Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


4 records – page 1 of 1.

Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14165
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-10-17
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Homeless and vulnerably housed populations are heterogeneous and continue to grow in numbers in urban and rural settings as forces of urbanization collide with gentrification and austerity policies.2 Collectively, they face dangerous living conditions and marginalization within health care systems.3 However, providers can improve the health of people who are homeless or vulnerably housed, most powerfully by following evidence-based initial steps, and working with communities and adopting anti-oppressive practices.1,4,5 Broadly speaking, “homelessness” encompasses all individuals without stable, permanent and acceptable housing, or lacking the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it.6 Under such conditions, individuals and families face intersecting social, mental and physical health risks that significantly increase morbidity and mortality.7,8 For example, people who are homeless and vulnerably housed experience a significantly higher prevalence of trauma, mental health conditions and substance use disorders than the general population.7,9 Canadian research reports that people who experience homelessness face life expectancies as low as 42 years for men and 52 years for women.7 A generation ago, homeless Canadians were largely middleaged, single men in large urban settings.10 Today, the epidemiology has shifted to include higher proportions of women, youth, Indigenous people (Box 1), immigrants, older adults and people from rural communities.13,14 For example, family homelessness (and therefore homelessness among dependent children and youth) is a substantial, yet hidden, part of the crisis.15 In 2014, of the estimated 235 000 homeless people in Canada, 27.3% were women, 18.7% were youth, 6% were recent immigrants or migrants, and a growing number were veterans and seniors.10 Practice navigators, peer-support workers and primary care providers are well placed to identify social causes of poor health and provide orientation to patient medical homes.16,17 A patient’s medical home is “a family practice defined by its patients as the place they feel most comfortable presenting and discussing their personal and family health and medical concerns.”18 Medical care is “readily accessible, centred on the patients’ needs, provided throughout every stage of life, and seamlessly integrated with other services in the health care system and the community” (https://patientsmedicalhome.ca). Primary care providers are also well positioned to mobilize health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitation services.19 GUIDELINE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS CPD Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience Kevin Pottie MD MClSc, Claire E. Kendall MD PhD, Tim Aubry PhD, Olivia Magwood MPH, Anne Andermann MD DPhil, Ginetta Salvalaggio MD MSc, David Ponka MDCM MSc, Gary Bloch MD, Vanessa Brcic MD, Eric Agbata MPH MSc, Kednapa Thavorn PhD, Terry Hannigan, Andrew Bond MD, Susan Crouse MD, Ritika Goel MD, Esther Shoemaker PhD, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang BHSc, Sebastian Mott MSW, Harneel Kaur BHSc, Christine Mathew MSc, Syeda Shanza Hashmi BA, Ammar Saad, Thomas Piggott MD, Neil Arya MD, Nicole Kozloff MD, Michaela Beder MD, Dale Guenter MD MPH, Wendy Muckle BScN MHA, Stephen Hwang MD, Vicky Stergiopoulos MD, Peter Tugwell MD n Cite as: CMAJ 2020 March 9;192:E240-54. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190777 CMAJ Podcasts: author interview at https://soundcloud.com/cmajpodcasts/190777-guide See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200199 KEY POINTS
Clinical assessment and care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations should include tailoring approaches to a person’s gender, age, Indigenous heritage, ethnicity and history of trauma; and advocacy for comprehensive primary health care.
As initial steps in the care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations, permanent supportive housing is strongly recommended, and income assistance is also recommended.
Case-management interventions, with access to psychiatric support, are recommended as an initial step to support primary care and to address existing mental health, substance use and other morbidities.
Harm-reduction interventions, such as supervised consumption facilities, and access to pharmacologic agents for opioid use disorder, such as opioid agonist treatment, are recommended for people who use substances. GUIDELINE CMAJ
MARCH 9, 2020
VOLUME 192
ISSUE 10 E241 However, the social and health resources available to homeless and vulnerably housed people may vary based on geographic setting, municipal resources, housing coordination, and patients’ mental health and substance use–related care needs. In addition, many physical and mental health disorders remain undiagnosed or inconsistently treated because of missed opportunities for care, patient mistrust of the health care system or limited access to health services.3 Homeless and vulnerably housed people can benefit from timely and effective health, addiction and social interventions. Our guideline provides initial steps for practice, policy and future research, and is intended to build collaboration among clinicians, public health providers and allied health providers. Values such as trauma-informed and patient-centred care, and dignity are needed to foster trust and develop sustainable therapeutic relationships with homeless and vulnerably housed people.20,21 Scope The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to inform providers and community organizations of the initial priority steps and effective interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The guideline addresses upstream social and health needs (i.e., housing), as well as downstream health-related consequences of inadequate housing. The target audiences are health providers, policymakers, public health practitioners and researchers. Our guideline does not aim to address all conditions associated with homelessness, nor does it aim to discuss in depth the many etiologies of homelessness, such as childhood trauma, the housing market, or the root causes of low social assistance rates and economic inequality. Rather, this guideline aims to reframe providers’ approach toward upstream interventions that can prevent, treat and work toward ending the morbidity and mortality associated with homelessness. A parallel set of Indigenous-specific clinical guidelines is currently being developed by an independent, Indigenous-led team.22 This process recognizes the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to develop and strengthen their own economies, social and political institutions; the direct links between historic and ongoing colonial policies and Indigenous homelessness; and the need for Indigenous leadership and participation in research that is about Indigenous Peoples. Recommendations The steering committee and guideline panel members developed and approved recommendations to improve social and health outcomes for homeless and vulnerably housed people. The order of these recommendations highlights priority steps for homeless health care. We list a summary of the recommendations in Table 1 and we present our list of good practice statements in Table 2. These good practice statements are based on indirect evidence and support the delivery of the recommendations. The methods used to develop the recommendations are described later in this document. A summary of how to use this guideline is available in Box 2. Permanent supportive housing
Identify homelessness or housing vulnerability and willingness to consider housing interventions.
Ensure access of homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and/or coordinated access system (moderate certainty, strong recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review (Tim Aubry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 14 trials on permanent supportive housing (PSH).30–43 Several trials across Canada and the United States showed that PSH initiatives house participants more rapidly compared with usual services (73 v. 220 d; adjusted absolute difference 146.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 118.0 to 174.9);30 increase the number of people who maintain stable housing at 2 years (pooled odds ratio [OR] 3.58, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.43);30,40 and significantly increase the percentage of days spent stably housed.41 No trials showed a significant improvement in mental health symptoms compared with standard care.30,31,33,34,41,42 Two studies found that the mental health of PSH participants did not improve as much as that of usual care participants (e.g., mean difference –0.49, 95% CI –0.85 to –0.12).30,31 The At Home/Chez Soi trial showed small improvements in quality of life for high-needs (adjusted standardized mean difference 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24)30 and moderate-needs (mean difference 4.37, 95% CI 1.60 to 7.14) homeless participants in patients receiving PSH.41 Youth receiving PSH saw larger improvements in their quality of life during the first 6 months (mean difference 9.30, 95% CI 1.35 to 17.24), which diminished over time (mean difference 7.29, 95% CI –1.61 to 16.18).44 No trials showed a significant improvement in substance use compared with standard care.30,33,41–43 Most trials reported no effect of PSH on acute care outcomes (e.g., number of emergency department visits and percentage of participants admitted to hospital).30,41 However, 2 trials suggest that PSH participants had lower rates of hospital admission (rate reductions of 29%, 95% CI 10 to 44) and time in hospital (e.g., mean difference –31, 95% CI –48 to –14).34,38,45 One trial found no effect of PSH on job tenure, hours of work per week or hourly wage compared with standard care.46 Participants receiving PSH may have increased odds of employment, but this depends on the severity of participant needs.46 One trial found no effect on income outcomes.46 Box 1: Indigenous homelessness Indigenous homelessness is a term used to describe First Nations, Métis and Inuit individuals, families or communities who lack stable, permanent and appropriate housing, or the immediate prospects, means or ability to acquire such housing. However, this term must be interpreted through an Indigenous lens to understand the factors contributing to this condition. These factors include individuals, families and communities isolated from their relationships to land, water, place, family, kin, each other, animals, cultures, languages and identities as well as the legacy of colonialism and genocide.11 It is estimated that urban Indigenous people are 8 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population.11,12 GUIDELINE E242 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate, because blinding of participants and personnel was not feasible in any of the trials we examined as a result of the nature of the intervention. Furthermore, several trials did not employ allocation concealment or blinding of outcome-assessment procedures, which could introduce high risks of detection and performance biases. Income assistance
Identify income insecurity.
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify incomesupport resources and access income (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We identified 10 trials on income-assistance interventions, including rental assistance,47–56 financial empowerment,47 social enterprise interventions,48 individual placement and support,48,54 and compensated work therapy.52 Our systematic review showed the benefit that income-assistance interventions have on housing stability (Gary Bloch, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., and Vanessa Brcic, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC: unpublished data, 2020). Rental assistance increased the likelihood of being stably housed (OR 4.60, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.83).56 Rental assistance combined with case management increased the number of days in stable housing per 90-day period compared with case management alone (mean Table 1: Summary of evidence-based recommendations Recommendations and clinical considerations Grade rating* Recommendation 1: A homeless or vulnerably housed person Moderate certainty
Ensure access for homeless or vulnerably housed individuals to local housing coordinator or case manager (i.e., call 211 or via a social worker) for immediate link to permanent supportive housing and coordinated access system. Clinical considerations: Many jurisdictions will provide alternative housing services for specific marginalized populations, for example, Indigenous people, women and families, youth, those who identify as LGBTQ2+, those with disabilities, refugees and migrants. Strong recommendation Recommendation 2: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with experience of poverty, income instability or living in a low-income household Low certainty
Assist individuals with income insecurity to identify income-support resources and access income. Clinical considerations: Consult poverty screening tools when needed (e.g., https://cep.health/clinical-products /poverty-a-clinical-tool-for-primary-care-providers). Conditional recommendation Recommendation 3: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with multiple comorbid or complex health needs (including mental illness and/or substance use) Low certainty
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use, or multiple/complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment, and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available. Clinical considerations: Call 211 or consult primary care providers, social workers or case managers familiar with local access points and less intensive community mental health programs. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 4: A homeless or vulnerably housed person currently using opioids Very low certainty
Identify opioid use disorder.
Ensure access within primary care or via an addiction specialist to opioid agonist therapy (OAT), potentially in collaboration with a public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions. Clinical considerations: Encourage all patients taking opioid medication to have a naloxone kit. Though barriers to prescribing methadone and buprenorphine remain, be aware of new regulations that aim to facilitate OAT access and options in your jurisdiction, in particular for buprenorphine. Conditional recommendation Recommendation 5: A homeless or vulnerably housed person with substance use disorder Very low certainty
Identify, during history or physical examination, problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach, or refer to local addiction and harm-reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources such as public health or community health centre or local community services centre. Clinical considerations: In case of active opioid use disorder, facilitate patient access to OAT. Patients should be made aware of supervised consumption facility locations (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/ doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). Conditional recommendation Note: LGBTQ2+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and two-spirited. *See Box 2 for definitions. †211 is a special abbreviated telephone number reserved in Canada and the United States as an easy-to-remember 3-digit telephone number meant to provide information and referrals to health, human and social service organizations. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E243 difference 8.58, p < 0.004).55 Compensated work therapy was found to reduce the odds of homelessness (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3).52 No income interventions showed an effect on mental health outcomes.47,52,55,56 The impact of these interventions on substance use outcomes were mixed. Provision of housing vouchers did not affect substance use over 3 years;55 however, compensated work therapy showed immediate reductions in drug (reduction: –44.7%, standard error [SE] 12.8%; p = 0.001) and alcohol use problems (–45.4%, SE 9.4%; p = 0.001), as well as the number of substance use–related physical symptoms (–64.4%, SE 8.0%; p = 0.001).52 These differences, however, tended to decline with time. No significant effects were found on overall quality-of-life, finances, health and social relations scores. Provision of housing vouchers resulted in higher family-relations score and satisfaction, and quality of housing compared with standard care.55 One trial reported that rental assistance was associated with reduced emergency department visits and time spent in hospital, but this reduction was not significantly different than in the comparator group.56 Individual placement and support was found to improve employment rates only when there was high fidelity to the model (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.16).54 Financial-empowerment education and provision of housing vouchers had no effect on employment outcomes.47,55 Financial-empowerment education and individual placement and support had no effect on hourly wages.47,54 Provision of housing vouchers had no effect on monthly income.55 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Furthermore, 1 trial reported low consent rates of 47% and a 1:4 sampling ratio that further limited statistical power.52 As well, participants in the control group wanting to enter income-assistance programs after completing the study had incentives to underreport symptoms, which introduced high risk for measurement bias. Case management
Identify history of severe mental illness, such as psychotic or mood and anxiety disorders, associated with substantial disability, substance use disorders, or multiple or complex health needs.
Ensure access to local community mental health programs, psychiatric services for assessment and linkage to intensive case management, assertive community treatment or critical time intervention where available (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary Our systematic review examined the effectiveness of standard case management, as well as specific intensive casemanagement interventions, such as assertive community treatment, intensive case management and critical time intervention among homeless and vulnerably housed populations and corresponding level of need (David Ponka, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). We included a total of 56 citations, of which 10 trials reported on standard case management,51,57–65 8 trials on assertive community treatment,66–73 16 trials on intensive case management74–89 and 5 trials on critical time intervention.90–94 Box 2: How to use and understand this GRADE guideline (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) This guideline supplies providers with evidence for decisions concerning interventions to improve health and social outcomes for people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. This guideline is not meant to replace clinical judgment. Statements about clinical considerations, values and preferences are integral parts of the recommendations meant to facilitate interpretation and implementation of the guideline. Recommendations in this guideline are categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as strong or conditional recommendations. Strong recommendations indicate that all or almost all fully informed patients would choose the recommended course of action, and indicate to clinicians that the recommendation is appropriate for all or almost all individuals. Strong recommendations represent candidates for quality-of-care criteria or performance indicators. Conditional recommendations indicate that most informed patients would choose the suggested course of action, but an appreciable minority would not. With conditional recommendations, clinicians should recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients, and they should help patients arrive at a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Conditional recommendations should not be used as a basis for standards of practice (other than to mandate shared decision-making). Good practice statements represent common-sense practice, are supported by indirect evidence and are associated with assumed large net benefit. Clinical considerations provide practical suggestions to support implementation of the GRADE recommendation. GRADE certainty ratings High: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate: further research is likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low: any estimate of the effect is very uncertain. Table 2: Good practice statements to support delivery of care Good practice statement Indirect evidence (reference) 1. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should receive trauma-informed and personcentred care. 23–26 2. Homeless and vulnerably housed populations should be linked to comprehensive primary care to facilitate the management of multiple health and social needs. 27 3. Providers should collaborate with public health and community organizations to ensure programs are accessible and resources appropriate to meet local patient needs. 28,29 GUIDELINE E244 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 Of 10 trials on standard case management, 10 evaluated housing stability. Only 3 reported significant decreases in homelessness,57,62,63 an effect that diminished over time in 1 trial of a time-limited residential case management in which participants in all groups accessed substantial levels of services.57 A program tailored to women reduced the odds of depression at 3 months (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.99), but did not show improvements in the women’s overall mental health status (mean difference 4.50, 95% CI –0.98 to 9.98).64 One trial reported higher levels of hostility (p < 0.001) and depression symptoms (p < 0.05) among female participants receiving nurse-led standard case management compared with those receiving standard care.60 Few studies reported on substance use, quality of life, employment or income outcomes. Findings of assertive community treatment on housingstability, quality-of-life and hospital-admission outcomes are mixed. Two trials found that participants receiving the treatment reported fewer days homeless (p < 0.01)71 and more days in community housing (p = 0.006),70 whereas 2 trials reported no effect on episodes of homelessness or number of days homeless.66,73 Further, these interventions showed an added benefit in reducing the number of participants admitted to hospital (mean difference –8.6, p < 0.05) and with visits to the emergency department (mean difference –1.2, p = 0.009).67 Most trials of assertive community treatment reported no significant differences in mental health outcomes, including psychiatric symptoms, substance use, or income-related outcomes between the treatment and control groups. Intensive case management reduced the number of days homeless (pooled standardized mean difference –0.22, 95% CI –0.40 to –0.03), but not the number of days spent in stable housing.78,80,89 In most studies, there was no major improvement in psychological symptoms between the treatment and control groups. However, 1 trial reported significantly greater reductions in anxiety, depression and thought disturbances after 24 months (mean difference change from baseline –0.32, p = 0.007), as well as improved life satisfaction (mean difference 1.23, p = 0.001) using intensive case management.86 One trial reported no significant difference in quality of life.83 Findings on substance use were mixed. Six of the 10 trials reported that intensive case management was associated with improvements in substance use behaviours.74,78,82,84,87,88 Participants receiving intensive case management reported fewer visits to the emergency department (mean difference 19%, p < 0.05) but did not have shorter hospital stays compared with control groups.85 Intensive case management had no effect on the number of days of employment, or on income received from employment; however, income received by participants through public assistance increased (e.g., mean difference 89, 95% CI 8 to 170).78,85 Critical time intervention was beneficial in reducing the number of homeless nights (mean difference –591, p < 0.001) and the odds of homelessness (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90) during the final 18 weeks of follow-up.91 Participants receiving the treatment were rehoused sooner than those receiving standard care,95 but did not spend more days rehoused.90 Adults receiving critical time intervention showed significant improvements in psychological symptoms (mean difference –0.14, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.01).90 However, findings for children’s mental health were mixed: children aged 1.5–5 years showed improvements in internalizing (ß coefficient –3.65, 95% CI –5.61 to –1.68) and externalizing behaviours (ß coefficient –3.12, 95% CI –5.37 to –0.86), whereas changes for children aged 6–10 years and 11–16 years were not significant.93 There were no significant effects of critical time intervention on substance-use,90 quality-of-life90,92 or income-related outcomes.96 Two trials reported mixed findings on hospital admission outcomes; in 1 study, allocation to critical time intervention was associated with reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96) and total number of nights in hospital (p < 0.05) in the final 18 weeks of the trial.97 However, another study reported a greater total number of nights in hospital for the treatment group compared with usual care (1171 v. 912).98 The certainty of the evidence was rated low because several trials introduced high risk of detection and performance bias. Opioid agonist therapy
Ensure access to opioid agonist therapy in primary care or by referral to an addiction specialist, potentially in collaboration with public health or community health centre for linkage to pharmacologic interventions (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on pharmalogic interventions for opioid use disorder.99 Twenty-four reviews, which included 352 unique primary studies, reported on pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder among general populations.100–123 We expanded our inclusion criteria to general populations, aware that most studies among “general populations” had a large representation of homeless populations in their samples. We did not identify any substantial reason to believe that the mechanisms of action of our interventions of interest would differ between homeless populations who use substances and the general population of people who use substances. Reviews on pharmacologic interventions reported on the use of methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine (heroin), levo-a-acetylmethadol, slow-release oral morphine and hydromorphone for treatment of opioid use disorder. We found pooled all-cause mortality rates of 36.1 and 11.3 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, respectively (rate ratio 3.20, 95% CI 2.65 to 3.86), and mortality rates of 9.5 per 1000 person years for those not receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy compared with 4.3 per 1000 person years among those receiving the therapy (rate ratio 2.20, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.61).116 Overdose-specific mortality rates were similarly affected, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 12.7 and 2.6 per 1000 person years for participants out of and in methadone maintenance therapy, and rates of 4.6 and 1.4 per 1000 person years out of and in buprenorphine maintenance therapy.116 Compared with nonpharmacologic approaches, methadone maintenance therapy had no significant GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E245 effect on mortality (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.39).110 With respect to morbidity, pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder reduced the risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) acquisition (risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63)112 and HIV infection.103 Adverse events were reported for all agents.100,109,119,122 Treatment with methadone and buprenorphine was associated with reduced illicit opioid use (standardized mean difference –1.17, 95% CI –1.85 to –0.49).109 Availability of buprenorphine treatment expanded access to treatment for patients unlikely to enrol in methadone clinics and facilitated earlier access for recent initiates to opioid use.117 The relative superiority of one pharmacologic agent over another on retention outcomes remains unclear; however, use of methadone was found to show better benefits than nonpharmacologic interventions for retention (risk ratio 4.44, 95% CI 3.26 to 6.04).110 The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, primarily because of inconsistency, high risk of bias and evidence from nonrandomized studies. Harm-reduction interventions
Identify problematic substance use, including alcohol or other drugs.
