1000 among males and 2.04 to 3.98 per 1000 among females. The median rate ratio (RR) decreased for men from 1.14 (95% CI 1.06, 1.19) to 1.07 (95% CI 1.00, 1.11) after adjusting for year, age, area-based material deprivation, and individual- and area-level immigration, and among females reduced from 1.13 (95% CI 1.05, 1.18) to 1.04 (95% CI 1.00, 1.05). These adjustments explained 84.1% and 94.4% of the LHIN-level variation in males and females respectively. Reduced premature mortality rates were associated with immigrants compared with those for long-term residents in the fully adjusted models for both males 0.43 (95% CI 0.42, 0.44) and females 0.45 (0.44, 0.46). CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that health region differences in premature mortality in Ontario are in part explained by individual-level effects associated with the health advantage of immigrants, as well as contextual area-level effects that are associated with regional differences in the immigrant population. These factors should be considered in addition to health system factors when looking at health region variation in premature deaths.

Training for Impact: PhD Modernization as a Key Resource for Learning Health Systems.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has articulated a vision of a learning health system (LHS) as one that provides the best care at lower costs and that constantly, systematically and seamlessly improves based on data and evidence (IOM 2013). The IOM identifies the four foundational characteristics of an LHS as the real-time use of data and informatics to capture the care experience, patient-clinician partnerships, incentives aligned for value and a leadership-instilled culture of learning (IOM 2013). Although much policy research and commentary has focused on informatics and incentives, relatively less has focused on the critical question of creating a culture of learning in these systems. And although its source is debated, most management gurus agree with the adage that "culture eats strategy for breakfast" (Cave 2017), which is why a focus on the cultural dimension is critically important. Some scholars have recognized the important role of human capital - and of front-line clinicians in particular - in the LHS (Verma and Bhatia 2016). In addition to clinicians, doctorally prepared individuals, such as those with a PhD in health services and policy research (HSPR) and fields such as health economics, epidemiology and health informatics, have the potential to make significant contributions to LHSs and health system reform (Bornstein 2016; Brown and Nuti 2016; CIHR-IHSPR 2016). But having a PhD in these fields is not the same as being prepared to support progress toward an LHS. As argued in other papers, substantial change in doctoral training is needed so that graduates can contribute to their full potential and help drive real innovation within the health system (Bornstein 2016; CIHR-IHSPR 2016; Reid 2016).

Training for Health System Improvement: Emerging Lessons from Canadian and US Approaches to Embedded Fellowships.

The benefits of supporting experiential learning for improved health and societal outcomes have been recognized in many countries. A number of funding organizations have developed competitive funding opportunities to support experiential learning in health system organizations outside of the traditional university setting. AcademyHealth in the US is an early innovator that pioneered the Delivery System Science Fellowship (DSSF) and inspired Canada's creation of the Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program. The DSSF and HSI Fellowship have similar objectives: to improve the career readiness of doctorally prepared graduates and to build research capacity within health system organizations. However, the programs have taken different approaches to achieve these objectives and operate in different healthcare systems. This paper outlines the two models of embedded fellowships, analyzes their commonalities and differences, discusses lessons learned and suggests future directions for health services and policy research training.

Developing Competencies for Health System Impact: Early Lessons Learned from the Health System Impact Fellows.

BACKGROUND: The Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program provides highly qualified post-doctoral fellows studying health services and policy research (HSPR) with opportunities for experiential learning, enriched core competency development and mentorship from senior-level leaders within health system organizations. Its overall aim is to prepare post-doctoral fellows with the research and professional skills, experiences and networks to make meaningful and impactful contributions in careers in academic and applied health system settings. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether this HSI Fellowship program has contributed to the development of enriched core competencies in HSPR. METHODS: A competency assessment tool was developed and administered to the 46 fellows and their health system and academic supervisors from the inaugural HSI Fellowship cohort. Fellows' self-assessments at baseline, three months and 12 months were analyzed, along with supervisors' assessments at three and 12 months. Descriptive analyses were used to examine competency development over time. Differences by gender and between supervisor and fellow ratings were analyzed. RESULTS: HSI fellows' self-assessments indicate that they strengthened their skills in all 10 enriched core competencies. Supervisors' assessments of the fellows' competencies also improved from baseline to 12 months. Gender differences at baseline disappeared by the 12-month assessment. CONCLUSION: The HSI Fellowship provides an opportunity to develop the full suite of enriched core competencies, particularly in competency domains that are not currently emphasized in HSPR doctoral curriculum.

