"Flying Blind": Canada's Supply Chain Infrastructure and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Canada's COVID-19 response has been described as slow, with reactive decision making that has left the most vulnerable populations at risk of infection and death from the virus. Yet, within and across the provincial health systems, the supply chain processes and data infrastructure needed to generate the relevant data for, and evidence of, the spread of COVID-19 and the health system's capacity to respond to the pandemic are non-existent in Canada. Emerging evidence from a national research study highlights the significance of supply chain data infrastructure and processes that offer transparent, real-time data to inform decisions that support a coordinated, evidence-informed pandemic strategy that is proactive and capable of protecting the health of every Canadian.

Effect of provincial spending on social services and health care on health outcomes in Canada: an observational longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Escalating health care spending is a concern in Western countries, given the lack of evidence of a direct connection between spending and improvements in health. We aimed to determine the association between spending on health care and social programs and health outcomes in Canada. METHODS: We used retrospective data from Canadian provincial expenditure reports, for the period 1981 to 2011, to model the effects of social and health spending (as a ratio, social/health) on potentially avoidable mortality, infant mortality and life expectancy. We used linear regressions, accounting for provincial fixed effects and time, and controlling for confounding variables at the provincial level. RESULTS: A 1-cent increase in social spending per dollar spent on health was associated with a 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04% to 0.16%) decrease in potentially avoidable mortality and a 0.01% (95% CI 0.01% to 0.02%) increase in life expectancy. The ratio had a statistically nonsignificant relationship with infant mortality (p = 0.2). INTERPRETATION: Population-level health outcomes could benefit from a reallocation of government dollars from health to social spending, even if total government spending were left unchanged. This result is consistent with other findings from Canada and the United States.

Real reform begins within: an organizational approach to health care reform.

Health care systems are under pressure to control their increasing costs, to better adapt to evolving demands, to improve the quality and safety of care, and ultimately to ameliorate the health of their populations. This article looks at a battery of organizational options aimed at transforming health care systems and argues that more attention must be paid to reforming the delivery mechanisms that are so crucial for health care systems' overall performance. To support improvement, policies can rely on organizational assets in two ways. First, reforms can promote the creation of new organizational forms; second, they can employ organizational levers (e.g., capacity development, team-based organizations, evidence-informed practices) to achieve specific policy goals. In both cases organizational assets are mobilized with a view to creating complete health care organizations -- that is to say, organizations that have the capacity to function as high-performing systems. The challenges confronting the development of more complete health care organizations are significant. Real health care system reforms may likewise require implementing ecologies of complex innovation at the clinical, organizational, and policy levels. Policies play a determining role in shaping these new spaces for action so that day-to-day practices may change.

A tale of two perspectives.

Applications of behavioural economics to public policy are immediate and enlightening. In health policy, where we are exposed to a new fad every other month, it is not indifferent that we deal with a research program that is solidly grounded in decades of scholarship and that is supported by economic theory. Moreover, the experimental and realist bias of behavioural economics is attuned to our need for tested solutions and pragmatic improvements. Adam Oliver's paper is centred on methods that could incite people to make better, healthier lifestyle choices. But his approach can also help us formulate better regulations and smarter legislation. It can help us review the design of health organizations and care pathways. It encourages our efforts to properly use evidence and information. And finally, it forces us to examine the system of incentives and may even give someone the idea of looking at the underlying structure of power.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates.

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

Understanding patient partnership in health systems: lessons from the Canadian patient partner survey.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the sociodemographic characteristics, activities, motivations, experiences, skills and challenges of patient partners working across multiple health system settings in Canada. DESIGN: Online cross-sectional survey of self-identified patient partners. SETTING: Patient partners in multiple jurisdictions and health system organisations. PARTICIPANTS: 603 patient partners who had drawn on their experiences with the health system as a patient, family member or informal caregiver to try to improve it in some way, through their involvement in the activities of a group, organisation or government. RESULTS: Survey respondents predominantly identified as female (76.6%), white (84%) and university educated (70.2%) but were a heterogeneous group in the scope (activities and organisations), intensity (number of hours) and longevity (number of years) of their role. Primary motivations for becoming a patient partner were the desire to improve the health system based on either a negative (36.2%) or positive (23.3%) experience. Respondents reported feeling enthusiastic (83.6%), valued (76.9%) and needed (63.3%) always or most of the time; just under half felt they had always or often been adequately compensated in their role. Knowledge of the health system and the organisation they partner with are key skills needed. Two-thirds faced barriers in their role with over half identifying power imbalances. Less than half were able to see how their input was reflected in decisions or changes always or most of the time, and 40.3% had thought about quitting. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first of its kind to examine at a population level, the characteristics, experiences and dynamics of a large sample of self-identified patient partners. Patient partners in this sample are a sociodemographically homogenous group, yet heterogeneous in the scope, intensity and longevity of roles. Our findings provide key insights at a critical time, to inform the future of patient partnership in health systems.