Identify the most appropriate approach or refer to local addiction and harm reduction/prevention services (e.g., supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs) via appropriate local resources, such as public health or community health centre or les centres locaux de services communautaires (low certainty, conditional recommendation). Evidence summary We conducted a review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities and managed alcohol programs.99 Two systematic reviews, which included 90 unique observational studies and 1 qualitative meta-synthesis reported on supervised consumption facilities.124–126 For managed alcohol programs, 1 Cochrane review had no included studies,127 and 2 greyliterature reviews reported on 51 studies.128,129 Establishment of supervised consumption facilities was associated with a 35% decrease in the number of fatal opioid overdoses within 500 m of the facility (from 253.8 to 165.1 deaths per 100 000 person years, p = 0.048), compared with 9% in the rest of the city (Vancouver).124 There were 336 reported opioid overdose reversals in 90 different individuals within the Vancouver facility over a 4-year period (2004–2008).125 Similar protective effects were reported in Australia and Germany. Observational studies conducted in Vancouver and Sydney showed that regular use of supervised consumption facilities was associated with decreased syringe sharing (adjusted OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82), syringe reuse (adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.01) and public-space injection (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.87).125 These facilities mediated access to ancillary services (e.g., food and shelter) and fostered access to broader health support.125,126 Attendance at supervised consumption facilities was associated with an increase in referrals to an addiction treatment centre and initiation of methadone maintenance therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.40).125 Evidence on supervised consumption facilities was rated very low to low, as all available evidence originated from nonrandomized studies. There was a lack of high-quality evidence for managed alcohol programs. Few studies reported on deaths among clients of these programs.128 The effects of managed alcohol programs on hepatic function are mixed, with some studies reporting improvement in hepatic laboratory markers over time, and others showing increases in alcohol-related hepatic damage;129 however, this may have occurred regardless of entry into such a program. This evidence suggested that managed alcohol programs result in stabilized alcohol consumption and can facilitate engagement with medical and social services.128 Clients experienced significantly fewer social, health, safety and legal harms related to alcohol consumption.129 Individuals participating in these programs had fewer hospital admissions and a 93% reduction in emergency service contacts.128 The programs also promoted improved or stabilized mental health128 and medication adherence.129 Cost effectiveness and resource implications Permanent supportive housing We found 19 studies assessing the cost and net cost of housing interventions.30,41,45,130–145 In some studies, permanent supportive housing interventions were associated with increased cost to the payers, and the costs of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical and social services as a result of the intervention.30,41,131–134,142 Six studies showed that these interventions saved payers money.135,137,139,141,144,145 Four of these studies, however, employed a pre–post design.135,139,141,145 Moreover, 1 cost-utility analysis of PSH suggested that the provision of housing services was associated with increased costs and increased quality-adjusted life years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$62 493 per quality-adjusted life year.136 Compared with usual care, PSH was found to be more costly to society (net cost Can$7868, 95% CI $4409 to $11 405).138 Income assistance Two studies55,146 focused on the cost effectiveness of incomeassistance interventions. Rental assistance with clients receiving case-management intervention had greater annual costs compared with usual care or groups receiving only case management.55 For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$58 (95% CI $4 to $111) from the perspective of the payer, US$50 (95% CI –$17 to $117) from the perspective of the health care system and US$45 (95% CI –$19 to $108) from the societal perspective. The benefit gained from temporary financial assistance was found to outweigh its costs with a net savings of US$20 548.146 Case management Twelve publications provided evidence on cost and costeffectiveness of case-management interventions.44,55,67,69,73,75,88,96,147–150 Findings of these studies were mixed; the total cost incurred by clients of standard case management was higher than that of clients receiving usual or standard care61,88 and assertive GUIDELINE E246 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 community treatment,67,147 but lower compared with a US clinical case-management program that included housing vouchers and intensive case management.55 Cost-effectiveness studies using a societal perspective showed that standard case management was not cost effective compared with assertive community treatment for people with serious mental disorders or those with a concurrent substance-use disorder, as it was more expensive.67 For intensive case management, the cost of supporting housing with this program could be partially offset by reductions in the use of emergency shelters and temporary residences.41 Intensive case management is more likely to be cost effective when all costs and benefits to society are considered.41 A pre–post study showed that providing this program to high-need users of emergency departments resulted in a net hospital cost savings of US$132 726.150 Assertive community treatment interventions were associated with lower costs compared with usual care.66,67,73,148,149 We identified only 1 study on the cost effectiveness of critical time intervention that reported comparable costs (US$52 574 v. US$51 749) of the treatment compared with the usual services provided to men with severe mental illness.96 Interventions for substance use We identified 2 systematic reviews that reported findings from 6 studies in Vancouver on the cost effectiveness of supervised consumption facilities;124,125 5 of these 6 studies found the facilities to be cost effective. After consideration of facility operating costs, supervised consumption facilities saved up to Can$6 million from averted overdose deaths and incident HIV cases. Similarly, Can$1.8 million was saved annually from the prevention of incident HCV infection. Clinical considerations Providers can, in partnership with directly affected communities, employ a range of navigation and advocacy tools to address the root causes of homelessness, which include poverty caused by inadequate access to social assistance, precarious work, insufficient access to quality child care, social norms that allow the propagation of violence in homes and communities, inadequate supports for patients and families living with disabilities or going through life transitions, and insufficient and poor-quality housing stock.151 In addition, providers should tailor their approach to the patient’s needs and demographics, taking into account access to services, personal preferences and other illnesses.152 Providers should also recognize the social and human value of accepting homeless and vulnerably housed people into their clinical practices. The following sections provide additional evidence for underserved and marginalized populations. Women A scoping review of the literature on interventions for homeless women (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) yielded 4 systematic reviews153–156 and 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)36,60,92,95,157–161 that focused specifically on homeless and vulnerably housed women. Findings showed that PSH was effective in reducing the risk of intimate partner violence and improving psychological symptoms.158 For women with children experiencing homelessness, priority access to permanent housing subsidies can reduce child separations and foster care placements, allowing women to maintain the integrity of their family unit.158 As well, Housing First programs for families, critical time interventions during times of crisis, and therapeutic communities are associated with lower levels of psychological distress, increased self-esteem and improved quality of life for women and their families.92,155 A gender-based analysis highlighted the importance of safety, service accessibility and empowerment among homeless women. We suggest that providers focus on patient safety, empowerment among women who have faced genderbased violence, and improve access to resources, including income, child care and other social support services. Youth A systematic review on youth-specific interventions reported findings from 4 systematic reviews and 18 RCTs.162 Permanent supportive housing improved housing stability. As well, individual cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to result in significant improvements in depression scores, and family-based therapies are also promising, resulting in reductions in youth substance use through restoring the family dynamic. Findings on motivational interviewing, skill building and case-management interventions were inconsistent, with some trials showing a positive impact and others not identifying significant benefits. Refugee and migrant populations A qualitative systematic review on homeless migrants (Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) identified 17 qualitative articles that focused on the experiences of homeless migrants.163–179 Findings indicated that discrimination, limited language proficiency and severed social networks negatively affected homeless migrants’ sense of belonging and access to social services, such as housing. However, employment opportunities provided a sense of independence and improved social integration. Methods Composition of participating groups In preparation for the guideline, we formed the Homeless Health Research Network (https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/ projects/homeless-health-guidelines), composed of clinicians, academics, and governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. The Homeless Health Guideline Steering Committee (K.P. [chair], C.K., T.A., A.A., G.S., G.B., D.P., E.A., V.B., V.S. and P.T.) was assembled to coordinate guideline development. Expert representation was sought from eastern and western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Prairie provinces for membership on the steering committee. In addition, 5 people with lived experience of homelessness (herein referred to as “community scholars”180) were recruited to participate in the guideline-development activities. A management committee (K.P., C.K. and P.T.) oversaw the participating groups and monitored competing interests. The steering committee decided to develop a single guideline publication informed by a series of 8 systematic reviews. The GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E247 steering committee assembled expert working groups to operationalize each review. Each working group consisted of clinical topic experts and community scholars who were responsible for providing contextual expertise. The steering committee also assembled a technical team, which provided technical expertise in the conduct and presentation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, the steering committee assembled the guideline panel, which had the responsibility to provide external review of the evidence and drafted recommendations. The panel was composed of 17 individuals, including physicians, primary care providers, internists, psychiatrists, public health professionals, people with lived experience of homelessness, medical students and medical residents. Panel members had no financial or intellectual conflicts of interest. A full membership list of the individual teams’ composition is available in Appendix 2, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. Selection of priority topics We used a 3-step modified Delphi consensus method (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) to select priority health conditions for marginalized populations experiencing homelessness or vulnerable housing. Briefly, between May and June 2017, we developed and conducted a survey (in French and English), in which we asked 84 expert providers and 76 people with lived homelessness experience to rank and prioritize an initial list of needs and populations. We specifically asked participants, while answering the Delphi survey, to keep in mind 3 priority-setting criteria when considering the unique challenges of implementing health care for homeless or vulnerably housed people: value added (i.e., the opportunity for a unique and relevant contribution), reduction of unfair and preventable health inequities, and decrease in burden of illness (i.e., the number of people who may have a disease or condition).181 The initial top 4 priority needs identified were as follows: facilitating access to housing, providing mental health and addiction care, delivering care coordination and case management, and facilitating access to adequate income. The priority marginalized populations identified included Indigenous people; women and families; youth; people with acquired brain injury, or intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants (Esther Shoemaker, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Each working group then scoped the literature using Google Scholar and PubMed to determine a list of interventions and terms relating to each of the priority-need categories. Each working group came to consensus on the final list of interventions to be included (Table 3). Guideline development We followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for the development of this clinical guideline, including the identification of clinical questions, systematic reviews of the best available evidence, Table 3: Descriptions of priority-need interventions Intervention Description Permanent supportive housing
Long-term housing in the community with no set preconditions for access. Housing may be paired with the provision of individualized supportive services that are tailored to participants’ needs and choices, including assertive community treatment and intensive case management.
This guideline groups the Housing First model (a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing housing) with permanent supportive housing. Income assistance
Benefits and programs that improve socioeconomic status. This may include assistance that directly increases income and programs that help with cost reduction of basic living necessities.
This guideline also groups employment programs (e.g., individual placement and support, and compensated work therapy) in this category. Case management
Standard case management allows for the provision of an array of social, health care and other services with the goal of helping the client maintain good health and social relationships.
Intensive case management offers the support of a case manager who brokers access to an array of services. Case-management support can be available for up to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week, and each case manager often has a caseload of 15–20 service users.
Assertive community treatment offers team-based care to individuals with severe and persistent mental illness by a multidisciplinary group of health care workers in the community. This team should be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Critical time intervention supports continuity of care for service users during times of transition. Case management is administered by a critical time intervention worker and is a time-limited service, usually lasting 6–9 months. Pharmacologic interventions for substance use disorder
Pharmacologic interventions for opioid use disorder, including methadone, buprenorphine, diacetylmorphine, levo-a-acetylmethadol and naltrexone.
Pharmacologic agents for reversal of opioid overdose: opioid antagonist administered intravenously or intranasally (e.g., naloxone). Harm reduction for substance use disorders
Supervised consumption facilities: facilities (stand-alone, co-located or pop-up) where people who use substances can consume preobtained substances under supervision.
Managed alcohol programs: shelter, medical assistance, social services and the provision of regulated alcohol to support residents with severe alcohol use disorder. GUIDELINE E248 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 assessment of the certainty of the evidence and development of recommendations.182 We conducted a series of systematic reviews to answer the following clinical question: Should PSH, income assistance, case management, pharmacologic agents for opioid use, and/or harm-reduction interventions be considered for people with lived experience of homelessness? Systematic reviews for each intervention were driven by a logic model. A detailed description of the methods used to compile evidence summaries for each recommendation, including search terms, can be found in Appendix 3, available at www.cmaj.ca/ lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1. We sought evidence on questions considering population, interventions and comparisons according to published a priori protocols.183–186 We used relevant terms and structured search strategies in 9 bibliographic databases for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies. The technical team reviewed titles, abstracts and full texts of identified citations, selected evidence for inclusion and compiled evidence reviews, including cost-effectiveness and resource-use data, for consideration by the guideline panel. The technical team collected and synthesized data on the following a priori outcomes: housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, employment and income. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses with random effects and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Where pooling of results was not appropriate, we synthesized results narratively. In addition to the intervention and cost-effectiveness reviews, the technical team conducted 3 systematic reviews to collect contextual and population-specific evidence for the populations prioritized through our Delphi process (women, youth, refugees and migrants) (Christine Mathew, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020; Harneel Kaur, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020).162 Additionally, we conducted 1 qualitative literature review to capture patient values and preferences, focused on the experiences of people who are homeless in engaging with our selected interventions.20 Drafting of recommendations The steering committee hosted a 2-day knowledge-sharing event, termed the “Homeless Health Summit,” on Nov. 25–26, 2018. Attendees included expert working group members, community scholars, technical team members, and other governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. Findings from all intervention reviews were presented and discussed according to the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.187 After the meeting, the steering committee drafted GRADE recommendations (Box 2) through an iterative consensus process. All steering-committee members participated in multiple rounds of review and revision of the drafted clinical recommendations. Guideline panel review We used the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to facilitate the development of recommendations187–189 (Appendix 4, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.190777/-/DC1). We used GRADEpro and the Panel Voice software to obtain input from the guideline panel.190 Panellists provided input on the wording and strength of the draft recommendations. They also provided considerations for clinical implementation. We required endorsement of recommendations by 60% of panel members for acceptance of a recommendation. After review by the guideline panel, the steering committee reviewed the final recommendations before sign-off. Good practice statements We developed a limited number of good practice statements to support the delivery of the initial evidence-based recommendations. A good practice statement characteristically represents situations in which a large and compelling body of indirect evidence strongly supports the net benefit of the recommended action, which is necessary for health care practice.191–193 Guideline-development groups consider making good practice statements when they have high confidence that indirect evidence supports net benefit, there is a clear and explicit rationale connecting the indirect evidence, and it would be an onerous and unproductive exercise and thus a poor use of the group’s limited resources to collect this evidence. The steering committee came to a consensus on 3 good practice statements based on indirect evidence. Identification of implementation considerations We completed a mixed-methods study to identify determinants of implementation across Canada for the guideline (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020). Briefly, the study included a survey of 88 stakeholders and semistructured interviews with people with lived experience of homelessness. The GRADE Feasibility, Acceptability, Cost (affordability) and Equity (FACE) survey collected data on guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement. We used a framework analysis and a series of meetings (Ottawa, Ont., Jan. 13, 2020; Hamilton, Ont., Aug. 16, 2019; Gatineau, Que., July 18, 2019) with relevant stakeholders in the field of homeless health to analyze our implementation data. Management of competing interests Competing interests were assessed using a detailed form adapted from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest194 and the Elsevier sample coauthor agreement form for a scientific project, contingencies and communication.195 These forms were collected at the start of the guideline activities for the steering committee, guideline panel and community scholars. All authors submitted an updated form in June 2019 and before publication. The management committee iteratively reviewed these statements and interviewed participants for any clarifications and concerns. A priori, the management committee had agreed that major competing interests would lead to dismissal. There were no competing interests declared. Implementation Our mixed-methods study (Olivia Magwood, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.: unpublished data, 2020) looking at guideline priority, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and intent to implement, identified the following concerns regarding implementation of this guideline. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E249 Stakeholders highlighted the importance of increasing primary care providers’ knowledge of the process of applying to PSH programs and informing their patients about the resources available in the community. The major concerns regarding feasibility arose around the limited availability of existing services, such as housing, as well as administrative and human resources concerns. For example, not all primary care providers work in a team-based comprehensive care model and have access to a social worker or care coordinator who can help link the patient to existing services. Furthermore, wait lists for PSH are frequently long. Despite this, all stakeholders agreed that access to PSH was a priority and is a feasible recommendation. Allied health practitioners and physicians do not always agree with their new role in this area. Some feedback suggested pushback from family physicians who have limited time with patients and less experience exploring social determinants of health, such as housing or income. The initial steps outlined in this guideline would come at an opportunity cost for them. Stigma attached to the condition of homelessness was recognized as an important barrier to care for homeless populations. Many stakeholders recognized that successful implementation of these recommendations may require moderate costs to increase the housing supply, income supports and human resources. However, supervised consumption facilities, with their range of benefits, were perceived as cost-saving. Many interventions have the potential to increase health equity, if available and accessible in a local context. Many stakeholders highlighted opportunities to increase knowledge of the initial steps and advocate on a systematic level to increase availability of services. Suggested performance measures We developed a set of performance measures to accompany this guidleline for consideration by providers and policy-makers:
The proportion of adults who are assessed for homelessness or vulnerable housing over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults who are considered for income assistance over 1 year.