Exploring Mentorship as a Strategy to Build Capacity and Optimize the Embedded Scientist Workforce.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship plays a significant role in career development in academic and applied settings, but little is documented about its role in the experiential learning of academic trainees embedded in health system organizations. The experiences of the first cohort of Canada's Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program can provide insights into how mentorship in this innovative type of training can work. OBJECTIVES: To understand the mentorship strategies that were used and to explore fellows' and supervisors' perspectives and experiences on the effectiveness and value of those strategies. METHODS: Data from the surveys of fellows and their supervisors and a panel rooted in the lived experience of the first HSI Fellowship cohort were used. RESULTS: Health system and academic supervisors developed a range of innovative, individualized and effective approaches for guiding their fellows, such as providing the fellow with a committee of mentors within the organization, holding regular meetings with the fellow and both the health system and the academic supervisor and leveraging their own network to expand the network and resources available to the fellow. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that engaging senior leadership in health system settings has provided positive experiences for both fellows and their mentors.

Management Strategies and Patient Selection After a Hospital Funding Reform for Prostate Cancer Surgery in Canada.

Importance: Hospital funding reforms for prostate cancer surgery may have altered management of localized prostate cancer in the province of Ontario, Canada. Objective: To determine whether changes in hospital funding policy aimed at improving health care quality and value were associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer or the characteristics of patients receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, interrupted time series study used linked population-based administrative data regarding adults in Ontario with incidental localized prostate cancer and those who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer. Patients who underwent RP were compared with patients who underwent surgical procedures for localized renal cell carcinoma, which was not included in the policy change but was subjected to similar secular trends and potential confounders. Monthly outcomes were analyzed using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Data were collected from January 2011 to November 2017 and analyzed in January 2019. Exposures: Funding policy change in April 2015 from flexible block funding for all hospital-based care to prespecified payment amounts per procedure for treatment of localized prostate cancer, coupled with the dissemination of a diagnosis-specific handbook outlining best practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initial management (RP vs radiation therapy vs active surveillance) and tumor risk profiles per management strategy among incident cases of localized prostate cancer. Additional outcomes were case volume, mean length of stay, proportion of patients returning to hospital or emergency department within 30 days, proportion of patients older than 65 years, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index, and proportion of minimally invasive surgical procedures among patients undergoing RP for localized prostate cancer. Results: A total of 33 128 patients with incident localized prostate cancer (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 67 [61-73] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 466 [420-516]), 17 159 patients who received radical prostatectomy (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 209 [183-225]), and 5762 individuals who underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma (median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 71 [61-77]) were identified. By the end of the observation period, radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy were used in comparable proportions (30.3% and 28.9%, respectively) and included only a small fraction of low-risk patients (6.4% and 2.9%, respectively). No statistically significant association of the funding policy change with most outcomes was found. Conclusions and Relevance: The implementation of funding reform for hospitals offering RP was not associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer, although it may have encouraged more appropriate selection of patients for RP. Mostly preexisting trends toward guideline-conforming practice were observed. Co-occurring policy changes and/or guideline revisions may have weakened signals from the policy change.

A population-based approach to integrated healthcare delivery: a scoping review of clinical care and public health collaboration.

