Caring for patients with lived experience of homelessness.

OBJECTIVE: To guide family physicians working in a range of primary care clinical settings on how to provide care and support for patients who are vulnerably housed or experiencing homelessness. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The approach integrates recommendations from evidence-based clinical guidelines, the views of persons with lived experience of homelessness, the theoretical tenets of the Patient's Medical Home framework, and practical lessons learned from family physicians working in a variety of clinical practice settings. MAIN MESSAGE: Family physicians can use simple and effective approaches to identify patients who are homeless or vulnerably housed; take initial steps to initiate access to housing, income assistance, case management, and treatment for substance use; and work collaboratively using trauma-informed and anti-oppressive approaches to better assist individuals with health and social needs. Family physicians also have a powerful advocacy voice and can partner with local community organizations and people with lived experience of homelessness to advocate for policy changes to address social inequities. CONCLUSION: Family physicians can directly address the physical health, mental health, and social needs of patients who are homeless or vulnerably housed. Moreover, they can champion outreach and onboarding programs that assist individuals who have experienced homelessness in accessing patient medical homes and can advocate for broader action on the underlying structural causes of homelessness.

Soigner les patients ayant connu l'itinérance.

OBJECTIF: Guider les médecins de famille de divers types de pratique familiale quant à la façon de dispenser des soins et du soutien aux patients logés précairement ou qui vivent l'itinérance. SOURCES D'INFORMATION: L'approche intègre les recommandations tirées des lignes directrices cliniques fondées sur les données probantes, l'opinion des personnes avec une expérience vécue de l'itinérance, les principes théoriques du cadre de travail du Centre de médecine de famille et des leçons pratiques provenant de médecins de famille qui travaillent dans des contextes cliniques variés. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Les médecins de famille peuvent utiliser des approches simples et efficaces pour identifier les patients itinérants ou logés précairement; franchir les premières étapes pour faciliter l'accès au logement, à l'aide financière, à la gestion de cas et au traitement de la toxicomanie; et collaborer en faisant appel à des approches anti-oppressives et qui tiennent compte des traumatismes pour mieux venir en aide aux personnes qui ont des besoins sur les plans social et sanitaire. Les médecins de famille ont un solide pouvoir de plaidoyer et peuvent s'associer aux organisations communautaires locales et aux personnes ayant vécu l'itinérance pour revendiquer des réformes politiques qui tiennent compte des iniquités sociales. CONCLUSION: Les médecins de famille ont la capacité de répondre directement aux besoins sociaux et aux besoins en matière de santé physique et de santé mentale des patients itinérants ou logés précairement. En outre, ils peuvent promouvoir les programmes d'approche et d'intégration qui aident les personnes avec une expérience vécue de l'itinérance à accéder aux centres de médecine de famille et peuvent militer pour l'adoption de mesures générales visant à contrer les causes structurelles sous-jacentes de l'itinérance.

Practice and payment preferences of newly practising family physicians in British Columbia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the remuneration model preferences of newly practising family physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising a cross-sectional, Web-based survey, as well as qualitative content analysis of answers to open-ended questions. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: University of British Columbia family practice residents who graduated between 2000 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred remuneration models of newly practising physicians. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 31% (133 of 430). Of respondents, 71% (93 of 132) preferred non-fee-for-service practice models and 86% (110 of 132) identified the payment model as very or somewhat important in their choice of future practice. Three principal themes were identified from content analysis of respondents' open-ended comments: frustrations with fee-for-service billing, which encompassed issues related to aggravations with "the business side of things" and was seen as impeding "the freedom to focus on medicine"; quality of patient care, which embraced the importance of a payment model that supported "comprehensive patient care" and "quality rather than quantity"; and freedom to choose, which supported the plurality of practice preferences among providers who strived to provide quality care for patients, "whatever model you happen to be working in." CONCLUSION: Newly practising physicians in British Columbia preferred alternatives to fee-for-service payment models, which were perceived as contributing to fewer frustrations with billing systems, improved quality of work life, and better quality of patient care.

Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing and income assistance are valuable interventions for homeless individuals. Homelessness can reduce physical and social wellbeing, presenting public health risks for infectious diseases, disability, and death. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income interventions on the health and social wellbeing of individuals who are homeless in high-income countries. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, NIHR-HTA, NHS EED, DARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to Feb 10, 2020, for studies on permanent supportive housing and income interventions for homeless populations. We included only randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cost-effectiveness studies from high-income countries that reported at least one outcome of interest (housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, earned income, or employment). We screened studies using a standardised data collection form and pooled data from published studies. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. FINDINGS: Our search identified 15 908 citations, of which 72 articles were included for analysis (15 studies on permanent supportive housing across 41 publications, ten studies on income interventions across 15 publications, and 21 publications on cost or cost-effectiveness). Permanent supportive housing interventions increased long-term (6 year) housing stability for participants with moderate support needs (one study; rate ratio [RR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26]) and high support needs (RR 1·42 [1·19-1·69]) when compared with usual care. Permanent supportive housing had no measurable effect on the severity of psychiatric symptoms (ten studies), substance use (nine studies), income (two studies), or employment outcomes (one study) when compared with usual social services. Income interventions, particularly housing subsidies with case management, showed long-term improvements in the number of days stably housed (one study; mean difference at 3 years between intervention and usual services 8·58 days; p<0·004), whereas the effects on mental health and employment outcomes were unclear. INTERPRETATION: Permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions were effective in reducing homelessness and achieving housing stability. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of housing and income interventions on physical and mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life outcomes. FUNDING: Inner City Health Associates.

Corrigendum to "Development of a Tool to Identify Poverty in a Family Practice Setting: A Pilot Study".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2011/812182.].

Development of a tool to identify poverty in a family practice setting: a pilot study.

Objective. The goal of this pilot study was to develop and field-test questions for use as a poverty case-finding tool to assist primary care providers in identifying poverty in clinical practice. Methods. 156 questionnaires were completed by a convenience sample of urban and rural primary care patients presenting to four family practices in British Columbia, Canada. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses compared questionnaire responses with low-income cut-off (LICO) levels calculated for each respondent. Results. 35% of respondents were below the "poverty line" (LICO). The question "Do you (ever) have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?" was identified as a good predictor of poverty (sensitivity 98%; specificity 60%; OR 32.3, 95% CI 5.4-191.5). Multivariate analysis identified a 3-item case-finding tool including 2 additional questions about food and housing security (sensitivity 64.3%; specificity 94.4%; OR 30.2, 95% CI 10.3-88.1). 85% of below-LICO respondents felt that poverty screening was important and 67% felt comfortable speaking to their family physician about poverty. Conclusions. Asking patients directly about poverty may help identify patients with increased needs in primary care.