The proportion of eligible adults using opioids who are offered opioid agonist therapy over 1 year. Updates The Homeless Health Research Network will be responsible for updating this guideline every 5 years. Other guidelines This guideline complements other published guidelines. This current guideline aims to support the upcoming Indigenousspecific guidelines that recognize the importance of Indigenous leadership and methodology that will recognize distinct underlying causes of Indigenous homelessness (Jesse Thistle, York University, Toronto, Ont.: personal communication, 2020). The World Health Organization has developed guidelines to promote healthy housing standards to save lives, prevent disease and increase quality of life.196 Other guidelines specific to opioid use disorder exist,197,198 including 1 for “treatment-refractory” patients.199 In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence has published guidelines for outpatient treatment of schizophrenia and has published multimorbidity guidelines (www.nice.org.uk/guidance). The National Health Care for the Homeless Council in the US has adapted best practices to support front-line workers caring for homeless populations.200 How is this guideline different? This guideline distills initial steps and evidence-based approaches, to both homeless and vulnerably housed people, with the assistance of patients and other stakeholders. It also introduces a new clinical lens with upstream interventions that provide a social and health foundation for community integration. Its initial steps support the vision of the Centre for Homelessness Impact in the UK, which envisions a society where the experience of homelessness, in instances where it cannot be prevented, is only ever rare, brief and nonrecurrent.201 Finally, we hope that our stakeholder engagement inspires and equips future students, health providers and the public health community to implement the initial step recommendations. Gaps in knowledge Evidence-based policy initiatives will need to address the accelerating health and economic disparities between homeless and general housed populations. As primary care expands its medical home models,27 there will be a research opportunity for more traumainformed care202 to support the evidence-based interventions in this guideline. Indeed, clinical research can refine how providers use the initial steps protocol: housing, income, case management and addiction. With improved living conditions, care coordination and continuity of care, research and practice can shift to treatable conditions, such as HIV and HCV infection, substance use disorder, mental illness and tuberculosis.203 Medical educators will also need to develop new training tools to support the delivery of interventions. Curricula and training that support the delivery of interventions, such as traumainformed and patient-centred care, will also be needed.12 Many of the recommended interventions in this guideline rely on collaboration of community providers, housing coordinators and case management. Interdisciplinary primary care research and maintenance of linkages to primary care will benefit from new homeless health clinic networks. Monitoring transitions in care and housing availability will be an important research goal for Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the associated Reaching Home program. Conclusion Homelessness has become a health emergency. Initial steps in addressing this crisis proposed in this guideline include strongly recommending PSH as an urgent intervention. The guideline also recognizes the trauma, disability, mental illness and stigma GUIDELINE E250 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 facing people with lived homelessness experience and thus recommends initial steps of income assistance, intensive case management for mental illness, and harm-reduction and addictiontreatment interventions, including access to opioid agonist therapy and supervised consumption facilities. The successful implementation of this guideline will depend on a focus on the initial recommendations, trust, patient safety and an ongoing collaboration between primary health care, mental health providers, public health, people with lived experience and broader community organizations, including those beyond the health care field. References 1. Frankish CJ, Hwang SW, Quantz D. Homelessness and health in Canada: research lessons and priorities. Can J Public Health 2005;96(Suppl 2):S23-9. 2. 31 days of promoting a better urban future: Report 2018. Nairobi (Kenya): UN Habitat, United Nations Human Settlement Programme; 2018. Available: https://oldweb.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Final-short-version -UN-Habitat-Urban-October-Report.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 3. Wen CK, Hudak PL, Hwang SW. Homeless people’s perceptions of welcomeness and unwelcomeness in healthcare encounters. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1011-7. 4. Coltman L, Gapka S, Harriott D, et al. Understanding community integration in a housing-first approach: Toronto At Home/Chez Soi community-based research. Intersectionalities 2015;4:39-50. 5. Hwang SW, Burns T. Health interventions for people who are homeless. Lancet 2014;384:1541-7. 6. Canadian definition of homelessness. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness; 2012. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/ attachments/Definition of Homelessness.pdf (accessed 2019 Apr. 1). 7. Hwang SW, Wilkins R, Tjepkema M, et al. Mortality among residents of shelters, rooming houses, and hotels in Canada: 11 year follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339: b4036. 8. Nordentoft M, Wandall-Holm N. 10 year follow up study of mortality among users of hostels for homeless people in Copenhagen. BMJ 2003;327:81. 9. Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet 2014;384:1529-40. 10. Gaetz S, Dej E, Richter T, et al. The state of homelessness in Canada 2016. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2016. 11. Thistle J. Indigenous definition of homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press; 2017. 12. Belanger YD, Awosoga O, Head GW. Homelessness, urban Aboriginal people, and the need for a national enumeration. Aboriginal Policy Studies 2013;2: 4-33. 13. Taylor M. How is rural homelessness different from urban homelessness? Toronto: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub; 2018. Available: www.homelesshub.ca/blog/how-rural-homelessness-different -urban-homelessness (accessed 2019 Feb. 6). 14. Rodrigue S. Hidden homelessness in Canada. Cat no 75-006-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2016. 15. Gulliver-Garcia T. Putting an end to child & family homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Raising the Roof; 2016. 16. Andermann A.; CLEAR Collaboration. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ 2016; 188:E474-83. 17. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, et al. The patient-centered medical home: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:169-78. 18. A new vision for Canada: family practice — the patient’s medical home 2019. Mississauga (ON): The College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. 19. Declaration of Alma-Ata. Proceedings of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata; 1978 Sept. 6–12. Geneva: World Health Organization. 20. Magwood O, Leki VY, Kpade V, et al. Common trust and personal safety issues: A systematic review on the acceptability of health and social interventions for persons with lived experience of homelessness. PLoS One 2019;14:e0226306. 21. Luchenski S, Maguire N, Aldridge RW, et al. What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations. Lancet 2018;391:266-80. 22. Thistle JA, Laliberte N. Pekiwewin (Coming Home): Clinical practice guidelines for health and social service providers working with Indigenous people experiencing homelessness. Verbal concurrent session presented at the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness Conference, 2019 Nov. 4; Edmonton. 23. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995;152:1423-33. 24. Racine N, Killam T, Madigan S. Trauma-informed care as a universal precaution: beyond the adverse childhood experiences questionnaire. JAMA Pediatr 2019 Nov. 4 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3866. 25. Reeves E. A synthesis of the literature on trauma-informed care. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2015;36:698-709. 26. Hopper E, Bassuk E, Olivet J. Shelter from the storm: trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. Open Health Serv Policy J 2009;2:131-51. 27. A new vision for Canada: family practice — The patient’s medical home. Mississauga (ON): College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. Available: www. cfpc.ca/A_Vision_for_Canada (accessed 2019 Dec. 2). 28. Valaitis RK, O’Mara L, Wong ST, et al. Strengthening primary health care through primary care and public health collaboration: the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2018;19:378-91. 29. Akhtar-DaneshN, Valaitis R, O’Mara L, et al. Viewpoints about collaboration between primary care and public health in Canada.BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:311. 30. Aubry T, Goering P, Veldhuizen S, et al. A multiple-city RCT of housing first with assertive community treatment for homeless Canadians with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:275-81. 31. Cherner RA, Aubry T, Sylvestre J, et al. Housing first for adults with problematic substance use. J Dual Diagn 2017;13:219-29. 32. Goldfinger SM, Schutt RK, Tolomiczenko GS, et al. Housing placement and subsequent days homeless among formerly homeless adults with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 1999;50:674-9. 33. Hwang SW, Gogosis E, Chambers C, et al. Health status, quality of life, residential stability, substance use, and health care utilization among adults applying to a supportive housing program. J Urban Health 2011;88:1076-90. 34. Lipton FR, Nutt S, Sabatini A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: a longitudinal study of a treatment approach. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1988;39:40-5. 35. Martinez TE, Burt MR. Impact of permanent supportive housing on the use of acute care health services by homeless adults. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:992-9. 36. McHugo GJ, Bebout RR, Harris M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of integrated versus parallel housing services for homeless adults with severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull 2004;30:969-82. 37. Rich AR, Clark C. Gender differences in response to homelessness services. Eval Program Plann 2005;28:69-81. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.05.003. 38. Sadowski LS, Kee RA, VanderWeele TJ, et al. Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;301:1771-8. 39. Siegel CE, Samuels J, Tang D-I, et al. Tenant outcomes in supported housing and community residences in New York City. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:982-91. 40. Stefancic A, Tsemberis S. Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: a four-year study of housing access and retention. J Prim Prev 2007;28:265-79. 41. Stergiopoulos V, Hwang SW, Gozdzik A, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Effect of scattered-site housing using rent supplements and intensive case management on housing stability among homeless adults with mental illness: a randomized trial. JAMA 2015;313:905-15. 42. Tsemberis S, Gulcur L, Nakae M. Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. Am J Public Health 2004;94:651-6. 43. Young MS, Clark C, Moore K, et al. Comparing two service delivery models for homeless individuals with complex behavioral health needs: preliminary data from two SAMHSA treatment for homeless studies. J Dual Diagn 2009;5: 287-304. 44. Kozloff N, Adair CE, Palma Lazgare LI, et al. “Housing First” for homeless youth with mental illness. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20161514. 45. Gulcur L, Stefancic A, Shinn M, et al. Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and housing first programmes. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2003;13:171-86. doi: 10.1002/casp.723. 46. Poremski D, Stergiopoulos V, Braithwaite E, et al. Effects of Housing First on employment and income of homeless individuals: results of a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv 2016;67:603-9. 47. Booshehri LG, Dugan J, Patel F, et al. Trauma-informed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): a randomized controlled trial with a twogeneration impact. J Child Fam Stud 2018;27:1594-604. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E251 48. Ferguson KM. Employment outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of two employment interventions with homeless youth. J Soc Social Work Res 2018;9:1-21. 49. Forchuk C, MacClure SK, Van Beers M, et al. Developing and testing an intervention to prevent homelessness among individuals discharged from psychiatric wards to shelters and “No Fixed Address”. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2008;15:569-75. 50. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. What interventions work best for families who experience homelessness? Impact estimates from the family options study. J Policy Anal Manage 2018;37:735-66. 51. Hurlburt MS, Hough RL, Wood PA. Effects of substance abuse on housing stability of homeless mentally Ill persons in supported housing. Psychiatr Serv 1996;47:731-6. 52. Kashner TM, Rosenheck R, Campinell AB, et al. Impact of work therapy on health status among homeless, substance-dependent veterans: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;59:938-44. 53. Pankratz C, Nelson G, Morrison M. A quasi-experimental evaluation of rent assistance for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. J Community Psychol 2017;45:1065-79. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21911. 54. Poremski D, Distasio J, Hwang SW, et al. Employment and income of people who experience mental illness and homelessness in a large Canadian sample. Can J Psychiatry 2015;60:379-85. 55. Rosenheck R, Kasprow W, Frisman L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of supported housing for homeless persons with mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60:940-51. 56. Wolitski RJ, Kidder DP, Pals SL, et al.; Housing and Health Study Team. Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2010;14:493-503. 57. Conrad KJ, Hultman CI, Pope AR, et al. Case managed residential care for homeless addicted veterans. Results of a true experiment. Med Care 1998; 36:40-53. 58. Graham-Jones S, Reilly S, Gaulton E. Tackling the needs of the homeless: a controlled trial of health advocacy. Health Soc Care Community 2004;12:221-32. 59. Lapham SC, Hall M, Skipper BJ. Homelessness and substance use among alcohol abusers following participation in project H&ART. J Addict Dis 1995;14:41-55. 60. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud JH, Leake B, et al. Evaluating the impact of peer, nurse case-managed, and standard HIV risk-reduction programs on psychosocial and health-promoting behavioral outcomes among homeless women. Res Nurs Health 2001;24:410-22. 61. Nyamathi AM, Zhang S, Salem BE, et al. A randomized clinical trial of tailored interventions for health promotion and recidivism reduction among homeless parolees: outcomes and cost analysis. J Exp Criminol 2016;12:49-74. 62. Sosin MR, Bruni M, Reidy M. Paths and impacts in the progressive independence model: a homelessness and substance abuse intervention in Chicago. J Addict Dis 1995;14:1-20. 63. Towe VL, Wiewel EW, Zhong Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a rapid rehousing intervention for homeless persons living with HIV/AIDS: impact on housing and HIV medical outcomes. AIDS Behav 2019;23:2315-25. 64. Upshur C, Weinreb L, Bharel M, et al. A randomized control trial of a chronic care intervention for homeless women with alcohol use problems. J Subst Abuse Treat 2015;51:19-29. 65. Weinreb L, Upshur CC, Fletcher-Blake D, et al. Managing depression among homeless mothers: pilot testing an adapted collaborative care intervention. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2016;18. 66. Clarke GN, Herinckx HA, Kinney RF, et al. Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care. Ment Health Serv Res 2000;2:155-64. 67. Essock SM, Frisman LK, Kontos NJ. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment teams. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1998;68:179-90. 68. Essock SM, Mueser KT, Drake RE, et al. Comparison of ACT and standard case management for delivering integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57:185-96. 69. Fletcher TD, Cunningham JL, Calsyn RJ, et al. Evaluation of treatment programs for dual disorder individuals: modeling longitudinal and mediation effects. Adm Policy Ment Health 2008;35:319-36. 70. Lehman AF, Dixon LB, Kernan E, et al. A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:1038-43. 71. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Allen G, et al. Experimental comparison of the effects of three treatment programs for homeless mentally ill people. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1992;43:1005-10. 72. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. An experimental comparison of three types of case management for homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatr Serv 1997;48:497-503. 73. Morse GA, Calsyn RJ, Klinkenberg WD, et al. Treating homeless clients with severe mental illness and substance use disorders: costs and outcomes. Community Ment Health J 2006;42:377-404. 74. Braucht GN, Reichardt CS, Geissler LJ, et al. Effective services for homeless substance abusers. J Addict Dis 1995;14:87-109. 75. Burnam MA, Morton SC, McGlynn EA, et al. An experimental evaluation of residential and nonresidential treatment for dually diagnosed homeless adults. J Addict Dis 1995;14:111-34. 76. Cauce AM, Morgan CJ, Wagner V, et al. Effectiveness of intensive case management for homeless adolescents: rof a 3-month follow-up. J Emot Behav Disord 1994;2:219-27. 77. Clark C, Rich AR. Outcomes of homeless adults with mental illness in a housing program and in case management only. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:78-83. 78. Cox GB, Walker RD, Freng SA, et al. Outcome of a controlled trial of the effectiveness of intensive case management for chronic public inebriates. J Stud Alcohol 1998;59:523-32. 79. Felton CJ, Stastny P, Shern DL, et al. Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: impact on client outcomes. Psychiatr Serv 1995; 46:1037-44. 80. Grace M, Gill PR. Improving outcomes for unemployed and homeless young people: findings of the YP4 clinical controlled trial of joined up case management. Aust Soc Work 2014;67:419-37. 81. Korr WS, Joseph A. Housing the homeless mentally ill: Findings from Chicago. J Soc Serv Res 1996;21:53-68. 82. Malte CA, Cox K, Saxon AJ. Providing intensive addiction/housing case management to homeless veterans enrolled in addictions treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Addict Behav 2017;31:231-41. 83. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Gath D. Social services case-management for longterm mental disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;345:409-12. 84. Orwin RG, Sonnefeld LJ, Garrison-Mogren R, et al. Pitfalls in evaluating the effectiveness of case management programs for homeless persons: lessons from the NIAAA Community Demonstration Program. Eval Rev 1994;18: 153-207. 85. Rosenblum A, Nuttbrock L, McQuistion H, et al. Medical outreach to homeless substance users in New York City: preliminary results. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37:1269-73. 86. Shern DL, Tsemberis S, Anthony W, et al. Serving street-dwelling individuals with psychiatric disabilities: outcomes of a psychiatric rehabilitation clinical trial. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1873-8. 87. Stahler GJ, Shipley TF Jr, Bartelt D, et al. Evaluating alternative treatments for homeless substance-abusing men: outcomes and predictors of success. J Addict Dis 1996;14:151-67. 88. Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:155-64. 89. Toro PA, Passero Rabideau JM, Bellavia CW, et al. Evaluating an intervention for homeless persons: results of a field experiment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997;65:476-84. 90. de Vet R, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. Critical time intervention for homeless people making the transition to community living: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Community Psychol 2017;60:175-86. 91. Herman DB, Conover S, Gorroochurn P, et al. Randomized trial of critical time intervention to prevent homelessness after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2011;62:713-9. 92. Lako DAM, Beijersbergen MD, Jonker IE, et al. The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Public Health 2018;63:513-23. 93. Shinn M, Samuels J, Fischer SN, et al. Longitudinal impact of a family critical time intervention on children in high-risk families experiencing homelessness: a randomized trial. Am J Community Psychol 2015;56:205-16. 94. Susser E, Valencia E, Conover S, et al. Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: a“ critical time” intervention after discharge from a shelter. Am J Public Health 1997;87:256-62. 95. Samuels J, Fowler PJ, Ault-Brutus A, et al. Time-limited case management for homeless mothers with mental health problems: effects on maternal mental health. J Soc Social Work Res 2015;6:515-39. 96. Jones K, Colson PW, Holter MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of critical time intervention to reduce homelessness among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54:884-90. GUIDELINE E252 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 97. Tomita A, Herman DB. The impact of critical time intervention in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization after hospital discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2012;63: 935-7. 98. Jones K, Colson P, Valencia E, et al. A preliminary cost effectiveness analysis of an intervention to reduce homelessness among the mentally ill. Psychiatr Q 1994;65:243-56. 99. Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, Beder M, et al. The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: a systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder. PLoS ONE 15(1):e0227298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227298. 100. Bahji A, Bajaj N. Opioids on trial: a systematic review of interventions for the treatment and prevention of opioid overdose. Can J Addict 2018;9:26-33. 101. Clark N, Lintzeris N, Gijsbers A, et al. LAAM maintenance vs methadone maintenance for heroin dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(2):CD002210. 102. Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance treatment for chronic heroin-dependent individuals: a Cochrane systematic review of effectiveness. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006;30:63-72. 103. Gowing L, Farrell MF, Bornemann R, et al. Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(8):CD004145. 104. Jones HE, Heil SH, Baewert A, et al. Buprenorphine treatment of opioiddependent pregnant women: a comprehensive review. Addiction 2012; 107(Suppl 1):5-27. 105. Karki P, Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina TB, et al. The impact of methadone maintenance treatment on HIV risk behaviors among high-risk injection drug users: a systematic review. Evid Based Med Public Health 2016;2:pii: e1229. 106. Kirchmayer U, Davoli M, Verster AD, et al. A systematic review on the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in opioid dependence. Addiction 2002;97: 1241-9. 107. Larney S, Gowing L, Mattick RP, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of naltrexone implants for the treatment of opioid dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2014;33:115-28. 108. Lobmaier P, Kornør H, Kunøe N, et al. Sustained-release naltrexone for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD006140. 109. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(2):CD002207. 110. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD002209. 111. Minozzi S, Amato L, Vecchi S, et al. Oral naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(4):CD001333. 112. Platt L, Minozzi S, Reed J, et al. Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9:CD012021. 113. Roozen HG, de Waart R, van der Windt DAWM, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of naltrexone in the maintenance treatment of opioid and alcohol dependence. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2006;16:311-23. 114. Saulle R, Vecchi S, Gowing L. Supervised dosing with a long-acting opioid medication in the management of opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD011983. 115. Simoens S, Matheson C, Bond C, et al. The effectiveness of community maintenance with methadone or buprenorphine for treating opiate dependence. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:139-46. 116. Sordo L, Barrio G, Bravo MJ, et al. Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ 2017;357:j1550. 117. Helm S, Trescot AM, Colson J, et al. Opioid antagonists, partial agonists, and agonists/antagonists: the role of office-based detoxification. Pain Physician 2008;11:225-35. 118. Strang J, Groshkova T, Uchtenhagen A, et al. Heroin on trial: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of diamorphine-prescribing as treatment for refractory heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry 2015;207:5-14. 119. Thomas CP, Fullerton CA, Kim M, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2014;65:158-70. 120. Weinmann S, Kunstmann W, Rheinberger P. Methadone substitution — a scientific review in the context of out-patient therapy in Germany [article in German]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004;98:673-82. 121. Wilder C, Lewis D, Winhusen T. Medication assisted treatment discontinuation in pregnant and postpartum women with opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015;149:225-31. 122. Klimas J, Gorfinkel L, Giacomuzzi SM, et al. Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder. BMJ Open 2019;9: e025799. 123. Maglione MA, Raaen L, Chen C, et al. Effects of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder on functional outcomes: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat 2018;89:28-51. 124. Kennedy MC, Karamouzian M, Kerr T. Public health and public order outcomes associated with supervised drug consumption facilities: a systematic review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2017;14:161-83. 125. Potier C, Laprévote V, Dubois-Arber F, et al. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;145:48-68. 126. McNeil R, Small W. ‘Safer environment interventions’: a qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med 2014;106:151-8. 127. Muckle W, Muckle J, Welch V, et al. Managed alcohol as a harm reduction intervention for alcohol addiction in populations at high risk for substance abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD006747. 128. Ezard N, Dolan K, Baldry E, et al. Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s homeless. Canberra (AU): Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; 2015. 129. Nielsen E, Novotna G, Berenyi R, et al. Harm reduction interventions for chronic and severe alcohol use among populations experiencing homelessness: a literature review. Regina: University of Regina, Carmichael Outreach Inc.; 2018. 130. Basu A, Kee R, Buchanan D, et al. Comparative cost analysis of housing and case management program for chronically ill homeless adults compared to usual care. Health Serv Res 2012;47:523-43. 131. Culhane DP, Metraux S, Hadley T. Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Hous Policy Debate 2002;13:107-63. 132. Dickey B, Latimer E, Powers K, et al. Housing costs for adults who are mentally ill and formerly homeless. J Ment Health Adm 1997;24:291-305. 133. Gilmer TP, Manning WG, Ettner SL. A cost analysis of San Diego County’s REACH program for homeless persons. Psychiatr Serv 2009;60:445-50. 134. Gilmer TP, Stefancic A, Ettner SL, et al. Effect of full-service partnerships on homelessness, use and costs of mental health services, and quality of life among adults with serious mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010;67:645-52. 135. Hunter S, Harvey M, Briscombe B, et al. Evaluation of housing for health permanent supportive housing program. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2017. 136. Holtgrave DR, Wolitski RJ, Pals SL, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2013;17:1626-31. 137. Larimer ME, Malone DK, Garner MD, et al. Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA 2009;301:1349-57. 138. Latimer EA, Rabouin D, Cao Z, et al.; At Home/Chez Soi Investigators. Costeffectiveness of Housing First intervention with intensive case management compared with treatment as usual for homeless adults with mental illness: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e199782. 139. Lenz-Rashid S. Supportive housing program for homeless families: Foster care outcomes and best practices. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;79:558-63. 140. Lim S, Gao Q, Stazesky E, et al. Impact of a New York City supportive housing program on Medicaid expenditure patterns among people with serious mental illness and chronic homelessness. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:15. 141. McLaughlin TC. Using common themes: cost-effectiveness of permanent supported housing for people with mental illness. Res Soc Work Pract 2010;21: 404-11. 142. Mares AS, Rosenheck RA. A comparison of treatment outcomes among chronically homelessness adults receiving comprehensive housing and health care services versus usual local care. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011;38:459-75. 143. Pauley T, Gargaro J, Falode A, et al. Evaluation of an integrated cluster care and supportive housing model for unstably housed persons using the shelter system. Prof Case Manag 2016;21:34-42. 144. Schinka JA, Francis E, Hughes P, et al. Comparative outcomes and costs of inpatient care and supportive housing for substance-dependent veterans. Psychiatr Serv 1998;49:946-50. 145. Srebnik D, Connor T, Sylla L. A pilot study of the impact of housing firstsupported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. Am J Public Health 2013;103:316-21. 146. Evans WN, Sullivan JX, Wallskog M. The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness. Science 2016;353:694-9. GUIDELINE CMAJ