BACKGROUND: A population-based approach to healthcare goes beyond the traditional biomedical model and addresses the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration in promoting health of communities. By establishing partnerships across primary care (PC) and public health (PH) sectors in particular, healthcare organizations can address local health needs of populations and improve health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to map a series of interventions from the empirical literature that facilitate PC-PH collaboration and develop a resource for healthcare organizations to self-evaluate their clinical practices and identify opportunities for collaboration with PH. METHODS: A scoping review was designed and studies from relevant peer-reviewed literature and reports between 1990 and 2017 were included if they met the following criteria: empirical study methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), based in US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand, describing an intervention involving PC-PH collaboration, and reporting on structures, processes, outcomes or markers of a PC-PH collaboration intervention. RESULTS: Out of 2962 reviewed articles, 45 studies with interventions leading to collaboration were classified into the following four synergy groups developed by Lasker's Committee on Medicine and Public Health: Coordinating healthcare services (n = 13); Applying a population perspective to clinical practice (n = 21); Identifying and addressing community health problems (n = 19), and Strengthening health promotion and health protection (n = 21). Furthermore, select empirical examples of interventions and their key features were highlighted to illustrate various approaches to implementing collaboration interventions in the field. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our review can be utilized by a range of organizations in healthcare settings across the included countries. Furthermore, we developed a self-evaluation tool that can serve as a resource for clinical practices to identify opportunities for cross-sectoral collaboration and develop a range of interventions to address unmet health needs in communities; however, the generalizability of the findings depends on the evaluations conducted in individual studies in our review. From a health equity perspective, our findings also highlight interventions from the empirical literature that address inequities in care by targeting underserved, high-risk populations groups. Further research is needed to develop outcome measures for successful collaboration and determine which interventions are sustainable in the long term.

Effective Approaches to Integrating Care: A Three-Part Series.

This issue of Healthcare Quarterly introduces a three-part series featuring international perspectives on health service delivery models that improve system integration and ensure seamless services and better coordination. The series, developed by Ontario's Change Foundation, will feature Chris Ham, chief executive of the London-based King's Fund think tank; Geoff Huggins, director for health and social care integration in Scotland; and Helen Bevan, chief transformation officer of England's National Health Service.

Lessons From the Canadian Experience With Single-Payer Health Insurance: Just Comfortable Enough With the Status Quo.

With single-payer public health insurance again on the political radar in the United States at both the state (California) and federal (Democrat party) levels, the performance of the Canadian health care system during the last 50 years and the lessons it may offer should be considered. Canadians are proud of their universal approach to health insurance based on need rather than income. The system has many strengths, such as the ease of obtaining care, relatively low costs, and low administrative costs, with effectiveness and safety roughly on par with other countries, including those, such as the United States, that spend considerably more per capita. There are increasing frustrations, however, with system performance, especially with issues related to access and coordination of care. Medicine has changed dramatically since the introduction of Canadian Medicare in the late 1960s, which primarily covered acute care physician and hospital services-the needs of the time. Meaningful reforms that match coverage and services to changing needs, especially those of community-based patients with multiple chronic conditions, have been difficult to implement. The status quo represents a compromise struck decades ago between payers and physicians and organizations that provide health care, and the current system works just well enough for those who both need it and vote. Enacting substantial change simply carries too much risk. Perhaps the most important lesson that the United States can learn from Canada's experience during the last 50 years is that a single-payer health care system solves a lot of problems, but it does not equate to an integrated, well-managed system that can readily meet the changing health care needs of a population.

Standardising costs or standardising care? Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and impact of a hospital funding reform in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, the Government of Ontario, Canada, has phased in hospital funding reforms hoping to encourage standardised, evidence-based clinical care processes to both improve patient outcomes and reduce system costs. One aspect of the reform - quality-based procedures (QBPs) - replaced some of each hospital's global budget with a pre-set price per episode of care for patients with specific diagnoses or procedures. The QBP initiative included publication and dissemination of a handbook for each of these diagnoses or procedures, developed by an expert technical group. Each handbook was intended to guide hospitals in reducing inappropriate variation in patient care and cost by specifying an evidence-based episode of care pathway. We explored whether, how and why hospitals implemented these episode of care pathways in response to this initiative. METHODS: We interviewed key informants at three levels in the healthcare system, namely individuals who conceived and designed the QBP policy, individuals and organisations supporting QBP adoption, and leaders in five case-study hospitals responsible for QBP implementation. Analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes from data. RESULTS: The 46 key informants described variable implementation of best practice episode of care pathways across QBPs and across hospitals. Handbooks outlining evidence-based clinical pathways did not address specific barriers to change for different QBPs nor differences in hospitals' capacity to manage change. Hospitals sometimes found it easier to focus on containing and standardising costs of care than on implementing standardised care processes that adhered to best clinical practices. CONCLUSION: Implementation of QBPs in Ontario's hospitals depended on the interplay between three factors, namely complexity of changes required, internal capacity for organisational change, and availability and appropriateness of targeted external facilitators and supports to manage change. Variation in these factors across QBPs and hospitals suggests the need for more tailored and flexible implementation supports designed to fit all elements of the policy, rather than one-size-fits-all handbooks alone. Without such supports, hospitals may enact quick fixes aimed mainly at preserving budgets, rather than pursue evidence- and value-based changes in care management. Overestimating hospitals' change management capacity increases the risk of implementation failure.