A "Shock Test" to Primary Care Integration: COVID-19 Lessons from Alberta.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed primary care (PC), and policies aimed at integrating it into provincial health systems, to a "shock test." This paper draws on documentary analysis and qualitative interviews with PC and health system stakeholders to examine shifts in Alberta's pre-pandemic PC integration model during the first nine months of the pandemic. We begin with an account of three elements of the province's pre-pandemic model: finance, health authority activity and community activity. We describe these elements as they shifted, focusing on two indicators of change: novel virtual care billing codes and personal protective equipment (PPE) distribution channels. We draw out policy planning lessons for improving PC integration under normal and future pandemic conditions, namely, by facilitating rapid updates of virtual care billing codes, analyses of the impact of care delivery and backstopping of PPE markets and supply chains for PC.

Achieving Resilience in Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Competing Visions and Lessons from Alberta.

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the resilience of health systems broadly and primary care (PC) specifically. This paper begins by distinguishing the technical and political aspects of resilience and then draws on a documentary analysis and qualitative interviews with health system and PC stakeholders to examine competing resilience-focused responses to the pandemic in Alberta, Canada. We describe the pre-existing linkages between the province's central service delivery agency and its independent PC clinics. Together, these central and independent elements make up Alberta's broader health system, with the focus of this paper being on PC's particular vision of how resilience ought to be achieved. We describe two specific, pandemic-affected areas of activity by showing how competing visions of resilience emerged in the central service delivery agency and independent PC responses as they met at the system's points of linkage. At the first point of linkage, we describe the centralized activation of an incident management system and the replies made by independent PC stakeholders. At the second point of linkage, we describe central efforts to disseminate infection prevention and control guidance to PC clinics and the improvisational efforts of staff at those independent clinics to operationalize the guidance and ensure continuity of operations. We identify gaps between the resilience visions of the central agency and independent PC, drawing broadly applicable policy lessons for improving responses in present and future public health emergencies. Finding ways to include PC in centralized resilience policy planning is a priority.

Do provincial drug benefit initiatives create an effective policy lab? The evidence from Canada.

Although the costs of doctors' visits and hospital stays in Canada are covered by national public health insurance, the cost of outpatient prescription drugs is not. To solve problems of access, Canadian provinces have introduced provincial prescription drug benefit programs. This study analyzes the prescription drug policymaking process in five Canadian provinces between 1992 and 2004 with a view to (1) determining the federal government's role in the area of prescription drugs; (2) describing the policymaking process; (3) identifying factors in each province's choice of a policy; (4) identifying patterns in those factors across the five provinces; and (5) assessing the federal government's influence on the policies chosen. Analysis shows that despite significant differences in policy choices, the ideological motivations of the provinces were unexpectedly similar. The findings also highlight the importance of institutional factors, for example, in provinces' decision to compete rather than to collaborate. We conclude that, to date, Canada's federalism laboratory has only partly benefited the Canadian public. Cost pressures may, however, eventually overcome barriers to cooperation between the provincial and the federal governments, enabling them to capitalize on Canada's federal structure to improve the accessibility and affordability of drugs.

One step forward, one step back: Quebec's 2003­04 health and social services regionalization policy.

This article focuses on Quebec's most recent reform in the regionalization of health care to understand why the government chose to transform the regional boards into agencies. This case study used interviews and documentary analysis. Rooted in a political science perspective, the conceptual framework is inspired by the work of John Kingdon (1995) and draws on the four variables that influence the choice of policy: ideas, interests, institutions and events. Results of the case study suggest that Quebec's Commission of Study for Health and Social Services (the Clair Commission) in 2000 and the 2002 pre-electoral environment put the issue on the agenda. In 2003, the newly elected Liberal government passed Bill 25 ­ An Act Respecting Local Health and Social Services Network Development Agencies, which represented a political compromise: originally slated for eradication, the regional tier survived but in a new form. The element that sparked reform was the change in government following the elections. Different inquiry reports spread the reform's ideas, while interest groups articulated contrasting visions on the transformation. Above all, regional institutions showed great resilience in the face of change. From a historical perspective, this regionalization policy is a step backward: the regional tier is now stronger from a managerial and technocratic point of view, but it is politically and democratically weakened. This suggests a government intention, at that time, to maintain the regional level as a means of retaining centralized control over Quebec's health-care system.

The Value of Health Policy.