ISSUE 10 E253 147. Clark RE, Teague GB, Ricketts SK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment versus standard case management for persons with cooccurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders. Health Serv Res 1998;33:1285-308. 148. Lehman AF, Dixon L, Hoch JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174:346-52. 149. Wolff N, Helminiak TW, Morse GA, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of three approaches to case management for homeless mentally ill clients. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:341-8. 150. Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:603-8. 151. Hwang SW. Homelessness in health. CMAJ 2001;164:229-33. 152. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Patient experience in adult NHS services: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS services — patient experience in generic terms. NICE Clinical Guidelines No 138. London (UK): Royal College of Physicians; 2012. Available: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ books/NBK115230 (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 153. Jonker IE, Sijbrandij M, Van Luijtelaar MJA, et al. The effectiveness of interventions during and after residence in women’s shelters: a meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:15-9. 154. Rivas C, Ramsay J, Sadowski L, et al. Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(12):CD005043. 155. Speirs V, Johnson M, Jirojwong S. A systematic review of interventions for homeless women. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:1080-93. 156. Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA 2003;289:589-600. 157. Constantino R, Kim Y, Crane PA. Effects of a social support intervention on health outcomes in residents of a domestic violence shelter: a pilot study. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2005;26:575-90. 158. Gubits D, Shinn M, Wood M, et al. Family options study: 3-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families. 2016. doi: 10.2139/ ssrn.3055295. 159. Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, et al. To house or not to house: the effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1259-65. 160. Nyamathi AM, Leake B, Flaskerud J, et al. Outcomes of specialized and traditional AIDS counseling programs for impoverished women of color. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:11-21. 161. Nyamathi A, Flaskerud J, Keenan C, et al. Effectiveness of a specialized vs. traditional AIDS education program attended by homeless and drug-addicted women alone or with supportive persons. AIDS Educ Prev 1998;10:433-46. 162. Wang JZ, Mott S, Magwood O, et al. The impact of interventions for youth experiencing homelessness on housing, mental health, substance use, and family cohesion: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2019;19:1528. 163. Couch J. ‘My life just went zig zag’: refugee young people and homelessness. Youth Stud Aust 2011;30:22-32. 164. Couch J. ‘Neither here nor there’: refugee young people and homelessness in Australia. Child Youth Serv Rev 2017;74:1-7. 165. Couch J. On their own: perceptions of services by homeless young refugees. Dev Pract 2012;(31):19-28. 166. D’Addario S, Hiebert D, Sherrell K. Restricted access: The role of social capital in mitigating absolute homelessness among immigrants and refugees in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:107-15. 167. Dwyer P, Brown D. Accommodating “others”?: housing dispersed, forced migrants in the UK. J Soc Welf Fam Law 2008;30:203-18. 168. Flatau P, Smith J, Carson G, et al. The housing and homelessness journeys of refugees in Australia. AHURI Final Rep No 256. Melbourne (AU): Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited; 2015. 169. Hulín M, Hulínová VA, Martinkovic M, et al. Housing among persons of international protection in the Slovak Republic. Rajagiri J Soc Dev 2013;5. 170. Idemudia ES, Williams JK, Wyatt GE. Migration challenges among Zimbabwean refugees before, during and post arrival in South Africa. J Inj Violence Res 2013;5:17-27. 171. Im H. A social ecology of stress and coping among homeless refugee families. Vol. 73, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy; 2012:355. Available: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc9&NEWS= N&AN=2012-99130-061 (accessed 2019 Sept. 1). Login required to access content. 172. Kissoon P. From persecution to destitution: a snapshot of asylum seekers’ housing and settlement experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom. J Immigr Refug Stud 2010;8:4-31. 173. Kissoon P. An uncertain home: refugee protection, illegal immigration status, and their effects on migrants’ housing stability in Vancouver and Toronto. Can Issues 2010;64-7. 174. Mostowska M. Migration and homelessness: the social networks of homeless Poles in Oslo. J Ethn Migr Stud 2013;39:1125-40. 175. Mostowska M. Homelessness abroad: “place utility” in the narratives of the Polish homeless in Brussels. Int Migr 2014;52:118-29. 176. Paradis E, Novac S, Sarty M, et al. Homelessness and housing among status immigrant, non-status migrant, and Canadian-born Families in Toronto. Can Issues 2010. 177. Sherrell K, D’Addario S, Hiebert D. On the outside looking in: the precarious housing situations of successful refugee claimants in the GVRD. Refuge 2007;24:64-75. 178. Sjollema SD, Hordyk S, Walsh CA, et al. Found poetry: finding home — a qualitative study of homeless immigrant women. J Poetry Ther 2012;25:205-17. 179. Walsh CA, Hanley J, Ives N, et al. Exploring the experiences of newcomer women with insecure housing in Montréal Canada. J Int Migr Integr 2016;17: 887-904. 180. Kendall CE, Shoemaker ES, Crowe L, et al. Engagement of people with lived experience in primary care research: living with HIV Innovation Team Community Scholar Program. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:730-1. 181. Swinkels H, Pottie K, Tugwell P, et al.; Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health (CCIRH). Development of guidelines for recently arrived immigrants and refugees to Canada: Delphi consensus on selecting preventable and treatable conditions. CMAJ 2011;183:E928-32. 182. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction — GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 383-94. 183. Pottie K, Mathew CM, Mendonca O, et al. PROTOCOL: A comprehensive review of prioritized interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness. Campbell Syst Rev 2019;15:e1048. 184. Magwood O, Gebremeskel A, Ymele Leki V, et al. Protocol 1: The experiences of homeless and vulnerably housed persons around health and social services. A protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/sites/methods.cochrane. org.equity/files/public/uploads/protocol-_the_experiences_of_homeless_and_ vulnerably_housed_persons_around_health_and_social_services.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 185. Kpade V, Magwood O, Salvalaggio G, et al. Protocol 3: Harm reduction and pharmacotherapeutic interventions for persons with substance use disorders: a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. 186. Wang J, Mott S, Mathew C, et al. Protocol: Impact of interventions for homeless youth: a narrative review using health, social, Gender, and equity outcomes. Cochrane Methods Equity; 2018. Available: https://methods.cochrane.org/ equity/sites/methods.cochrane.org.equity/files/public/uploads/youth_narrative _review_protocol.pdf (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 187. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:i2089. 188. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 2016;353:i2016. 189. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;76:89-98. 190. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software]. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University; 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available: https://gradepro.org (accessed 2019 Feb. 1). 191. Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. When does a good practice statement not justify an evidence based guideline? J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:477-9. 192. Guyatt GH, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, et al. Guideline panels should seldom make good practice statements: guidance from the GRADE Working Group. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:3-7. 193. Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Djulbegovic B, et al. Guideline panels should not GRADE good practice statements. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:597-600. 194. Drazen JM, de Leeuw PW, Laine C, et al. Toward more uniform conflict disclosures: the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form. JAMA 2010;304:212-3. GUIDELINE E254 CMAJ
ISSUE 10 195. Primack RB, Cigliano JA, Parsons ECM, et al. Coauthors gone bad; how to avoid publishing conflict and a proposed agreement for co-author teams [editorial]. Biol Conserv 2014;176:277-80. 196. WHO housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. 197. Korownyk C, Perry D, Ton J, et al. Managing opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER simplified guideline. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:321-30. 198. Bruneau J, Ahamad K, Goyer M-È, et al.; CIHR Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. Management of opioid use disorders: a national clinical practice guideline. CMAJ 2018;190:E247-57. 199. Fairbairn N, Ross J, Trew M, et al. Injectable opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder: a national clinical guideline. CMAJ 2019;191:E1049-56. 200. Montauk SL. The homeless in America: adapting your practice. Am Fam Physician 2006;74:1132-8. 201. Teixeira L, Russell D, Hobbs T. The SHARE framework: a smarter way to end homelessness. London (UK): Centre for Homelessness Impact; 2018; Available: www. homelesshub.ca/resource/share-framework-smarter-way-end-homelessness (accessed 2019 Dec. 12). 202. Purkey E, Patel R, Phillips SP. Trauma-informed care: better care for everyone. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:170-2. 203. Homelessness & health: What’s the connection [fact sheet]. Nashville (TN): National Health Care for the Homeless Council; 2011. Available: https://nhchc.org/wp-content /uploads/2019/08/Hln_health_factsheet_Jan10-1.pdf (accessed 2019 June 1). Competing interests: Gary Bloch is a founding member, former board member and currently a clinician with Inner City Health Associates (ICHA), a group of physicians working with individuals experiencing homelessness in Toronto, which provided funding for the development of this guideline. He did not receive payment for work on the guideline and did not participate in any ICHA board decision-making relevant to this project. Ritika Goel, Michaela Beder and Stephen Hwang also receive payment for clinical services from ICHA, and did not receive payment for any aspect of the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared. This article has been peer reviewed. Affiliations: C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre (Pottie, d Wendy Muckle led the Homeless Health Summit. Esther Shoemaker led the Delphi consensus. Olivia Magwood led the reviews on lived experiences and substance use, Tim Aubry led the review on housing, Gary Bloch and Vanessa Brcic led the review on income, David Ponka and Eric Agbata led the review on case management, Jean Zhuo Jing Wang and Sebastian Mott led the homeless youth review, Harneel Kaur led the homeless migrant review, Christine Mathew and Anne Andermann led the homeless women review, Syeda Shanza Hashmi and Ammar Saad led medical student engagement and competency review, Thomas Piggott co-led the GRADE Assessment with Olivia Magwood and Kevin Pottie, Michaela Beder and Nicole Kozloff contributed substantially to the substance use review, and Neil Arya and Stephen Hwang provided critical policy information. All of the named authors engaged in the writing and review, gave final approval of the version of the guideline to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Funding: This guideline was supported by a peer-reviewed grant from the Inner City Health Associates, and supplemental project grants from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Employment Social Development Canada, Canadian Medical Association and Champlain Local Integrated Health Network. Personnel from collaborating agencies provided nonbinding feedback during the preparation of systematic reviews and the guideline. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or final approval of the guideline. Final decisions regarding the protocol and issues that arose during the guideline-development process were solely the responsibility of the guideline steering committee. Acknowledgements: The authors thank everyone who participated in the development of this guideline, including community scholars, technical team leads, guideline panel members and working group members. Endorsements: Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Federation of Medical Students, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, Public Health Physicians of Canada, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, Canadian Nurses Association Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agencies. Correspondence to: Kevin Pottie, kpottie@uottawa.ca
Documents
Less detail

A national action plan for mental illness and mental health : a call for action

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy171
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2002-12-07
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Last Reviewed
2019-03-03
Date
2002-12-07
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
A National Action Plan for Mental Illness and Mental Health : A Call for Action This consensus statement was drafted at the National Summit on Mental Illness and Mental Health held on October 3, 4, 2002. The consensus statement was ratified subsequently by each of the signatory organizations. VISION We envision a country where all Canadians enjoy good mental health. Canadians with mental illnesses*, their families and care providers must have access to the care, support and respect to which they are entitled and in parity with other health conditions. PRINCIPLES We are committed to a National Action Plan that upholds the following principles: 1. Mental illness and mental health issues must be considered within the framework of the determinants of health and recognizes the important linkages among mental, neurological and physiological health. 2. Given the impact of mental health issues and mental illness (i.e. on the suffering of Canadians, on mortality, especially from suicide, on the economy, on social services such as health, education and criminal justice), Canadian governments and health planners must address mental health issues commensurate with the level of their burden on society. 3. Mental health promotion and the treatment of mental illnesses must be timely, continuous, inter-disciplinary, culturally appropriate, and integrated across the full life cycle and the continuum of care (i.e. physical and mental health; social supports and tertiary care to home/community care). KEY ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN 1. National Mental Health Goals. These goals would provide a framework to, for example, evaluate both processes and outcomes, set minimum standards, and assess systemic change. 2. A Policy Framework. The framework must provide for a comprehensive health promotion and service delivery plan, an enhanced research program, a surveillance and national data/information system, a public education strategy, a health human resources plan, and an innovations fund that embraces both mental illness and mental health promotion as well as the principles of recovery and citizenship. 3. Dedicated, Sustained and Adequate Resources tied to the National Mental Health Goals and specific outcomes. 4. An Accountability Mechanism, such as annual reporting on, for example, access, mental health status, systemic change and the application of best practices. * NOTE: The use of the term "mental illness" in this "Call for Action" includes diseases, disorders, conditions or problems. It also includes the spectrum of addictions. A CALL FOR LEADERSHIP AND ACTION We, the undersigned, urge the federal, provincial and territorial governments to work together with federal leadership to recognize and act upon the compelling moral, social and economic case for mental health promotion and mental illness care. SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS Canadian Medical Association Canadian Psychiatric Association NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED AT THE OCTOBER 2002 SUMMIT Autism Society of Canada Canadian Academy of Child Psychiatry Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness & Mental Health Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists Canadian Association of Social Workers Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health Canadian Council of Professional Psychology Programs Canadian Federation of Mental Health Nurses Canadian Health Care Association Canadian Medical Association Canadian Mental Health Association Canadian Psychiatric Association Canadian Psychiatric Research Foundation Canadian Psychological Association College of Family Physicians of Canada Mood Disorders Society of Canada National Network for Mental Health Native Mental Health Association of Canada Schizophrenia Society 1
Documents
Less detail

A new vision for Canada: family practice— the patient’s medical home 2019

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14024
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The evolving needs of patients and their communities place ever-changing demands on the health care system to maintain and improve the quality of services provided. Changing population demographics, increasing complexity, and new technology make for a dynamic system. Family physicians are at the heart of the health care system, acting as the first point of contact and a reliable medical resource to the communities they serve, caring for patients and supporting them throughout all interactions with the health care system. The Patient’s Medical Home (PMH) is a vision that emphasizes the role of the family practice and family physicians in providing high-quality, compassionate, and timely care. The success of a PMH depends on collaboration and teamwork—from the patient’s participation in their care to interprofessional and intraprofessional care providers working together, to policy-makers who can offer infrastructure support and funding. PMH 2019 was created with invaluable feedback from a broad range of stakeholders reflective of such a joint approach. Its goal is to make the PMH a reality for patients and providers across Canada. In 2011 the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) released A Vision for Canada: Family Practice - The Patient’s Medical Home.1 It outlined a vision for the future of primary care by transforming the health care system to better meet the needs of everyone living in Canada. The vision outlined the 10 pillars that make up the PMH and provided detailed recommendations to assist family physicians and their teams, as well as policy-makers and health care system administrators, to implement this new model across the country. WHY A REVISED PMH? Since 2011 many principles of the PMH vision have been embraced in primary care reforms. New models have been introduced across Canada (see Progress on the PMH to Date). To better reflect current realties, meet the evolving needs of family physicians and their teams, and support continued implementation of the PMH, the CFPC has developed this revised edition of the vision. It reflects evolving realities of primary care in Canada, including the rapid adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs)2,3 and a shift toward interprofessional practice structures.2 While progress has been made, there is still work to be done to fully achieve the PMH vision. In 2016 almost 75 per cent of Canadians rated the quality of care received from their family physicians as good or excellent.4 In 2017 a CFPC survey found that 79 per cent of respondents rate the care they receive from their family doctor as excellent or good.5 However, at the same time 55 per cent of Canadians also believed that the overall health care system still required fundamental changes.4 In addition, Canada continues to perform below the international average on certain aspects of patient-centred care; for example, same- or next-day access to appointments. While most Canadians (84.7 per cent) have a regular doctor or place of care, they generally report longer wait times for medical care than adults in comparable countries.4 PMH 2019 addresses these concerns and proposes solutions that can help further improve the primary care system for all. Although the specific components of the revised PMH have been updated (see What is the Patient’s Medical Home?), the core principles remain the same. PMH 2019 focuses on providing high-quality, patient-centred, and comprehensive care to patients and their families during their lifetime. It embraces the critical role that family physicians and family practices play in the health care system, reflecting the fact that systems with strong primary health care deliver better health outcomes, enhance efficiency, and improve quality of care.6 PMH 2019 recognizes that a patient will not be able to see their personal family physician at every visit, but can rely on the PMH’s qualified team of health professionals to provide the most appropriate care responding to patient needs with continuous support and leadership from family physicians. PMH 2019 highlights the central importance of community adaptiveness and social accountability in primary care with a new pillar. The importance of being responsive to community needs through engagement, and ensuring the provision of equitable, culturally safe, antioppressive practise that seeks to assess and intervene into social determinants of health (SDoH), is now more clearly featured. 2 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT PMH 2019 outlines 10 revised pillars that make up a PMH. Key attributes are defined and explained for each pillar. Supporting research is provided to demonstrate the evidence base for each attribute. This document is intended to support family physicians currently working in a PMH to better align their practice with the PMH pillars, or assist those practices looking to transition to a PMH. Furthermore, this document can guide governments, policy-makers, other health care professionals, and patients on how to structure a primary health care system that is best-suited to meet the needs of Canadians. Many resources for the PMH have been developed and will continue to be available. These include practical Best Advice guides on a range of topics and the self-assessment tool that can help quantify a practice’s progress toward PMH alignment. Moving forward, additional materials that address the new themes identified in PMH 2019 and the tools to support physicians in the transition to PMH structures—for example the PMH Implementation Kit— will be available at patientsmedicalhome.ca. What is a Patient’s Medical Home? The PMH is a family practice defined by its patients as the place they feel most comfortable presenting and discussing their personal and family health and medical concerns. The PMH can be broken down into three themes: Foundations, Functions, and Ongoing Development (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The three Foundation pillars are the supporting structures that facilitate the care provided by the PMH. All three aspects are required for the successful implementation and sustainability of a PMH. The Functions are areas central to the operation of a family practice and consist of the five core PMH pillars. These principles govern the type of care provided by the PMH practices to ensure it is effective and efficient for meeting the needs of the patients, families, and communities they serve. The pillars in this section reflect the Four Principles of Family Medicine,7 which underlines the important place they take in the overall PMH 2019. The pillars in Ongoing Development are essential to advancing the PMH vision. These areas make it possible for physicians to provide the best possible care for patients in various settings. Applying these pillars, the PMH will thrive through practising quality improvement (QI) principles to achieve the results necessary to meet the needs of their patients, their communities, and the broader health care community, now and in the future. The PMH is a vision to which every practice can aspire. Many practices across Canada have already begun transitioning to a PMH, thanks to the dedication and leadership of family physicians and their teams across Table 1. 10 Pillars of the revised PMH vision THEME PILLAR Foundations 1. Administration and Funding 2. Appropriate Infrastructure 3. Connected Care Functions 4. Accessible Care 5. Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability 6. Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership 7. Continuity of Care 8. Patient- and Family-Partnered Care Ongoing Development 9. Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research 10. Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 3 the country. This vision is a resource for these practices as they engage in ongoing practice assessment and QI initiatives. It can also assist other stakeholders, including government planners, policy-makers, and funders to better understand what defines an effective patientcentred family practice. By involving patients in all stages of the development, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement (CQI) activities of the practice, the PMH can contribute significantly to furthering the goals of transformation to a patient-centred health care system.8 What the Patient’s Medical Home is Not While it is important to understand what the PMH aspires to be, it is also important to highlight that it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Solo practices in rural or remote settings or large group practices serving inner-city populations can align with PMH principles by incorporating strategies that match the realities of their unique settings. In fact, social accountability and community adaptiveness is an important new addition to the revised PMH vision to account for the need of every family practice to adapt and respond to the needs of their patients and communities. What works for one practice will not work for all. The PMH vision does not require that all practices be relocated or re-engineered, or that significant financial investments be made by physicians or other health care professionals. Instead, system level support and involvement is required to achieve the vision. The pillars and attributes listed in this document are signposts along the way to reform that aids practices on their journey. It is important to note that this vision is not intended to undermine or change any exciting initiatives involving family practice currently under way across Canada (several of which already embrace and incorporate the medical home concept; see Progress on the PMH to Date). Rather, it is meant to build on and strengthen these efforts. The more that health care initiatives meet PMH objectives, the more likely it is that the overall goals of creating a patient-centred health care system throughout Canada will be realized. Figure 1. The Patient’s Medical Home 4 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 PROGRESS ON THE PMH TO DATE Since the release of the original PMH vision document, system-level change has occurred in almost all jurisdictions in Canada. More specifically, PMH-type practices are gaining traction in various provinces and currently exist in various stages of development. The CFPC took a snapshot of PMH uptake in all provinces in the PMH Provincial Report Card, published in early 2019.9 That report contains grades and descriptions for progress in each province up to late 2018, which acts as a useful gauge for where the vision stands at the time of publication of this new edition. Alberta In Alberta, primary care networks (PCNs)10 were established to link groups of family physicians and other health care professionals. Within PCNs clinicians work together to provide care specific to community and population health care needs. Currently, there are 42 PCNs operating in Alberta, comprised of more than 3,700 (or 80 per cent of) family physicians, and over 1,100 other health care practitioners. PCNs provide care to close to 3.6 million Albertans, 80 per cent of the population in Alberta. Primary care clinics are being asked to collect data for Third Next Available (TNA) appointments to improve access for Albertans.11 TNA measures the delay patients experience in accessing their providers for a scheduled appointment. TNA is considered a more accurate system measure of access than the “next available” appointment, since the next or second next available appointment may have become available due to a cancellation or other event that is not predictable or reliable. British Columbia The British Columbia government’s new primary care strategy focuses on expanding access to team-based care through PCNs.12 PCNs are in the initial stages of adoption and when fully rolled out will provide a systemlevel change—working to connect various providers to improve access to, and quality of, care. They will allow patients to access the full range of health care options, streamline referrals, and provide better support to family physicians, nurse practitioners, and other primary health care providers. The General Practice Services Committee13 (GPSC; a partnership of the provincial government and Doctors of BC) specifically references and builds on the PMH concept in their vision for the future of British Columbia’s health care system. Manitoba In Manitoba, PMHs are Home Clinics and PCNs are My Health Teams. My Health Teams bring together teams of health care providers (physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, etc.) to collaborate in providing highquality care based on community and patient needs.14 As suggested by the name of the initiative itself, the goal is to improve health care by developing teams of health care professionals who will work together to address primary health care needs of Manitobans.15 The first two My Health Teams were established in 2014, and there are now 15 across the province.16 The Manitoba Centre for Health Policy did some work assessing the impact of My Health Teams. New Brunswick In 2017 the government announced the New Brunswick Family Plan, which placed a specific emphasis on access to team-based care. To achieve this goal, the provincial government and the New Brunswick Medical Society established a voluntary program called Family Medicine New Brunswick. In this team-based model, physicians have their own rosters of patients, but also provide a service to all patients of doctors on their team.17 It was announced in 2018 that 25 family physicians will be added to the provincial health care system to ensure more New Brunswick residents have access to a primary care physician and to help reduce wait times.18 Newfoundland and Labrador In 2015 the Newfoundland