Association between quality domains and health care spending across physician networks.

One of the more fundamental health policy questions is the relationship between health care quality and spending. A better understanding of these relationships is needed to inform health systems interventions aimed at increasing quality and efficiency of care. We measured 65 validated quality indicators (QI) across Ontario physician networks. QIs were aggregated into domains representing six dimensions of care: screening and prevention, evidence-based medications, hospital-community transitions (7-day post-discharge visit with a primary care physician; 30-day post-discharge visit with a primary care physician and specialist), potentially avoidable hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, potentially avoidable readmissions and unplanned returns to the ED, and poor cancer end of life care. Each domain rate was computed as a weighted average of QI rates, weighting by network population at risk. We also measured overall and sector-specific per capita healthcare network spending. We evaluated the associations between domain rates, and between domain rates and spending using weighted correlations, weighting by network population at risk, using an ecological design. All indicators were measured using Ontario health administrative databases. Large variations were seen in timely hospital-community transitions and potentially avoidable hospitalizations. Networks with timely hospital-community transitions had lower rates of avoidable admissions and readmissions (r = -0.89, -0.58, respectively). Higher physician spending, especially outpatient primary care spending, was associated with lower rates of avoidable hospitalizations (r = -0.83) and higher rates of timely hospital-community transitions (r = 0.81) and moderately associated with lower readmission rates (r = -0.46). Investment in effective primary care services may help reduce burden on the acute care sector and associated expenditures.

Qualitative analysis of the dynamics of policy design and implementation in hospital funding reform.

BACKGROUND: As in many health care systems, some Canadian jurisdictions have begun shifting away from global hospital budgets. Payment for episodes of care has begun to be implemented. Starting in 2012, the Province of Ontario implemented hospital funding reforms comprising three elements: Global Budgets; Health Based Allocation Method (HBAM); and Quality-Based Procedures (QBP). This evaluation focuses on implementation of QBPs, a procedure/diagnosis-specific funding approach involving a pre-set price per episode of care coupled with best practice clinical pathways. We examined whether or not there was consensus in understanding of the program theory underpinning QBPs and how this may have influenced full and effective implementation of this innovative funding model. METHODS: We undertook a formative evaluation of QBP implementation. We used an embedded case study method and in-depth, one-on-one, semi-structured, telephone interviews with key informants at three levels of the health care system: Designers (those who designed the QBP policy); Adoption Supporters (organizations and individuals supporting adoption of QBPs); and Hospital Implementers (those responsible for QBP implementation in hospitals). Thematic analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating Framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes that emerged from the data. RESULTS: Five main findings emerged from our research: (1) Unbeknownst to most key informants, there was neither consistency nor clarity over time among QBP designers in their understanding of the original goal(s) for hospital funding reform; (2) Prior to implementation, the intended hospital funding mechanism transitioned from ABF to QBPs, but most key informants were either unaware of the transition or believe it was intentional; (3) Perception of the primary goal(s) of the policy reform continues to vary within and across all levels of key informants; (4) Four years into implementation, the QBP funding mechanism remains misunderstood; and (5) Ongoing differences in understanding of QBP goals and funding mechanism have created challenges with implementation and difficulties in measuring success. CONCLUSIONS: Policy drift and policy layering affected both the goal and the mechanism of action of hospital funding reform. Lack of early specification in both policy goals and hospital funding mechanism exposed the reform to reactive changes that did not reflect initial intentions. Several challenges further exacerbated implementation of complex hospital funding reforms, including a prolonged implementation schedule, turnover of key staff, and inconsistent messaging over time. These factors altered the trajectory of the hospital funding reforms and created confusion amongst those responsible for implementation. Enacting changes to hospital funding policy through a process that is transparent, collaborative, and intentional may increase the likelihood of achieving intended effects.