Health systems are changing continuously, due to powerful forces such as scientific and technical advances, social and economic conditions and demography. Change affects health systems by disrupting their internal balance, that is, the adjustment of supply and demand for healthcare. At a high level, the answer is to adopt a policy approach that covers and connects the three areas of patient experience, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness, similar to the "Triple Aim" or its numerous avatars. Closer to the action, at the level at which decisions about treatment or care are made, the current trend is to focus on the "value agenda."

International experiments with different models of allocating funds to facilitate integrated care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated care is viewed widely as a potential solution to some of the major challenges faced by health and social care systems, such as those posed by service duplication, fragmentation and poor care coordination, and associated impacts on the quality and cost of services. Fragmented models of allocating funds to and across sectors, programmes and providers are frequently cited as a major barrier to integration and countries have experimented with different models of allocating funds to enhance care coordination among service providers and to reduce ineffective care and avoid costly adverse events. This scoping review aims to assess published international experiences of different models of allocating funds to facilitate integration and the evidence on their impacts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adopt a scoping review methodology due to the potentially vast and multidisciplinary nature of the literature on different models of allocating funds in health and social care systems, as well as the scarcity of existing knowledge syntheses. The framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley will be followed that entails six steps: (1) identifying the research question(s), (2) searching for relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) and conducting consultation exercises. These steps will be conducted iteratively and reflexively, making adjustments and repetitions when appropriate to make sure the literature has been covered as comprehensively as possible. To ensure comprehensiveness of our literature review, we also search a wide range of sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An integrated knowledge translation strategy will be pursued by engaging our knowledge users through all stages of the review. We will organise two workshops or policy roundtables/policy dialogues in Alberta and British Columbia with participation of diverse knowledge users to discuss and interpret the findings of our review and to draw out policy opportunities and lessons that can be applied to the context of these two provinces.

Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study.

To resolve tensions among competing sources of evidence and public expectations, health-care managers and policy makers are turning more than ever to involve the public in a wide range of decisions. Yet efforts to use research evidence to inform public involvement decisions are hampered by an absence of rigorous public participation evaluation research. In particular, greater rigour in exploring the roles played by different contextual variables--such as characteristics of the issue of interest, the culture of the sponsoring organization and attributes of the decision being made--is needed. Using a comparative quasi-experimental design, we assessed the performance of a generic public participation method implemented in 5 Canadian regionalized health settings between 2001 and 2004. Participant and decision-maker perspectives were assessed and, through direct observation, the roles exerted by contextual variables over the public involvement processes were documented and analysed. Our findings demonstrate that a generic public participation method can be implemented in a variety of contexts and with considerable success. Context exerts fostering and inhibiting influences that contribute to more (or less) successful implementation. Public participation practitioners are encouraged to pay careful attention to the types of issues and decisions for which they are seeking public input. Sufficient organizational resources and commitment to the goals of the public participation process are also required. Attention to these contextual attributes and their influence on the design and outcomes of public participation processes is as important as choosing the "right" public participation mechanism.

Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next!

There is considerable interest for shared decision-making (SDM) within the Canadian healthcare system. The current state of SDM in Canada and challenges with implementation are addressed in the paper at three levels of patient involvement: (1) healthcare system (macro-level); (2) institutions (meso-level) and (3) clinical/medical encounter (micro-level). The legal obligation for doctors to fully disclose information enabling patients' participation in decisions has spawned professional codes and guidelines with a vision of patient's empowerment through the use of patient decision aid and SDM. Nevertheless, a survey of general practitioners in 2002 indicated that they perceived their role as relieving anxiety induced in patients rather than engaging them in informed decision-making. The virtue of SDM has gained recognition through increased research funding, medical training and some initiatives embedding patient decision aids within the process of care. Future perspectives of SDM in Canada are highlighted such as evaluation of the long-term impact of and costs associated with patient participation in decisions as well as interprofessional approaches to SDM.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead.

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.

Health reform requires policy capacity.

Among the many reasons that may limit the adoption of promising reform ideas, policy capacity is the least recognized. The concept itself is not widely understood. Although policy capacity is concerned with the gathering of information and the formulation of options for public action in the initial phases of policy consultation and development, it also touches on all stages of the policy process, from the strategic identification of a problem to the actual development of the policy, its formal adoption, its implementation, and even further, its evaluation and continuation or modification. Expertise in the form of policy advice is already widely available in and to public administrations, to well-established professional organizations like medical societies and, of course, to large private-sector organizations with commercial or financial interests in the health sector. We need more health actors to join the fray and move from their traditional position of advocacy to a fuller commitment to the development of policy capacity, with all that it entails in terms of leadership and social responsibility.