and Labrador government released Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities: A primary health care framework for Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy’s goals include ensuring “timely access to comprehensive, person-focused primary health care services and supports,” and “primary health care reform should work to establish teams of providers that facilitate access to a range of health and social services tailored to meet A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 5 the needs of the communities they serve.”19 Both goals align with the general PMH principles. Primary health care teams have been introduced in St. John’s and are planned for Corner Brook and Burin.20 Many initiatives under way as a part of this strategy are in the early stages of development. Continuing in the direction laid out will move Newfoundland and Labrador closer to integrating the PMH vision in their delivery of primary health care. Northwest Territories The recent creation of a single Territorial Health Authority has enabled work on primary care improvements across the Northwest Territories. In August 2018 the NWT Health and Social Services Leadership Council unanimously voted in favour of a resolution supporting redesigning the health care system toward a team- and relationshipbased approach, consistent with PMH values. In several regions, contracted physicians are already assigned to regularly visit remote communities and work closely with local staff to provide continuity of remote support between visits. Planning is under way for implementing PMH-based multidisciplinary care teams in several larger regional centres, with enhanced continuity and access to physician and nursing staff as well as co-located mental health support and other health care disciplines. This work is facilitated by a territory-wide EMR and increased use of telehealth and other modalities of virtual care. Nova Scotia The 2017 Strengthening the Primary Health Care System in Nova Scotia report recommended establishing “health homes,” consisting of interprofessional, collaborative family practice teams. The model is based on a population health approach that focuses on wellness and chronic disease management/prevention and incorporates comprehensive, team-based care. There are approximately 50 collaborative family practice21 teams and a number of primary care teams across Nova Scotia. Ontario The model most aligned with the PMH framework is the family health team (FHT).22 FHTs are comprised of family physicians, nurse practitioners, and other health care professionals, and provide community-centred primary care programs and services. The 184 FHTs collectively serve over three million enrolled Ontarians. Based on the results of a five-year evaluation undertaken by the Conference Board of Canada in 2014, FHTs have achieved improvements at the organizational and service-delivery levels.23 Much progress has also been made through patient enrolment models. Patient enrolment, or rostering, is a process in which patients are formally registered with a primary care provider or team. Patient enrolment facilitates accountability by defining the population for which the provider is responsible. Formal patient enrolment with a primary care physician lays the foundation for a proactive approach to chronic disease management and preventive care.24 Studies show that the models have achieved some degree of success in enhancing health system efficiency in Ontario through the reducing use of emergency departments for non-emergent care.25 Prince Edward Island In Prince Edward Island, primary care is provided through five PCNs.26 Each network consists of a team that includes family physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, diabetes educators, licensed practical nurses, clerical staff, and in some cases dietitians and mental health workers. They offer a broad range of health services including diagnosis, treatment, education, disease prevention, and screening. Quebec The Groupes de médecine de famille27 (GMF) is the team-based care model in Quebec most closely aligned with the PMH. GMF ranking (obligations, financial, and professional supports) is based on weighted patient rostering. One GMF may serve from 6,000 to more than 30,000 patients. The resource allocation (financial and health care professionals) depends on the weighted patient target under which the GMF falls. In a GMF, each doctor takes care of their own registered patients, but all physicians in the GMF can access medical records of all patients. GMFs provide team-based care with physicians, nurses, social workers, and other health care professionals working collaboratively to provide appropriate health care based on community needs. Saskatchewan Saskatchewan has made investments in a Connected Care Strategy, which focuses on a team approach to care that includes the patient and family, and extends from the community to the hospital and back again. It is about connecting teams and providing seamless care for people who have multiple, ongoing health care needs, with a particular focus on care in the community.28 6 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 FOUNDATIONS PMH foundations are the underlying, supporting structures that enable a practice to exist, and facilitate providing each PMH function. Without a strong foundation, the PMH cannot successfully provide high-quality, patient-centred care. The foundations are Administration and Funding (includes financial and governmental support and strong governance, leadership, and management), Appropriate Infrastructure (includes physical space, human resources, and electronic records and other digital supports), and Connected Care (practice integration with other care settings enabled by health IT). ADMINISTRATION & FUNDING PAGE 7 APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PAGE 9 CONNECTED CARE PAGE 12 Patients as partners in health care Patient-centred or patient-partnered? Understanding and acknowledging patients as full partners in their own care is a small but powerful change in terminology. Considering and respecting patients as partners allows health care providers to better recognize and include the skills and experience each patient brings to the table. Patient perspectives and feedback can be more inclusively incorporated in the QI processes in place to improve care delivery. Understanding the nature of patient partnerships can help physicians better establish trusting relationships with those in their care.29 Pillar 1: Administration and Funding Practice governance and management Effective practice governance is essential to ensuring an integrated process of planning, coordinating, implementing, and evaluating.30 Every PMH should clearly define its governance and administrative structure and functions, and identify staff responsible for each function. While the complexity of these systems varies depending on the practice size, the number of members on the health care professional team, and the needs of the population being served, every PMH should have an organizational plan in place that helps guide the practice operations. From a governance perspective, policies and procedures should be developed and regularly reviewed and updated, especially in larger practices. These policies and procedures will offer guidance in areas such as organization of clinical services, appointment and booking systems, information management, facilities, equipment and supplies, human resources, defining PMH team members’ clinical and administrative/management roles and responsibilities, budget and finances, legal and liability issues, patient and provider safety, and CQI. In some cases, standardized defaults for these may be available based on the province of practice and existing structures supporting interprofessional teams. Structures and systems need to be in place that allow for compensated time for providers to undertake and actively participate in CQI activities. This needs to be scheduled and remunerated so that it is seen as being as important and critical as clinical time. To ensure that all PMH team members have the capacity to take on their required roles, leadership development programs should be offered. Enabling physicians to engage in this necessary professional development requires sufficient government funding to cover training A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 7 Practices need staff and financial support, advocacy, governance, leadership, and management in order to function as part of the community and deliver exceptional care. 1.1 Governance, administrative, and management roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and supported in each PMH. 1.2 Sufficient system funding is available to support PMHs, including the clinical, teaching, research, and administrative roles of all members of PMH teams. 1.3 Blended remuneration models that best support team-based, patient-partnered care in a PMH should be considered to incentivize the desired approach. 1.4 Future federal/provincial/territorial health care funding agreements provide appropriate funding mechanisms that support PMH priorities, including preventive care, population health, electronic records, community-based care, and access to medications, social services, and appropriate specialist and acute care. 8 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 costs and financial support to ensure lost income is not a barrier (see Pillar 10: Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development). External supports Every family practice in Canada can become a PMH and an optimal learning environment will only be achievable with the participation and support of all stakeholders throughout the health care system. This includes family physicians; other health professionals who will play critical roles on PMH teams; federal, provincial, and territorial governments; academic training programs; governing bodies for physicians and allied health care providers; and most importantly, the people of Canada themselves, individually and in their communities—the recipients of care provided by the PMH. To achieve their objectives, PMHs need the support of governments across Canada through the provision of adequate funding and other resources. Given that the structure, composition, and organization of each PMH will differ based on community and population needs, funding must be flexible. More specifically, PMH practices will differ in terms of the staff they require (clinical, administrative, etc.). Funding must be available to ensure that PMH practices can determine optimal staffing levels and needs, to best meet community needs. The health care system must also ensure that all health care professionals on the PMH team have appropriate liability protection, and that adequate resources are provided to ensure that each PMH practice can provide an optimal setting for teaching students and residents and for conducting practice-based research. These characteristics are also reflected in the Four Principles of Family Medicine, reinforcing the centrality of family medicine to the delivery of care. Experience through new models of family practice, such as patient enrolment models (PEMs) in Ontario, suggests that blended funding models are emerging as the preferred approach to paying family physicians.31–33 These models are best suited to incentivizing teambased, patient-partnered care. The current fee-forservice (FFS) model incentivizes a series of short consultations that might be insufficient to address all of the patient’s needs, while blended remuneration provides for groups of physicians to work together to provide comprehensive care through office hours and after-hours care for their rostered patients. Capitation allows for more in-depth consultations depending on population need, rather than a volume-based model. Research has also found that blended capitation models can lead to small improvements in processes of care (e.g., meeting preventive care quality targets)34 and can be especially useful for supporting patients in managing and preventing chronic diseases.35 The CFPC advocates for governments to implement blended payment mechanisms across the country to achieve better health outcomes (see the Best Advice guide: Physician Remuneration in a Patient’s Medical Home36 for more information). It is important to ensure that additional practice activities such as leadership development, QI, and teaching are supported through dedicated funding or protected time intended specifically for these activities and are not seen as financially disadvantageous. The sustainability of Canada’s health care system depends on a foundation of strong primary care and family practice.37 Indeed, “high-performing primary care is widely recognized as the foundation of an effective and efficient health care system.”38 Future funding for health care—in particular from the federal government through federal, provincial, and territorial agreements—must be sustained through appropriate and well-designed funding agreements that incentivize PMH visions of primary care; other medical home priorities including preventive care, population health, EMRs; communitybased care; along with access to medications, social services, and appropriate specialist and acute care. For the PMH vision to be successful and a part of the future of family practice care in Canada, we need the commitment and support of everyone in the Canadian health care system, including decision makers and patients. By working with all levels of government and with patients, we can improve the health care system so that everyone in Canada has access to patient-centred, comprehensive, team-based care. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 9 Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure The shift in Canada from paper-based patient records to EMRs is reaching saturation. As delivery of care evolves with greater integration of technology, potential applications to improve patient care expand.39 The proportion of family physicians using EMRs has grown from 16 per cent in 2004 to 85 per cent in 2017.40 As it becomes ubiquitous in health care delivery, information technology can be of great benefit in sharing information with patients, facilitating adherence to treatment plans and medication regimes, and using health information technology (HIT) in new and innovative methods of care. However, HIT also poses new risks and can create new barriers. Providers should be mindful of how the application about new technologies may hinder good quality patient care. When properly implemented, EMRs can help track data over time, identify patients who are due for preventive visits, better monitor patient baseline parameters (such as vaccinations and blood pressure readings), and improve overall quality of care in a practice.1 EMRs can enhance the capacity of every practice to store and recall medical information on each patient and on the practice population as a whole. They can facilitate sharing information needed for referrals and consultations. The information in an electronic record can be used for teaching, carrying out practice-based research, and evaluating the effectiveness of the practice change as part of a commitment to CQI.1 EMRs and HIT actively support other pillars in the PMH vision. In addition to storing and sharing information, the biggest benefit of this technology is the ability to collect data for practice performance and health outcomes of patients served by family practices.41 The data allow practices to measure progress through CQI goals. Larger-scale collection allows for the aggregation of anonymized data sets and measuring performance beyond the practice level.41 Strict privacy regulations ensure that patient data remain secure and confidential. Overall, QI and research benefit patients by guiding more appropriate and efficient care, which forms the basis of another key pillar of Physical space, staffing, electronic records and other digital supports, equipment, and virtual networks facilitate the delivery of timely, accessible, and comprehensive care. 2.1 All PMHs use EMRs in their practices and are able to access supports to maintain their EMR systems. 2.2 EMR products intended for use in PMHs are identified and approved by a centralized process that includes family physicians and other health care professionals. Practices are able to select an EMR product from a list of regionally approved vendors. 2.3 EMRs approved for PMHs will include appropriate standards for managing patient care in a primary care setting; e-prescribing capacity; clinical decision support programs; e-referral and consultation tools; e-scheduling tools that support advanced access; and systems that support data analytics, teaching, research, evaluation, and CQI. 2.4 Electronic records used in a PMH are interconnected, user-friendly, and interoperable. 2.5 Co-located PMH practices are in physical spaces that are accessible and set up to support collaboration and interaction between team members. 2.6 A PMH has the appropriate staff to provide timely access (e.g., having physician assistants and/or registered nurses to meet PMH goals). 2.7 A PMH has technology to enable alternative forms of care, such as virtual care/telecare. 2.8 Sufficient system funding and resources are provided to ensure that teaching faculty and facility requirements will be met by every PMH teaching site. the PMH vision— Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research. As EMR use becomes common, issues shift from rollout to optimization in the practice. Ideally, EMRs must be adequately supported financially and use a universal terminology to allow for standardized data management, and be interoperable with other electronic health records relevant to patient care.1 Training and ongoing technical support for effective use of technology must also be available. Digital information sources, especially in the sensitive areas of patient information and care planning, require a higher level of technical support to maintain faith in their use and application across stakeholder groups. A comprehensive, systematic analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature found that cost sharing or financial sponsorship from governments is required to support the high cost of EMR adoption and maintenance. Governments in several European countries equip all primary care practices with interoperable, ambulatory care-focused electronic health records (EHRs) that allow information to flow across settings to enhance the continuity and coordination of care.1 Ensuring that government supports enable adoption, maintenance and effective use, coordination, and interoperability of electronic tools is crucial for meaningful use of this technology. A PMH will also use technology for alternative forms of care. Virtual care is clinical interactions that do not require patients and providers to be in the same room at the same time.42 Virtual visits will be financially compensated by provincial health plans. Consultations may be asynchronous, where patients answer structured clinical questions online and then receive care from a physician at a later time (e-visits), or synchronous, where patients interact with physicians in real time via telephone (teleconsultations), videoconference (virtual visits), or text.43 Virtual care increases accessibility for those living in rural and remote areas, but also in urban areas where some patients do not have a regular primary care physician or cannot access their physician for in-person appointments within a time frame that meets their current needs.43 Virtual care can also be an alternative solution for patients living in long-term care facilities and/or with mobility issues.43 Strong communication between team members allows PMH practices to function on a virtual basis when the health care professionals are not stationed in the same physical space. It is important to recognize when colocation is not feasible and maintain effective information flow in these situations, which may be especially relevant in rural and remote areas. Practices should ensure the electronic records they use are set up to support collaboration and interaction between all members of the team as much as possible, which includes all health care providers within the PMH as well as the patient’s circle of support. For example, ensuring that when patients see someone other than their most responsible provider is logged into the system and is easy to review to maintain the continuity of care. This becomes complex in situations where providers are not co-located, and further system level supports up to the level of more interoperable and universal electronic records is a prerequisite for full application of this principle. Appropriate infrastructure in a PMH is not just about technology—it includes efficient, effective, and ergonomically well-designed reception, administration, and clinical areas in the office. This is of significant benefit to staff and patients alike.44 Having a shared physical and/or virtual space where multiple team members can meet to build relationships and trust, and communicate with each other regarding patient care is essential to creating a collaborative practice. Team-based care thrives when care is intentional, when planned and regular patient care meetings are incorporated into usual PMH practice, and when these steps are included in remuneration. This collaboration ensures that patients are involved in all relevant Satisfaction with virtual visits A British Columbia study found that over 93 per cent of patients indicated that their virtual visit was of high quality, and 91 per cent reported that their virtual visit was very or somewhat helpful to resolve their health issue.43 10 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 11 discussions and are receiving the best care from professionals with a comprehensive set of skills. A family practice should be physically accessible to patients and their families. This includes ensuring all public areas, washrooms, and offices are wheelchair accessible.44 An examination room should comfortably accommodate the patient and whatever appropriate companion, or health care professionals, who may be in the room at the same time. Having multi-purpose rooms also reduces or eliminates the need to wait for an appropriate room to be available. To achieve their objectives, PMHs need the support of governments across Canada through the provision of adequate funding and other resources. Research demonstrates that in the case of EMRs, key barriers to adoption by family physicians include financial and time constraints, lack of knowledgeable support personnel, lack of interoperability with hospital and pharmacy systems,45 as well as provincial/territorial EHR systems. Therefore, government must assure funding to support the PMH team in their clinical, research, and administrative responsibilities. There must also be support for core practice components such as EMRs, patient-centred practice strategies such as group visits, and electronic communications between patients and health professionals (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding). EMRs should help improve the delivery of care in community-based practices by enhancing productivity and processes. They are not intended to reduce time with patients, nor should they cause physician burnout or have a negative impact on physician wellness. While the structures supporting the PMH practices differs by province, it is important they cover a common set of principles enabling the base functionalities described in this document. The system must also ensure that all health professionals on the PMH team have appropriate liability protection and that adequate resources are provided so that each PMH practice can provide an optimal setting for teaching students and residents and for conducting practice-based research. Provider autonomy is critical to provider wellness: as physician leadership within the PMH is one of the key pillars, preservation of physician autonomy, while respecting the autonomy and ensuring the accountability of both patients and other health care professionals, must be addressed. Figure 2. The Patient’s Medical Neighbourhood Pillar 3: Connected Care Canada Health Infoway Established in 2001, Canada Health Infoway47 is an independent, not-for-profit organization funded by the federal government. It seeks to improve health care access, moving beyond traditional in-person care models to innovative strategies that accelerate the development, adoption, and effective use of digital health solutions across Canada. Key digital health priorities include electronic records, telehomecare, virtual visits, and patient portals. Connectivity and effective communication within and across settings of care is a crucial concept of a PMH. This ensures that the care patients receive is coordinated and continuous. To achieve this, each PMH should establish, maintain, and use defined links with secondary and tertiary care providers, including local hospitals; other specialists and medical care clinics; public health units; and laboratory, diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, mental health and addiction, rehabilitation, and other health and social services. Connected care is a priority for many health care organizations in Canada. For example, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI) has established a unique program that looks at improving care connections between providers through improved use of technology.41 (See the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement textbox for more information). The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA), Canadian Medical Association (CMA), and HEAL recognize that giving Canadians the best health and health care requires creating a functionally integrated health system along the full continuum of care—a system based on interprofessional collaborative teams that ensure the right provider, at the right time, in the right place, for the right care.46 Similarly, Canada Health Infoway focuses on expanding digital health across the system to improve quality of and access to care. The PMH exists within the broader patient’s medical neighbourhood (see Figure 2), with links to all other providers in the community. It is important to maintain connections with colleagues in health care as well as social support organizations within the community, as described in Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability. Through links within the neighbourhood, PMH practices work with other providers to ensure timely access for referrals/consultations and define processes for information sharing. Establishing and maintaining these links requires open and frequent communication between all those involved in patient care. 12 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Practice integration with other care settings and services, a process enabled by integrating health information technology. 3.1 A PMH is connected with the health and social services available in the community for patient referrals. 3.2 Defined links are established between the PMH and other medical specialists, and medical care services in the local or nearest community to ensure timely referrals. 3.3 The PMH serves as a hub for collecting and sharing relevant patient information through information technology. It ensures the continuity of patient information received throughout the medical and social service settings. Ideally PMH practices act as the central hub for patient care by collecting and coordinating relevant patient information from external care providers and patients. This includes medical care and care accessed through other health and social services; for example, services received through home care programs. PMH practices should also be able to share relevant information with external providers where and when appropriate, while strictly adhering to relevant privacy regulations. This two-way flow of information ensures that all providers in the network of care have access to the most accurate and comprehensive information available, allowing them “… to spend less time looking for information and more time on what matters: treating the patient.” 49 Overall, connected care in the PMH and the health system is enabled through HIT systems. PMH practices continuously strive to work efficiently with other providers in the patient’s medical neighborhood by taking advantage of developing technologies that make links quicker to establish and easier to maintain. To use HIT systems for coordinated care, the following are required:51 Data standardization Interoperable EMR and other health information systems Real-time access to data and the ability to relay accurate information in a timely manner Reliable communication mechanisms between various health and social service providers and the PMH Privacy for patient information It is important to keep in mind that any patient information, generated during the provision of care, belongs to the patient, as outlined in the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Document Act (PIPEDA). The practice is responsible for secure and confidential storage and transfer of the information. Refer to the Data Stewardship module of the Best Advice guide: Advanced and Meaningful Use of EMRs50 for more information. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement The Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement supports the RACE (Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise) and BASE eConsult services, which use telephone and web-based systems to connect patients with specialists.48 These programs have been successful and demonstrate that remote consultations can reduce wait times for accessing specialty care by enabling family physicians to more efficiently manage their patients in primary care settings. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 13 14 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 FUNCTIONS The functions describe the heart of the PMH and the care provided by PMH practices. These are the key elements that differentiate a PMH from other forms of primary care. A PMH offers: Accessible Care; Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability; Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership; Continuity of Care; and Patient- and Family-Partnered Care. ACCESSIBLE CARE PAGE 15 COMMUNITY ADAPTIVENESS & SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PAGE 17 COMPREHENSIVE TEAM-BASED CARE WITH FAMILY PHYSICIAN LEADERSHIP PAGE 20 CONTINUITY OF CARE PAGE 23 PATIENT & FAMILY PARTNERED CARE PAGE 25 Equitable and ethical practices The CMA has identified equitable access to care as a key priority for reform in the health care system.53 Similarly, accessibility is a key component of the primary health care approach, which is advocated for by the CNA.54 Through the CNA’s Social Justice Gauge, and with the further development of the social justice initiative, the CNA maintains its position as a strong advocate for social justice and a leader in equitable and ethical practices in health care and public health.55 Pillar 4: Accessible Care A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 15 Accessible primary care is fundamental to a highperforming health care system and is considered by patients52 and other health care organizations as one of the most important characteristics of primary health care. For care to be accessible, all patients should have access to a family physician who acts as their most responsible provider and is supported by a team of qualified health professionals. Patients must be able to access medical care and treatment when needed. While most Canadians currently have a regular family doctor,4 it is important that the goal be for everyone in Canada to have access to their own family physicians. Accessible care is about more than just quick access to appointments. It does include timely access principles, but also advanced access, virtual access, and teambased approaches to care that ensure patients can be seen by the most appropriate provider when they need to be seen. Because visits occur for different reasons it is not useful to define appropriate wait times for each type of visit unlike in other areas of health care, such as surgery. Therefore, the focus in family practice should be on enhancing access to ensure patients can access care when they feel it is necessary. This is not to say that family physicians in a PMH must be on call 24/7/365, but that methods for patients to access care through the design of practice operations and scheduling should be given more attention. On the other hand, as patients are offered more choice (e.g., by phone or e-communication), they should also expect practices to establish realistic parameters for what is reasonable. Practices should communicate clearly about what kind of provider availability and response time is reasonable to expect depending on access method and availability of resources. Obtaining this understanding from a practice’s patients and striving to meet these expectations is a By adopting advanced and timely access, virtual access, and team-based approaches, accessible care ensures that patients can be seen quickly. 4.1 A PMH ensures patients have access to medical advice, and information on available care options 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 4.2 Every patient is registered with a PMH. 4.3 PMH practices offer scheduling options that ensure timely access to appropriate care. 4.4 When the patient’s personal family physician is unavailable, appointments are made with another physician, nurse, or other qualified health professional member of the PMH team. 4.5 Patients are able to participate in planning and evaluation of their medical home’s appointment booking system. 4.6 Panel sizes for providers in a PMH should be appropriate to ensure timely access to appointments and safe, high-quality care. After-hours care A Waterloo, Ontario, study found that providing after-hours clinical services reduced wait times, with services from other health care providers seen as a key for improving patient access.59 Accessible care Accessible care reduces redundancy and duplication of services (e.g., when a patient takes a later appointment and also consults another provider in the interim), improves health outcomes, leads to better patient and provider satisfaction, and reduces emergency visits.56–58 16 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 good way to maintain the patient-centred focus of the practice as described in Pillar 1: Administration and Funding. Significant shifts in providing alternative access must be supported by funding bodies. Same-day scheduling has been introduced in many PMH practices to better accommodate patient needs. Frequently referred to as doing “today’s work today,” advanced access offers the vast majority of patients the opportunity to book their appointments on the day they call regardless of the reason for the visit.60 Read more about same day scheduling in the Best Advice guide: Timely Access to Appointments in Family Practice.61 Whenever possible, patients should have clear reasons for the appointment at the time of booking. This ensures that adequate time is planned for each patient visit. If the need to address multiple problems arises, the problems can be triaged on the spot by one of the team and arrangements made to have these concerns dealt with in a timely manner either during the same visit or at another time. It is not always possible for patients to book appointments with their most responsible family physician. To ensure continuity, appointments can be made with other physicians or health care professionals in the team. The decision about who provides care in these cases is based on the patient’s needs, the availability of team members, and the scope of practice for each team member. In these cases, any relevant information from the appointment is communicated to the most responsible provider and taken into account in the long-term care of the patient. PMH practices can further meet patients’ needs through extended office hours, in which the responsibilities for coverage and care are shared by family physicians in one or more practices, as well as by increased involvement of other team members. PMH practices also provide their patients with email, after-hours telephone, and virtual services to guide them to the right place at the right time for the care they need. Appropriately directing patients to the next available appointment, or to a hospital or another emergency service, is critical to the effective management and sustainability of our health care system.62,63 A PMH can help ensure that patients are aware of where they can go to access care and health information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by providing this information to patients in person or via other systems (website, voice mail messages, etc.). In alignment with Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research, PMH practices offer opportunities for patients to provide feedback on the accessibility of the practice. Specifically, patients should have the opportunity to evaluate and provide input for the appointment booking system. Mechanisms and supports need to be in place to ensure that practices and governing bodies can review and respond to feedback appropriately and communicate this back to patients. Determining the optimal panel size for each PMH practice is critical to ensuring accessible and safe, high-quality care.64 Establishing and incorporating recommendations from the PMH vision may enable practices to consider increasing their panel size. Actual panel size will vary depending on the number of physicians and other team members in the practice, the practice’s obligations and A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 17 Social accountability refers to the family physicians’ obligation to meet the needs of Canada’s communities.66 For health care to be socially accountable, it must be accessible by everyone and responsive to the needs of patients, communities, and the broader population.4 This obligation is embedded in the Family Medicine Professional Profile and the Four Principles of Family Medicine, highlighting that family physicians are community-adaptive, responding to the needs of their patients and communities. These principles of family medicine align well with the principles of social accountability. Family practice is relationship-based care that embraces all issues of need and endures over time and place of care. A generalist keeps the whole in mind while attending to the individual parts, the system in mind when fixing individual problems, and the end in mind when commencing the journey. Tools exist to help family physicians and other health care providers enhance their skills and training regarding social accountability and cultural safety through many professional organizations and cross-Canada resource hubs like the National Collaborating Centre of Determinants of Health67 and the National Collaborating Centre on Aboriginal Health,68 as examples. PMH practices are aware of how the SDoH influence the health of patients and communities. Family physicians are often the best-situated primary care professionals to act on Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability A PMH is accountable to its community, and meets their needs through interventions at the patient, practice, community, and policy level. 5.1 PMHs strive to assess and address the social determinants of health (e.g., income, education, housing, immigration status) as relevant for the individual, community, and policy levels. 5.2 Panel size will consider the community’s needs and patients’ safety. 5.3 PMHs use data about marginalized/at-risk populations to tailor their care, programming, and advocacy to meet unique community needs. 5.4 Family doctors in the PMH act as health advocates at the individual, community, and policy levels, using the CanMEDs–Family Medicine (CanMEDS-FM) Framework as a guide to advocacy and are supported in doing so. 5.5 Family doctors and team members within the PMH provide care that is anti-oppressive and culturally safe, seeking to mitigate the experiences of discrimination faced by many patients based on their age, gender, race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc. commitment to teaching and research, and the needs of the population being served (see Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability). When deciding panel size, each practice must determine how accepting more patients into the practice might impact the current population, the sustainability of the workload for physicians and other members of the PMH team, and the consequences of panel size on experience of care. Refer to the Best Advice guide: Panel Size for more information.65 issues that affect patients’ SDoH. Advocating for patients and the health care system overall is a natural part of a PMH structure. Advocacy can occur at three levels:69 Micro: In the immediate clinical environment, daily work with individual patients and predicated on the principles of caring and compassion Meso: In the local community, including the patient’s cultural community, the local community of medical providers, and the larger civic community, in which health professionals are citizens as well as practitioners Macro: In the humanitarian realm, where physicians are concerned with the welfare of their entire patient population and seek to improve human welfare through healthy public policy (such as reducing income inequality, supporting equitable and progressive taxation, and expanding the social safety net) The principles of advocacy in family practice are found in the CanMEDS–Family Medicine 201769 competency framework, under the Health Advocate role. The Best Advice guide: Social Determinants of Health70 describes how family physicians in the PMH can make advocacy a practical part of their practice. Poverty is a significant risk factor for chronic disease, mental illness, and other health conditions. Low income and other SDoH also present significant barriers to accessing care.71 To meet the needs of these patients, practices may need to extend hours, be more flexible and responsive, and spend additional time helping patients navigate and access necessary care. PMH practices consider other specific community needs when determining appropriate panel size. Demographics and health status of the patient population can influence the length and frequency of appointments needed, thereby impacting a physician’s caseload.65 For example, a PMH in a community with high rates of chronic conditions may need to reduce the panel size to provide timely and high-quality care, given that patients require more care time and resources. Similarly, a patient’s social situation may impact the time a family physician spends with them. Family physicians and team members may need to use a translator at clinical appointments, and may need to provide written resources in alternative languages, all factors affecting the time required to provide care. Enabling PMH practices to adjust panel size based on community needs requires governments to establish blended payment mechanisms. These remuneration systems ensure family physicians are adequately compensated, and are not financially disincentivized from spending the necessary time with patients (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding, for more information). Social accountability and cultural competency Part of the response to being more socially accountable with care offered to the community resides within each and every health professional. While courses on cultural competency are now a standard part of medical education, physicians can take this learning further by seeking to reflect on, be aware of, and correct any unconscious biases that naturally forms and holds as a result of individual life experiences. Working to resolve implicit biases is a lifelong effort, but done diligently, can contribute to improving the quality of care provided,72 as well as the satisfaction of being an effective healer—of ourselves, our patients and our societies. Importance of social accountability Social accountability is a key value for health care organizations and professionals. For example, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College), Resident Doctors of Canada, and the Association of Faculties of Medicine amongst others, have adopted policies that highlight the importance social accountability within their organizations and the work they do. 18 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Family physicians and their PMH teams are situated at the nexus of individual and population health, and can engage with their patients in addressing health promotion and disease prevention in creative ways. From accompanying individual patients through teachable moments (e.g., the smoker with pneumonia ready to quit) to influencing civic policy to address homelessness, the stories entrusted to family physicians in daily practice are powerful tools for healthy change. These teams are also key providers in many important public health areas, including illness and injury prevention; health promotion; screening and managing chronic diseases; immunizations; and health surveillance. PMH practices prioritize delivering evidence-based care for illness and injury prevention and health promotion, reinforcing them at each patient visit and other counselling opportunities. PMHs and local or regional public health units should cultivate and maintain strong links with one another. Health care professionals who are part of PMH teams may take on advisory, educational, supportive, or active roles in public health initiatives, in many different occupational, educational, or recreational settings throughout the community. An effective public health system should be inextricably linked to communitybased family physicians and PMHs, recognizing and supporting them as essential to the achievement of the broader population and public health goals. While PMHs focus primarily on the care of individuals and their families, it is important for team members to understand and address the health challenges facing their practice populations and the larger community. These broader challenges represent upstream factors (SDoH) that have greater impact on the health of patients than do the efforts of individual physicians. However, the relationships embedded in individual and collective practices can be central to engaging patients and citizens in building more just and healthier communities and societies. For example, with the help of HIT, details about the needs of populations can be more easily accessed through extraction from practice EMRs, or participation in programs such as the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN).73 The CPCSSN networks collect health information from EMRs of participating primary care providers, extract anonymous data, and share information on chronic conditions with governments, health care providers, and researchers to help inform meaningful systems and practice change. Programs like the CPCSSN allow practices to better understand the needs of their communities and implement specific health promotion and prevention programs that can contribute to the population’s overall well-being. Initiatives like this also ensure the avoidance of data duplication, and recognise that practices do not need (or have the resources) to collect data on their own. However, these data are just a part of caring—the heart of generalism is keeping the whole in mind while attending to its parts, whether it is at the level of the whole patient, the whole family, or the whole society. To meet the needs of their diverse panel of patients, family physicians and other team members in the PMH work to provide anti-oppressive and culturally-safe care, seeking to mitigate experiences of discrimination faced by many patients based on their SDoH. This requires understanding how historical and current injustices have impacted the well-being of certain populations, and working to ensure a safe and welcoming practice environment by focusing on the principles of caring and compassion. Sociodemographic data benefits The FHT at St Michael’s Hospital routinely collects sociodemographic data on all patients. Patients are surveyed about income, housing status, gender identity, and other key SDoH factors, and their responses are integrated into the secure EMR. This information is used to inform and direct individualized patient-centred care. The data will also be used for planning and evaluating the FHT’s programs.74 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 19 Pillar 6: Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership Primary care practice teams Many allied health professional organizations have prioritized the importance of working together in a team to provide patients with the best possible care. The CFPC worked collaboratively with organizations—such as the CNA, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Dieticians of Canada—to create the Best Advice guide: Team-Based Care in the Patient’s Medical Home.75 The guide includes implementation strategies for creating a primary practice team, and general descriptions of roles found in a collaborative team. 20 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A broad range of services is offered by an interprofessional team. The patient does not always see their family physician but interactions with all team members are communicated efficiently within a PMH. The team might not be co-located but the patient is always seen by a professional with relevant skills who can connect with a physician (ideally the patient’s own personal physician) as necessary. 6.1 A PMH includes one or more family physicians, who are the most responsible provider for their own panel of registered patients. 6.2 Family physicians with enhanced skills, along with other medical specialists, are part of a PMH team or network, collaborating with the patient’s personal family physician to provide timely access to a broad range of primary care and consulting services. 6.3 On-site, shared-care models to support timely medical consultations and continuity of care are encouraged and supported as part of each PMH. 6.4 The location and composition of a PMH’s team is flexible, based on community needs and realities; team members may be co-located or may function as part of virtual networks. 6.5 The personal family physician and nurse with relevant qualifications form the core of PMH teams, with the roles of others (including but not limited to physician assistants, pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, and chiropractors) encouraged and supported as needed. 6.6 Physicians, nurses, and other members of the PMH team are encouraged and supported in developing ongoing relationships with patients. Each care provider is recognized as a member of the patient’s personal medical home team. 6.7 Nurses and other health professionals in a PMH team will provide services within their defined roles, professional scopes of practice, and personally acquired competencies. Their roles providing both episodic and ongoing care support and complement—but do not replace—those of the family physician. Team-based care is a core function of the PMH. Building a team with a diverse mix of professional backgrounds creates an opportunity to redefine what is considered optimal, based on the needs of the practice and the community it serves. A high-performing team is essential to delivering more comprehensive, coordinated, and effective care centred on the patient’s needs. While different circumstances call for aspects of patient care to be provided by different health professionals, it is important to ensure that family physician expertise is available to all team members through consultation. To practice effectively in an interprofessional health care team, there must be a clear understanding of each member’s unique contributions, including educational background, scopes of practice and knowledge, and areas of excellence and limitations.76 Practices that draw on the expertise of a variety of team members are more likely to provide patients with the care they need and respond to community needs.77 Relationships across all dynamics within a practice, whether between a patient and family physician or between a patient and other members of the team, should be encouraged and supported in the PMH. Establishing these relationships develops trust and confidence, and works toward the ultimate goal of achieving better health outcomes. While it should be left to each practice to determine who does what (within the boundaries of professional scopes of practice), the most responsible provider for the medical care for each patient in the practice should be the patient’s personal family physician. Family physicians with enhanced skills and family physicians with focused practices play an important role in collaborating with the patient’s personal family physician and team to provide timely access to a range of primary care and consulting services. They supplement their core skills and experience with additional expertise in a particular field, while remaining committed to their core generalist principles.78 These doctors can draw extensively on their generalist training and approach to disease management and patient-centred care, enabling them to work collaboratively at different levels of care, including with other specialists, to meet patient needs.79 These clinicians also serve as a resource for other physicians in their local health system by enhancing care delivery and learning and teaching opportunities. The Best Advice guide: Communities of Practice in the Patient’s Medical Home80 provides more information about intraprofessional collaboration between family physicians. Shared care strategies provide patients with timely access to consultations with other specialists or family physicians with enhanced skills at scheduled times in the family practice office setting. The consultant might assess several patients per visit, at which time a plan for ongoing care can be developed and agreed to by the family physician, consultant, other team members, and the patient. There is no one-size-fits-all model when determining what mix of health care professionals is right. Team composition depends on the professional competencies, skills, and experiences needed to address the health needs of the patient population.81 These needs vary, depending on the communities’ defining characteristics; Additional members of practice teams Not all health care professionals in a team need to be hired as a full-time team member. For example, a practice can hire a dietician for specific days to lead a diabetes education program and see scheduled patients. Practices can also host other health care professionals, such as those employed with a regional health authority, to provide care to patients on-site. However, funding bodies should recognize that family practice clinics hosting other health care professionals often carry the overhead costs associated with these practitioners working on site, and further supports should be made available to ensure that costs do not unduly fall on the physicians. Pillar 1: Administration and Funding and Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure highlight that a PMH needs to be properly funded and have access to the right infrastructure (physical and governance) to support the initiatives described in this vision. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 21 22 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 for example, geography, culture, language, demographics, disease prevalence. Family physicians are encouraged to identify the gaps in health care provision in the local practice environment and work with other health care providers to meet those needs as much as possible. Data from EMRs—as well as input from patients, community members, and stakeholders—should inform team planning. Factors to consider include: Patient population Identified community health care needs Hours available for patient access Hours available for each physician to work Roles and number of non-physician providers Funds available81 Overlapping or variations of similar competencies can result in ambiguous expectations of what a defined role is within a practice. When teams are planned and developed, roles should be clearly outlined. This is best done at the local practice level relative to community needs and resources. This approach considers changes over the course of a health care professional’s career, including skills development, achievement of certifications, and professional interests.82 It is important to include time for team members to become comfortable in their role, at the outset of team-based care and with any changes to the team. It is also important to recognize that these arrangements are flexible and subject to change, provided the team engages in discussion and reaches consensus on needed adjustments. Team members might be in the same office or in the same building, but this is not necessary. For smaller and more remote practices, or larger urban centres where proximate physical space may be a barrier, some connections may be arranged with peers in other sites. Applying HIT judiciously allows for virtual referrals and consultations. Virtual links between PMH practices and other specialists, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc., can be enhanced with more formal agreements and commitments to provide timely access to care and services. By providing patients with a comprehensive array of services that best meet their needs, team-based care can lead to better access, higher patient and provider satisfaction, and greater resource efficiency.61,77,83 Although there are presently many systems in place that support the creation of health care teams, practices can also create a successful team on their own. To ensure team success, providers must have a clear understanding of the different role responsibilities and ensure that there are tools available to engage open dialogue and communication. Teams within the PMH are supported by a model that is flexible and adaptable to each situation. The skills that family physicians acquire during their training (as described in the CanMEDS-FM framework) make them well suited to provide leadership within interprofessional teams. As an important part of a PMH, teams are central to the concept of patient-centred care that is comprehensive, timely, and continuous. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 23 Pillar 7: Continuity of Care Continuity of care is defined by consistency over time related to where, how, and by whom each person’s medical care needs are addressed throughout the course of their life.84 With strong links to comprehensive team-based care (see Pillar 6: Comprehensive Team-Based Care with Family Physician Leadership), continuity of care is essential to any practice trying to deliver care truly centred on the needs of the patient. Continuity of care is rooted in a long-term patient-physician partnership in which the physician knows the patient’s history from experience and can integrate new information and decisions from a whole-person perspective efficiently without extensive investigation or record review.84 From the patient’s perspective, this includes understanding each person’s life journey and the context this brings to current health status, and the trust they have in their provider that is built over time. Past studies show that when the same physician attends to a person over time, for both minor and more serious health problems, the patient-physician relationship is strengthened and understanding grows—an essential element of effective primary health care.85 The personal physician offers their medical knowledge and expertise for a more complete understanding of the patient as a person, including the patient’s medical history and their broader social context, such as personal, family, social, and work histories (see Pillar 5: Community Adaptiveness and Social Accountability). In this model, patients, their families and/or personal caregivers, and all health care providers in the PMH team are partners in care, working together to achieve the patient’s goals and engaging in shared decision making. Understanding the patient’s needs, hopes, and fears, and their patterns of response to illness, medications, and other treatments, deepens the physician’s ability to respond to larger trends, not just the medical issue presented at any given appointment. Continuity of care can ideally support the health and well-being of patients actively and in their daily lives without focusing only on care when they are ill. The strong physician-patient relationship developed over time allows them to maintain good health and prevent illness and injury, as the physician uses their deep knowledge of their patient to work with teams of qualified health professionals to best support the patient’s well-being. Family physicians in the PMH, acting as the most responsible provider, can provide continuous care over the patient’s lifespan and develop strong relationships with patients. Research demonstrates that one of the most significant contributors to better population health is continuity of care.86,87 It found that those who see the same primary care physician continuously over time have better health outcomes, reduced emergency department use, and reductions in hospitalizations versus those who receive care from many different physicians. A Canadian study found that after controlling for demographics and health status, continuity of care was a predictor of decreased hospitalization for ambulatory caresensitive conditions (such as such as COPD, asthma, diabetes, and heart failure) and decreased emergency department visits for a wide range of family practicesensitive conditions.85 Overall “the more physicians patients see, the greater the likelihood of adverse effects; seeking care from multiple physicians in Patients live healthier, fuller lives when they receive care from a responsible provider who journeys with them and knows how their health changes over time. 7.1 The PMH enables and fosters long-term relationships between patients and the care team, thereby ensuring continuous care across the patient’s lifespan. 7.2 PMH teams ensure continuity of care is provided for their patients in different settings, including the family practice office, hospitals, long-term care and other community-based institutions, and the patient’s residence. 7.3 A PMH serves as the hub that ensures coordination and continuity of care related to all the medical services their patients receive throughout the medical community. the presence of high burdens of morbidity will be associated with a greater likelihood of adverse side effects.”86 It has been reported that a regular and consistent source of care is associated with better access to preventive care services, regardless of the patient’s financial status. Continuity of care also requires continuity in medical settings, information, and relationships. Having most medical services provided or coordinated in the same place by one’s personal family physician and team has been shown to result in better health outcomes.88 As described in Pillar 3: Connected Care, when care must be provided in different settings or by different health professionals (i.e., the medical neighbourhood), continuity can still be preserved if the PMH plays a coordination role and communicates effectively with other providers. The PMH liaises with external care providers to coordinate all aspects of care provided to patients based on their needs. This includes but is not limited to submitting and following up on referrals to specialized services, coordinating home care, and working with patients before and after discharge from hospitals or other critical care centres. In addition to this coordination role, the PMH acts as a hub by sharing, collecting, storing, and acting as a steward for all relevant patient information. This ensures that the family physician, as the most responsible provider, has a complete overview of the patient’s history. A record of care provided for each patient should be available in each medical record (preferably through an EMR) and available to all appropriate care providers (see Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure for more information about EMRs). Knowing that medical information from all sources (i.e., providers inside and outside the PMH) is consolidated in one location (physical or virtual) increases the comfort and trust of patients regarding their care. Continuity for patient health Research demonstrates that continuity of care is a key contributor to overall population health. Patients with a regular family physician experience better health outcomes and fewer hospitalizations as compared to those without.69 24 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Pillar 8: Patient- and Family-Partnered Care External factors for patient health care Patient- and family-partnered care is considered a key value to stakeholders across the health care system. In 2011, the CMA and the CNA released a set of principles to guide the transformation of Canada’s health care system.91 Patient-centred care is listed as the first principle, and as a key component of improving the overall health care experience.91 Similarly, in 2016 Patients Canada called on all levels of government to ensure that patients are at the centre of any new health accords and future health care reform.92 * Family caregivers include relatives, partners, friends, neighbours, and other community members. Patient-centred care is at the core of the PMH. Dr. Ian McWhinney—often considered the “father of family medicine”—describes patient-centred care as the provider “enter[ing] the patient’s world, to see the illness through the patient’s eyes … [It] is closely congruent with and responsive to patients’ wants, needs and preferences.”89 In this model, patients, their families and/ or personal caregivers, and all health care providers in the PMH team are partners in care, working together to achieve the patient’s goals and engaging in shareddecision making. Care should always reflect the patient’s feelings and expectations and meet their individual needs. Refer to the Best Advice guide: Patient-Centred Care in a Patient’s Medical Home90 for more information. Family caregivers* play an important role in the PMH. They help patients manage and cope with illness and can assist physicians by acting as a reliable source of health information and collaborating to develop and enact treatment plans.93 The level and type of engagement from family caregivers should always be determined by the patient. Physicians “should routinely assess the patient’s wishes regarding the nature and degree of caregiver participation in the clinical encounter and strive to provide the patient’s desired level of privacy.”94 They should revisit this conversation regularly and make changes based on patient desires. PMH practices focus on providing patient-centred care and ensuring that family caregivers are included. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 25 Family practices respond to the unique needs of patients and their families within the context of their environment. 8.1 Care and care providers in a PMH are patient-focused and provide services that respond to patients’ feelings, preferences, and expectations. 8.2 Patients, their families, and their personal caregivers are active participants in the shared-decision making process. 8.3 A PMH facilitates patients’ access to their medical information through electronic medical records as agreed upon with their care team. 8.4 Self-managed care is encouraged and supported as part of the care plans for each patient. 8.5 Strategies that encourage access to a range of care options beyond the traditional office visits (e.g., telehealth, virtual care, mobile health units, e-consult, etc.) are incorporated into the PMH. 8.6 Patient participation and formalized feedback mechanisms (e.g., patient advisory councils, patient surveys) are part of ongoing planning and evaluation. As part of their commitment to patient-centred care, PMH practices facilitate and support patient self-management. Self-management interventions such as support for decision making, self-monitoring, and psychological and social support, have been demonstrated to improve health outcomes.95 PMH team members should always consider recommendations for care from the patient’s perspective. They should work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to develop realistic action plans and teach problem-solving and coping. This is particularly important for those with chronic conditions, who must work in partnership with their physician and health care team to manage their condition over time. (Refer to the Best Advice guide: Chronic Care Management in a Patient’s Medical Home96 for more information). The goal of self-managed care should be to build the patient’s and caregiver’s confidence in their ability to deal effectively with illnesses, improve health outcomes, and foster overall well-being. To facilitate patient- and family-partnered care, a range of user-friendly options for accessing information and care beyond the traditional office visit should be available to patients when appropriate. These include email, telehealth, virtual care, mobile health units, e-consults, home visits, same-day scheduling, group visits, self-care strategies, patient education, and treatment sessions offered in community settings. Providing a range of options allows patients to access the type of care they prefer based on individual needs. Patients also need to be informed about how they can access information and resources available to them; for example, resources such as Prevention in Hand (PiH).97 Allowing patients to access to their medical records can improve patient-provider communication and increase patient satisfaction.98,99 The specific information accessible to patients should be discussed and agreed upon by the patient and their care team. Patient education about accessing and interpreting the available information is necessary. Facilitating this type of access requires each PMH to have an EMR system that allows external users to access information securely (see Pillar 2: Appropriate Infrastructure). Patient surveys and opportunities for patients to participate in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of the practice’s services should be encouraged; practices must be willing respond and adapt to patient feedback. To strengthen a patient-centred approach, practices may consider developing patients’ advisory councils or other formalized feedback mechanisms (e.g., using patient surveys) as part of their CQI processes (see Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research). Patient self-management The Ajax Harwood Clinic (AHC) is a good example of how a practice that enables patient self-management can improve long-term health outcomes, especially for patients with chronic conditions.94 The AHC has created an environment of learning and seeks to encourage health literacy among its patients through its various programs. The clinic is focused on patient education and empowerment, and all programs at the clinic are free of charge to patients to remove financial barriers to access. 26 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 27 ONGOING DEVELOPMENT Each PMH strives for ongoing development to better achieve the core functions. The PMH and its staff are committed to Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research; and Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development. MEASUREMENT, CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, AND RESEARCH PAGE 28 TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PAGE 30 28 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Continuous quality improvement CQI is an important value among health organizations such as the CFHI.100 Pillar 9: Measurement, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Research CQI is an essential characteristic of the PMH vision. It encourages health care teams to make practical improvements to their practice, while monitoring the effectiveness of their services, the health outcomes and safety of their patients, and the satisfaction of both patients and the health professionals on the team. Every PMH is committed to establishing a CQI program that will improve patient safety, and enhance efficiency and quality of the services provided to patients. As part of CQI activities, a structured approach is used to evaluate current practice processes and improve systems and to achieve desired outcomes. To engage in CQI, the PMH team must identify the desired outcomes and determine appropriate evaluation strategies. Once the process and the desired outcome are defined with patients, the CQI activity will track performance through data collection and comparison with the baseline. Performance measures can be captured through structured observation, patient and staff surveys (see Pillar 8: Patient- and Family- Partnered Care), the PMH self-assessment tool, and the practice’s EMR (see Pillar 1: Administration and Funding and Pillar 3: Connected Care). The indicators selected should be appropriate to each practice and community setting, be meaningful to the patients and community, and the CQI process could be introduced as a practice’s self-monitoring improvement program or as an assessment carried out by an external group. In some jurisdictions, funding is tied to achieving performance targets, including those that provide evidence for the delivery of more cost-effective care and better health outcomes.101 Some provinces in Canada have begun to link financial incentives to clinical outcomes and targets that have been achieved (“pay for performance” models).102 Although there may be some benefits derived by this approach, there can also be risks if funding incentives and resource supports become overly focused on patients with certain medical problems or on those who have greater potential to reach prescribed targets, while at the same time care is being delayed or denied for others.101,103 Future development A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 28 Family practices strive for progress through performance measurement and CQI. Patient safety is always a focus, and new ideas are brought to the fore through patient engagement in QI and research activities. 9.1 PMHs establish and support CQI programs that evaluate the quality and cost effectiveness of teams and the services they provide for patient and provider satisfaction. 9.2 Results from CQI are applied and used to enhance operations, services, and programs provided by the PMH. 9.3 All members of the health professional team (both clinical and support teams), as well as trainees and patients, will participate in the CQI activity carried out in each PMH. 9.4 PMHs support their physicians, other health professionals, students, and residents to initiate and participate in research carried out in their practice settings. 9.5 PMHs function as ideal sites for community-based research focused on patient health outcomes and the effectiveness of care and services. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 29 of financial incentive models should consider these unintended consequences that might impair the ability of practices to provide good quality patient care to their full population. The objectives that define a PMH could be used to develop the indicators for CQI initiatives in family practices across Canada. These criteria could be augmented by indicators recommended by organizations such as Accreditation Canada, Health Quality Ontario, Health Standards Organization, and the Patient-Centered Medical Home model in the United States. The CFPC is committed to collaborating with these groups to further develop the CQI process for PMHs and family practices. Consult the CFPC’s Practice Improvement Initiative (Pii)104 for a list of available resources. CQI is a team activity and should involve all members of the PMH team as well as patients and trainees. This will ensure buy-in from the team, allow for patient engagement and participation, and provide trainees with valuable learning opportunities.105 PMHs are committed to using the results of CQI initiatives to make tangible changes in their practice to improve operations, services, and programs. Time and effort invested into participation in CQI activities should be recognized as valuable and not be disincentivized through existing remuneration models. Dedicated time and capacity to perform these activities should be built into the practice operational principles. On a larger scale, PMHs function as ideal sites for community-based research focused on patient health outcomes and the effectiveness of care and services. The PMH team should be encouraged and supported to participate in research activities. They should also advocate for medical students, residents, and trainees to take part in these projects. In Canada, the Canadian Primary Healthcare Research Network (CPHRN) and the commitment of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research’s (CIHR’s) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) are vitally important.106 The focus on supporting patient-oriented research carried out in community primary care settings is consistent with the priorities of the PMH. Competitions for research grants such as those announced by SPOR should be strongly encouraged and supported. PMHs are ideal laboratories for studies that embrace the principles of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and the priorities defined by the CPHRN and CIHR’s SPOR project. They provide excellent settings for multi-site research initiatives, including projects like those currently undertaken by the CPCSSN—a nationwide network of family physicians conducting surveillance of various chronic diseases. 30 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 Pillar 10: Training, Education, and Continuing Professional Development PMH practices serve as training sites for medical students, family medicine residents, and those training to become nurses and other health care professionals.107 They create space for modelling and teaching practices focused on the essential roles of family physicians and interprofessional teams as part of the continuum of a health care system. One of the goals of family medicine residency training is for residents to learn to function as a member of an interdisciplinary team, caring for patients in a variety of settings including family practice offices, hospitals, long-term care and other communitybased institutions, and patients’ residences.70,108 A PMH also models making research and QI initiatives a standard feature of a family practice. Professional development and opportunities to participate in these activities should be available and supported within PMH practices through resources, guidance, and specifically dedicated time. Family medicine training is increasingly focused on achieving and maintaining competencies defined by the CFPC’s Triple C Family Medicine Curriculum.109 Triple C includes five domains of care: care of patients across the life cycle; care across clinical settings (urban and rural); a defined spectrum of clinical responsibilities; care of marginalized/disadvantaged patients and populations; and a defined list of core procedures. Triple C also incorporates the Four Principles of Family Medicine and the CanMEDS-FM Roles. PMHs allow family medicine students and residents to achieve the competencies of the Triple C curriculum and to learn how to incorporate the Four Principles of Family Medicine, the Family Medicine Professional Profile, and the CanMEDS-FM roles into their professional lives. Learners gain experience with patient-partnered care, teams/networks, EMRs, timely access to appointments, comprehensive continuing care, management of undifferentiated and complex problems, coordination of care, practice-based research, and CQI—essential elements of family practice in Canada. Furthermore, PMH practices serve as optimal sites for trainees in other medical specialties and health professions to gain valuable experience working in interprofessional teams and providing high quality, patient-centred care. Medical schools and residency programs should encourage learners to conduct some of their training within PMH practices. Emphasis on training and education ensures that the knowledge and expertise of family physicians can be shared with the broader health care community, and also over time by creating learning organizations where both students and fully practising family physicians can stay at the forefront of best practice. 10.1 PMHs are identified and supported by medical and other health professional schools as optimal locations for the experiential training of their students and residents. 10.2 PMHs teach and model their core defining elements including patient-partnered care, teams/networks, EMRs, timely access to appointments, comprehensive continuing care, management of undifferentiated and complex problems, coordination of care, practice-based research, and CQI. 10.3 PMHs provide a training environment for family medicine residents that models, and enables residents to achieve, the competencies as defined by the Triple C Competency-based Family Medicine Curriculum, the Four Principles of Family Medicine, and the CanMEDS-FM Roles. 10.4 PMHs will enable physicians and other health professionals to engage in continuing professional development (CPD) to meet the needs of their patients and their communities both individually and as a team. 10.5 PMHs enable family physicians to share their knowledge and expertise with the broader health care community. Practising family physicians must engage in CPD to keep current on medical and health care developments and to ensure their expertise reflects the changing needs of their patients, communities, and learners. Mainpro+® (Maintenance of Proficiency) is the CFPC’s program designed to support and promote family physicians’ CPD across all CanMEDS-FM Roles and competencies. CPD refers to physicians’ professional obligation to engage in learning activities that address their own identified needs and the needs of their patients; enhance knowledge, skills, and competencies across all dimensions of professional practice; and continuously improve their performance and health care outcomes within their scope of practice.110 Three foundational principles for CPD in Canada have been recently described: Socially responsive to the needs of patients and communities Informed by scientific evidence and practicebased data Designed to achieve improvement in physician practice and patient outcomes CPD is inclusive of learning across all CanMEDS-FM Roles and competencies, including clinical expertise, teaching and education, research and scholarship, and in practice-based QI. PMH practices support their physicians, and all other staff members, to engage in CPD activities throughout their careers by creating a learning culture in the organization. This includes providing protected time for learning and team-based learning, and access to practice data both to discern patient/community need and practice gaps to inform CPD choices and to evaluate the impact of learning on patient care. This learning culture and the will to be constantly improving quality and access to care is essential to ensuring that the PMH continues to support high performing care teams. To ensure that all PMH team members have the capacity to take on their required roles, leadership development programs should be offered. Enabling physicians to engage in this necessary professional development requires sufficient funding by governments to cover costs of training and financial support to ensure lost income and practice capacity do not prevent this. Physicians in the PMH share their knowledge with colleagues in the broader health care community and with other health care professionals in the team by participating in education, training, and QI activities in collaboration with the pentagram partners.† This is particularly relevant for family physicians who are focused on a particular area of practice (possibly holding a Certificate of Added Competence) and are able to share their extended expertise with others. This can happen either informally or through more official channels. For example, physicians may participate in activities organized by the CFPC or provincial Chapters (e.g., Family Medicine Forum, provincial family medicine annual scientific assemblies), or lend their expertise to interprofessional working groups addressing specific topics in health care. Family physicians should be encouraged to engage in these types of events to share their knowledge and skills for the betterment of the overall health system. Continuing professional development CPD is an integral value across the entire health care system. Organizations such as the Royal College, CMA, and CNA emphasize the value and importance of continuing education for health care professionals to improve patient care. † Pentagram partners: policy-makers—federal, provincial, territorial, and regional health authorities; health and education administrators; university; community; health professionals—physicians and teams A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 31 32 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 CONCLUSION The revised PMH vision of a high-functioning primary care system responds to the rapidly evolving health system and the changing needs of Canadians. The pillars and attributes described in this document can guide practices at various stages in the transition to a PMH, and many characteristics are found in other foundational documents of family medicine such as the Family Medicine Professional Profile111 and the Four Principles of Family Medicine. Supporting resources, such as the PMH Implementation Kit, are available to help those new to the transition overcome barriers to change. Although the core components of the PMH remain the same for all practices, each practice will implement the recommendations according to their unique needs. The PMH is focused on enhancing patient-centredness in the health care system through collaboration, access, continuity, and social accountability. It is intended to build on the long-standing historical contribution of family physicians and primary care to the health and wellbeing of Canadians, as well as on the emerging models of family practice and primary care that have been introduced across the country. Importantly, this vision provides goals and recommendations that can serve as indicators. It enables patients, family physicians, other care health professionals, researchers, health planners, and policy-makers evaluate the effectiveness of any and all models of family practice throughout Canada. Those family practices that meet the goals and recommendations described in this vision will have become PMHs, but the concept is ever evolving. As family physicians commit to making change in their practices, the CFPC commits to supporting developments in the PMH by creating and promoting new resources, which will be available through the PMH website. The CFPC will also play an important advocacy role to ensure that the necessary supports are in place to reach the goals of a PMH. Every family practice across Canada should be supported and encouraged by the public, governments, and other health care stakeholders (the pentagram partners) to achieve this objective. Doing so will ensure that every person in Canada is able to access the best possible primary care for themselves and their loved ones. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 33 REFERENCES 1. College of Family Physicians of Canada. A Vision for Canada: Family Practice - The Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2011. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/ Resource_Items/PMH_A_Vision_for_Canada.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 21. 2. National Physician Survey. 2014 National Physician Survey website. http:// nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/surveys/2014-survey/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 3. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Workforce Survey 2017 website. http:// cma.andornot.com/en/surveydata/default.aspx. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 4. Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Canada Compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2017. Available from: www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/text-alternativeversion- 2016-cmwf-en-web.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 5. Ipsos Public Affairs. The College of Family Physicians of Canada: Family Medicine in Canada Report. Toronto, ON: Ipsos; 2017. 6. World Health Organization. Primary Health Care website. www.who.int/ primary-health/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 7. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Four Principles of Family Medicine website. www.cfpc.ca/Principles/. Accessed 2019 January. 8. Canadian Medical Association. Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that works. Care that lasts. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2018. Available from: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/ PolicyPDF/PD10-05.PDF. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 9. College of Family Physicians of Canada. The Patient’s Medical Home Provincial Report Card—February 2019. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2019. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ files/uploads/PMH_ReportCard_2018.pdf. Accessed 2019 February. 10. Alberta Health. Primary Care Networks website. www.health.alberta.ca/ services/primary-care-networks.html. Accessed 2018 August 16. 11. Access Improvement Measures (AIM) Alberta. Third Next Available Appointments website. https://aimalberta.ca/index.php/2016/07/19/the-world-of-third-nextavailable- appointments-2/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 12. Office of the Premier, Ministry of Health. B.C. government’s primary healthcare strategy focuses on faster, team-based care [news release]. Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia; 2018. 13. General Practice Services Committee. What We Do: Patient Medical Homes website. www.gpscbc.ca/what-we-do/patient-medical-homes-and-primary-carenetworks. Accessed 2018 Aug 22. 14. Government of Manitoba. Frequently Asked Questions about My Health Teams website. www.gov.mb.ca/health/primarycare/myhts/faq.html#manitoba. Accessed 2018 Aug 15. 15. Chateau D, Katz A, Metge C, Taylor C, McDougall C, McCulloch S. Describing Patient Populations for the My Health Team Initiative. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2017. Available from: http://mchp-appserv.cpe. umanitoba.ca/reference//hiusers_Report_web.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 16. Government of Manitoba. Budget Paper F: Reducing Poverty and Promoting Community Involvement. Winnipeg, MB: Government of Manitoba; 2018. Available from: www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget18/papers/F_Reducing_ Proverty_r.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 17. Government of New Brunswick. New model for family medicine aims to improve physician access [news release]. Fredericton, NB: Government of New Brunswick; 2017. Available from: www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/ news_release.2017.06.0849.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 18. Health, Office of the Premier. Twenty-five new doctors to be added to New Brunswick’s health-care system to reduce wait times [news release]. Fredericton, NB: Government of New Brunswick; 2018. Available from: www2.gnb.ca/ content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2018.02.0140.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 19. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities: A Primary Health Care Framework for Newfoundland and Labrador 2015-2025. St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2015. Available from: www.health.gov.nl.ca/health/ publications/PHC_Framework_update_Nov26.pdf. Accessed 2018 November. 20. Health and Community Services. Supporting Health Communities: Primary Health Care Team has Success at the Gathering Place [news release]. St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; 2016. Available from: www. releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2016/health/1124n01.aspx. Accessed 2018 Nov. 21. Nova Scotia Health Authority. Collaborative Family Practice Teams website. www. nshealth.ca/collaborative-family-practice-teams. Accessed 2019 January. 22. Government of Ontario. Family Health Teams website. www.health.gov.on.ca/ en/pro/programs/fht/. Accessed 2018 August 16. 23. Conference Board of Canada. Final Report: An External Evaluation of the Family Health Team (FHT) Initiative. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada; 2014. Available from: www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/abstract.aspx?did=6711. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 24. Kralj B, Kantarevic J, OMA Economics Department. Primary care model enrolment and hospital length of stay in Ontario: patient rostering associated with reduced length of stay, significant health system savings. Ontario Medical Review. Sept 2012, 16-19. Available from: www.oma.org/wp-content/ uploads/sept2012_primary_care_model.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 25. Tiagi R, Chechulin Y. The Effect of Rostering with a Patient Enrolment Model on Emergency Department Utilization. Healthcare Policy. 2014;9(4):105-121. Available from: www.longwoods.com/content/23809//the-effect-of-rosteringwith- a-patient-enrolment-model-on-emergency-department-utilization. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 26. Health PEI. Health Centres Offer Primary Care [news release]. Charlottetown, PE: Government of Prince Edward Island; 2015. Available from: www. princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/health-pei/health-centres-offerprimary- care. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 27. Gouvernement du Québec. Groupe de médecine de famille (GMF), groupe de médecine de famille universitaire (GMF-U) et super-clinique website. www. quebec.ca/sante/systeme-et-services-de-sante/organisation-des-services/gmfgmf- u-et-super-clinique/. Accessed 2019 January. 28. Government of Saskatchewan. Fact Sheet: Connected Care [news release]. Regina, SK: Government of Saskatchewan; 2018. 29. Pomey MP, Ghadiri DP, Karazivan P, Fernandez N, Clavel N. Patients as partners: a qualitative study of patients’ engagement in their health care. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122499. 30. Pointer DD, Orlikoff JE. Board Work: Governing Health Care Organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1999. 31. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. Mythbusters: Most Physicians Prefer Fee-for-Services Payments. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2010. Available from: www.cfhi-fcass. ca/sf-docs/default-source/mythbusters/Myth-Fee-for-Service-E.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 32. Blomqvist A, Busby C. How to Pay Family Doctors: Why “Pay per Patient” is Better than Fee for Service. Toronto, ON: C.D Howe Institute; 2012. Available from: www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/ mixed/Commentary_365.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 33. Holden M, Madore O. Remuneration of Primary Care Physicians (PRB 01-35E). Ottawa, ON: Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Research Branch; 2002. Available from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/ PRB-e/PRB0135-e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 34. Carter R, Riverin B, Levesque JF, Gariepy G, Quesnel-Vallee A. The impact of primary care reform on health system performance in Canada: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:324. 35. Kiran T, Kopp A, Moineddin R, Glazier RH. Longitudinal evaluation of physician payment reform and team-based care for chronic disease management and prevention. CMAJ. 2015;187(17):E494-502. 36. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Physician Remuneration in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: 34 A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https:// patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guidephysician- remuneration-patients-medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 37. Hutchison B, Levesque JF, Strumpf E, Coyle N. Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2): 256-288. 38. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B. Toward a Primary Care Strategy for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. Available from: www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Reports/Primary-Care-Strategy- EN.sflb.ashx. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 39. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Canada Health Infoway: The emerging benefits of electronic medical record use in community-based care. Toronto, ON: PricewaterhouseCoopers; 2013. Available from: www.pwc.com/ca/en/healthcare/ publications/pwc-electronic-medical-record-use-community-based-care-report- 2013-06-en.pdf. Accessed 2018 Jul 3. 40. Canada Health Infoway. Use of Electronic Medical Records among Canadian Physicians, 2017 Update. Toronto, ON: Canada Health Infoway; 2017. 41. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Supporting access to data in electronic medical records for quality improvement and research [position statement]. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Health_Policy/CFPC_Policy_ Papers_and_Endorsements/CFPC_Policy_Papers/CFPC-Position-Statement- Supporting-access-data-electronic-medical-records-EN.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 42. Jamieson T, Wallace R, Armstrong K, Agarwal P, Griffin B, Wong I, et al. Virtual Care: A Framework for a Patient-Centric System. Toronto, ON: Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care; 2015. Available from: www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/wihv/WIHV_ VirtualHealthSymposium.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 43. McGrail KM, Ahuja MA, Leaver CA. Virtual Visits and Patient-Centered Care: Results of a Patient Survey and Observational Study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e177. 44. Canadian Medical Association. Managing your Practice website. www.cma.ca/ managing-your-practice. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 45. Chang F, Gupta N. Progress in electronic medical record adoption in Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(12):1076-1084. 46. Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Medical Association, Health Action Lobby. Integration: A New Direction for Canadian Health Care—A Report on the Health Provider Summit Process. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2013. Available from: www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/files/en/cna_ cma_heal_provider_summit_transformation_to_integrated_care_e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 47. Canada Health Infoway website. www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 48. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. Connected Medicine website. www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/connected-medicine. Accessed 2018 Aug 15. 49. Rajakulendra N, Macintosh E, Salah H. Transforming Health: Toward decentralized and connected care. Toronto, ON: MaRS Discovery District; 2014. Available from: www.marsdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sep15- MaRS-Whitepapers-SmartHealth.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 50. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Advanced and Meaningful Use of EMRs. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2018. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/ best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-advanced-and-meaningful-use-ofemrs/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 51. Ontario Primary Care Council. Position Statement: Care Co-ordination in Primary Care. Toronto, ON: Ontario Primary Care Council; 2015. Available from: www.afhto.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPCC_Care-Coordination-Position. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 52. Wong ST, Watson DE, Young E, Regan S. What do people think is important about primary healthcare? Healthcare Policy. 2008; 3(3):89-104. 53. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Position Statement: Ensuring Equitable Access to Care: Strategies for Government, Health System Planners and the Medical Profession. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available from: www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/2018-11/PD14-04-e.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 54. Canadian Nurses Association. Position Statement: Primary Health Care. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2015. Available from: www.cna-aiic. ca/-/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/primary-health-care-position-statement. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 55. Canadian Nurses Association. Social Justice … a means to an end, an end in itself; 2nd edition. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Nurses Association; 2010. Available from: www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/social_justice_2010_e. pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 56. Barry DW, Melhado TV, Chacko KM, Lee RS, Steiner J, Kutner JS. Patient and physician perceptions of timely access to care. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(2):130-133. 57. Glass DP, Kanter M, Jacobsen SJ, Minardi PM. The impact of improving access to primary care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(6):1451-1458. 58. Hudec JC, MacDougall S, Rankin E. Advanced access appointments: effects on family physician satisfaction, physicians’ office income, and emergency department use. Can Fam Phys. 2010;56(10):e361-e367. 59. Stalker CA. How have physicians and patients at New Vision Family Health Team experienced the shift to a family health team model? Final Report. Unpublished; 2010. 60. Murray M, Tantau C. Same-day appointments: exploding the access paradigm. Fam Pract Manag. 2000;7(8):45-50. 61. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Timely Access to Appointments in Family Practice. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2012. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-timely-access/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 62. Lemire F. First contact: what does it mean for family practice in 2017? Can Fam Phys. 2017;63(3):256. 63. Williams DL. Balancing rationalities: gatekeeping in health care. J Med Ethics. 2001;27(1):25-29. 64. Murray M, Davies M, Boushon B. Panel size: How many patients can one doctor manage? Fam Pract Manag. 2007;14(4):44-51. 65. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Panel Size. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2012. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/best-advice-guides/bestadvice- guide-panel-size/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 66. Buchman S, Woollard R, Meili R, Goel R. Practising social accountability. Can Fam Phys. 2016; 62(1):15-18. 67. National Collaborating Centre of Determinants of Health website. www.nccdh. ca/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 68. National Collaborating Centre on Aboriginal Health website. www.nccahccnsa. ca/en/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 69. College of Family Physicians of Canada. CanMEDS–Family Medicine 2017: A competency framework for family physicians across the continuum. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/Resource_Items/Health_ Professionals/CanMEDS-Family-Medicine-2017-ENG.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 70. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Social Determinants of Health. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/bestadvice- guides/best-advice-guide-social-determinants-health/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 71. Lightman E, Mitchell A, Wilson B. Poverty is making us sick: A comprehensive survey of income and health in Canada. Toronto, ON: The Wellesley Institute; 2008. Available from: www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ povertyismakingussick.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 18. 72. White AA 3rd, Logghe HJ, Goodenough DA, Barnes LL, Hallward A, Allen IM, et al. Self-Awareness and Cultural Identity as an Effort to Reduce Bias in Medicine. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018;5(1):34-49. 73. Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network website. http://cpcssn. ca/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 74. Pinto AD, Bloch G. Framework for building primary care capacity to address the social determinants of health. Can Fam Phys. 2017;63(11):e476-482. A NEW VISION FOR CANADA Family Practice— The Patient’s Medical Home 2019 35 75. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Team-Based Care in the Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/resources/ best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-team-based-care-patients-medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 76. Grant R, Finocchio L, Pew Health Professions Commission, California Primary Care Consortium. Interdisciplinary collaborative teams in primary care: a model curriculum and resource guide. San Francisco, CA: Pew Health Professions Commission; 1995. 77. Schottenfeld L, Petersen D, Peikes D, Ricciardi R, Burak H, McNellis R, et al. Creating Patient-Centered Team-Based Primary Care. AHRQ Pub. No. 16- 0002-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016. 78. Department of Health. Part 3: The accreditation of GPs and Pharmacists with Special Interests, In: Implementing care closer to home: Convenient quality care for patients. London, UK: Department of Health; 2007. Available from: www.pcc-cic.org.uk/sites/default/files/articles/attachments/improved_quality_ of_care_p3_accreditation.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 79. Department of Health. Part 1: Introduction and overview, In: Implementing care closer to home: Convenient quality care for patients. London, UK: Department of Health; 2007. Available from: www.pcc-cic.org.uk/sites/default/ files/articles/attachments/improved_quality_of_care_p1_introduction.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 80. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Communities of Practice in the Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome. ca/resources/best-advice-guides/communities-practice-patients-medicalhome/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 81. Dinh T. Improving Primary Health Care Through Collaboration: Briefing 2— Barriers to Successful Interprofessional Teams. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada; 2012. Available from: www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/ abstract.aspx?did=5181&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 82. Nelson S, Turnbull J, Bainbridge L, Caulfield T, Hudon G, Kendel D, et al. Optimizing Scopes of Practice: New Models for a New Health Care System. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Academy of Health Sciences; 2014. 83. Mautner DB, Pang H, Brenner JC, Shea JA, Gross KS, Frasso R, et al. Generating hypotheses about care needs of high utilizers: lessons from patient interviews. Popul Health Manag. 2013;16(Suppl1):S26-33. 84. American Academy of Family Physicians. Definition of Continuity of Care website. www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/definition-care.html. Accessed 2018 July 25. 85. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Continuity of Care With Family Medicine Physicians: Why It Matters. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2015. Available from: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/UPC_ ReportFINAL_EN.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 86. Starfield B, Chang HY, Lemke KW, Weiner JP. Ambulatory specialist use by nonhospitalized patients in us health plans: correlates and consequences. J Ambul Care Manage. 2009;32(3):216-25. 87. Pereira Gray DJ, Sidaway-Lee K, White E, Thorne A, Evans PH. Continuity of care with doctors-a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e021161. 88. Starfield B, Shi L. The medical home, access to care, and insurance: a review of evidence. Pediatrics. 2004;113(Supplement 4):1495. 89. McWhinney I. The Need for a Transformed Clinical Method. In: Communicating with Medical Patients. London, UK: Sage; 1989:25. 90. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Patient-Centred Care in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2014. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome. ca/resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-patient-centredness/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 91. Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association. Principles to Guide Health Care Transformation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2011. 92. Patients Canada. Why we need a Health Accord with Patients at the Centre [news release]. Toronto, ON: Patients Canada; 2016. Available from: https:// patientscanada.ca/2016/01/18/why-we-need-a-health-accord-with-patients-atthe- centre/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 93. Omole FS, Sow CM, Fresh E, Babalola D, Strothers H. Interacting with patients’ family members during the office visit. Am Fam Physician. 2011; 84(7): 780-784. 94. Mitnick S, Leffler C, Hood VL; American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. Family caregivers, patients and physicians: ethical guidance to optimize relationships. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):255-60. 95. Panagioti M, Richardson G, Small N, Murray E, Rogers A, Kennedy A, et al. Self-management support interventions to reduce health care utilisation without compromising outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:356. 96. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Best Advice guide: Chronic Care Management in a Patient’s Medical Home. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. Available from: https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/ resources/best-advice-guides/best-advice-guide-chronic-care-managementpatients- medical-home/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 97. Prevention in Hand website. www.preventioninhand.com. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 98. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40. 99. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44. 100. Health Council of Canada. Which way to quality? Key perspectives on quality improvement in Canadian health care systems. Toronto, ON: Health Council of Canada; 2013. Available from: https://healthcouncilcanada.ca/files/ QIReport_ENG_FA.pdf. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 101. Mattison CA, Wilson MC. Rapid Synthesis: Examining the Effects of Valuebased Physician Payment Models. Hamilton, ON: McMaster Health Forum; 2017. Available from: www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/productdocuments/ rapid-responses/examining-the-effects-of-value-based-physicianpayment- models.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. \ 102. Kaczorowski J, Hearps SJ, Lohfeld L, Goeree R, Donald F, Burgess K, et al. Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates. Can Fam Phys. 2013; 59(6): e282-9. 103. Hutchison B. Pay for performance in primary care: proceed with caution, pitfalls ahead. Healthc Policy. 2008; 4(1): 10-15. 104. College of Family Physicians of Canada. The Practice Improvement Initiative (Pii) website. www.cfpc.ca/pii/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 105. Ontario College of Family Physicians. Advancing Practice Improvement in Primary Care – Final Report. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Family Physicians; 2015. Available from: https://ocfp.on.ca/docs/default-source/ default-document-library/hqo_final_report_advancing_practice_improvement_in_ primary_care.pdf?sfvrsn=d793f489_4. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 106. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research website. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 107. Hasley PB, Simak D, Cohen E, Buranosky R. Training residents to work in a patient-centered medical home: What are the outcomes? J Grad Med Educ. 2016; 8(2): 226-231. 108. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Specific Standards for Family Medicine Residency Programs – The Red Book. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2016. 109. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Triple C Competency Based Curriculum website. www.cfpc.ca/Triple_C/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22. 110. Filipe HP, Silva ED, Stulting AA, Golnik KC. Continuing professional development: Best practices. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014; 21(2): 134-141. 111. College of Family Physicians of Canada. Family Medicine Professional Profile website. www.cfpc.ca/fmprofile/. Accessed 2019 Jan 22.
Documents
Less detail

Health Care Coverage for Migrants: An Open Letter to the Canadian Federal Government

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13940
Date
2018-12-15
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy endorsement
Date
2018-12-15
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau & Ministers Taylor and Hussen, We are writing to you today as members of the health community to urge your action on a crucial matter pertaining to health and human rights. You will no doubt be aware that the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) recently issued a landmark decision condemning Canada for denying access to essential health care on the basis of immigration status based on the case of Nell Toussaint. Nell is a 49-year-old woman from Grenada who has been living in Canada since 1999, and who suffered significant negative health consequences as a result of being denied access to essential health care services. The UNHRC’s decision condemns Canada’s existing discriminatory policies, and finds Canada to be in violation of both the right to life, as well as the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. Based on its review of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UNHRC has declared that Canada must provide Nell with adequate compensation for the significant harm she suffered. As well, they have called on Canada to report on its review of national legislation within a 180-day period, in order “to ensure that irregular migrants have access to essential health care to prevent a reasonably foreseeable risk that can result in loss of life”. The United Nations Special Rapporteur has pushed for the same, calling on the government “to protect health-related rights to life, security of the person, and equality of individuals and groups in situations of vulnerability”. Nell is one of an estimated half million people in Ontario alone who are denied access to health coverage and care on the basis of their immigration status, putting their health at risk. As members of Canada’s health community, we are appalled by the details of this case as well as its broad implications, and call on the government to: 1. Comply with the UNHRC’s order to review existing laws and policies regarding health care coverage for irregular migrants. 2. Ensure appropriate resource allocation, so that all people in Canada are provided universal and equitable access to health care services, regardless of immigration status. 3. Provide Nell Toussaint with adequate compensation for the significant harm she has suffered as a result of not receiving essential health care services. For more information on this issue, please see our backgrounder here: https://goo.gl/V9vPyo. Sincerely, Arnav Agarwal, MD, Internal Medicine Resident, University of Toronto, Toronto ON Nisha Kansal, BHSc, MD Candidate, McMaster University, Hamilton ON Michaela Beder, MD, Psychiatrist, Toronto ON Ritika Goel, MD, Family Physician, Toronto ON This open letter is signed by the following organizations and individuals: Bathurst United Church TOPS 1. Arnav Agarwal, MD, Internal Medicine Resident, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 2. Nisha Kansal, BHSc, MD Candidate, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 3. Michaela Beder, MD FRCPC, Psychiatrist, Toronto ON 4. Ritika Goel, MD, Family Physician, Toronto ON 5. Gordon Guyatt, MD FRCPC, Internal Medicine Specialist, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 6. Melanie Spence, RN, Nursing, South Riverdale Community Health Centre, Toronto ON 7. Yipeng Ge, BHSc, Medical Student, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON 8. Stephen Hwang, MD, Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 9. Gigi Osler, BScMed, MD, FRCSC, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa ON 10. Anjum Sultana, MPH, Public Policy Professional, Toronto ON 11. Danyaal Raza, MD, MPH, CCFP, Family Medicine, Toronto ON 12. P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Cardiologist, McMaster University, Brantford ON 13. Mathura Karunanithy, MA, Public Policy Researcher, Toronto ON 14. Philip Berger, MD, Family Physician, Toronto ON 15. Nanky Rai, MD MPH, Primary Care Physician, Toronto ON 16. Michaela Hynie, Prof, Researcher, York University, Toronto ON 17. Meb Rashid, MD CCFP FCFP, Family Physician, Toronto ON 18. Sally Lin, MPH, Public Health, Victoria BC 19. Jonathon Herriot, BSc, MD, CCFP, Family Physician, Toronto ON 20. Carolina Jimenez, RN, MPH, Nurse, Toronto ON 21. Rushil Chaudhary, BHSc, Medical Student, Toronto ON 22. Nisha Toomey, MA (Ed), PhD Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 23. Matei Stoian, BSc, BA, Medical Student, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 24. Ruth Chiu, MD, Family Medicine Resident, Kingston ON 25. Priya Gupta, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 26. The Neighbourhood Organization (TNO), Toronto, ON 27. Mohammad Asadi-Lari, MD/PhD Candidate, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 28. Kathleen Hughes, MD Candidate, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 29. Nancy Vu, MPA, Medical Student, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 30. Ananthavalli Kumarappah, MD, Family Medicine Resident, University of Calgary, Calgary AB 31. Renee Sharma, MSc, Medical Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 32. Daniel Voloshin, Medical Student , McMaster Medical School , Hamilton ON 33. Sureka Pavalagantharajah, Medical Student, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 34. Alice Cavanagh , MD/PhD Student, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 35. Krish Bilimoria, MD(c), Medical Student, University of Toronto, North York ON 36. Bilal Bagha, HBSc, Medical Student, St. Catharines ON 37. Rana Kamhawy, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 38. Annie Yu, Medical Student, Toronto ON 39. Samantha Rossi, MA, Medical Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 40. Carlos Chan, MD Candidate, Medical Student, McMaster University, St Catharines ON 41. Jacqueline Vincent, MA, Medical Student, McMaster, Kitchener ON 42. Eliza Pope, BHSc, Medical Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 43. Cara Elliott, MD, Medical Student, Toronto ON 44. Antu Hossain, MPH, Public Health Professional, East York ON 45. Lyubov Lytvyn, MSc, PhD Student in Health Research, McMaster University, Burlington ON 46. Michelle Cohen, MD, CCFP, Family Physician, Brighton ON 47. Serena Arora, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 48. Saadia Sediqzadah, MD, Psychiatrist, Toronto ON 49. Maxwell Tran, Medical Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 50. Asia van Buuren, BSc, Medical Student, Toronto ON 51. Darby Little, Medical Student, University of Toronto, Toronto ON 52. Ximena Avila Monroy, MD MSc, Psychiatry Resident, Sherbrooke QC 53. Abeer Majeed, MD, CCFP, Family Physician, Toronto ON 54. Oluwatobi Olaiya, RN, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 55. Ashley Warnock, MSc, HBSc, HBA, Medical Student, McMaster University, Hamilton ON 56. Nikhita Singhal, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 57. Nikki Shah, MD Candidate, Medical Student, Hamilton ON 58. Karishma Ramjee, MD Family Medicine Resident , Scarborough ON 59. Yan Zhang, MSc, Global Health Professional, Toronto ON 60. Megan Saunders, MD, Family Physician, Toronto ON 61. Pooja Gandhi, MSc, Speech Pathologist, Mississauga ON 62. Julianna Deutscher, MD, Resident, Toronto ON 63. Diana Da Silva, MSW, Social Worker, Toronto ON Health Care Coverage for Migrants: An Open Letter to the Canadian Federal Government Sign here - https://goo.gl/forms/wAXTJE6YiqUFSo8x1 The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada The Honourable Ginette P. Taylor, Minister of Health The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship CC: Mr. Dainius Puras, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health Dear Prime Minister Trudeau & Ministers Taylor and Hussen, We are writing to you today as members of the health community to urge your action on a crucial matter pertaining to health and human rights. You will no doubt be aware that the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) recently issued a landmark decision condemning Canada for denying access to essential health care on the basis of immigration status based on the case of Nell Toussaint. Nell is a 49-year-old woman from Grenada who has been living in Canada since 1999, and who suffered significant negative health consequences as a result of being denied access to essential health care services. The UNHRC’s decision condemns Canada’s existing discriminatory policies, and finds Canada to be in violation of both the right to life, as well as the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. Based on its review of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UNHRC has declared that Canada must provide Nell with adequate compensation for the significant harm she suffered. As well, they have called on Canada to report on its review of national legislation within a 180-day period, in order “to ensure that irregular migrants have access to essential health care to prevent a reasonably foreseeable risk that can result in loss of life”. The United Nations Special Rapporteur has pushed for the same, calling on the government “to protect health-related rights to life, security of the person, and equality of individuals and groups in situations of vulnerability”. Nell is one of an estimated half million people in Ontario alone who are denied access to health coverage and care on the basis of their immigration status, putting their health at risk. As members of Canada’s health community, we are appalled by the details of this case as well as its broad implications, and call on the government to: 1. Comply with the UNHRC’s order to review existing laws and policies regarding health care coverage for irregular migrants. 2. Ensure appropriate resource allocation, so that all people in Canada are provided universal and equitable access to health care services, regardless of immigration status. 3. Provide Nell Toussaint with adequate compensation for the significant harm she has suffered as a result of not receiving essential health care services. For more information on this issue, please see our backgrounder here: https://goo.gl/V9vPyo. Sincerely, Arnav Agarwal, MD, Internal Medicine Resident, University of Toronto, Toronto ON Nisha Kansal, BHSc, MD Candidate, McMaster University, Hamilton ON Michaela Beder, MD, Psychiatrist, Toronto ON Ritika Goel, MD, Family Physician, Toronto ON
Documents
Less detail