Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


14 records – page 1 of 2.

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (Update 2000)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy165
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2000-12-09
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2000-12-09
Replaces
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (1989)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (UPDATE 2000) The Canadian Medical Association has developed the following general principles to serve as guidelines for various bodies, health care professionals and the general public. Specific aspects of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficency syndrome (AIDS) that relate to physicians' ethical responsibilities as well as society's moral obligations are discussed. Such matters include: the need for education, research and treatment resources; the patient's right to investigation and treatment and to refuse either; the need to obtain the patient's informed consent; the right to privacy and confidentiality; the importance of infection control; and the right to financial compensation in the case of occupational exposure to HIV. Education Physicians should keep their knowledge of AIDS and HIV infection up to date. Physicians should educate patients and the general public in the prevention of AIDS by informing them of means available to protect against the risk of HIV infection and to avoid further transmission of the virus. Health authorities should maintain an active public education program on AIDS that includes the school population and such initiatives as public service announcements by the media. Resources All levels of government should provide resources for adequate information and education of health care professionals and the public on HIV-related diseases; research into the prevention and treatment of HIV infection and AIDS; and the availability and accessibility of proper diagnosis and care for all patients with HIV infection. HIV antibody testing Physicians have an ethical responsibility to recommend appropriate testing for HIV antibody and to care for their patients with AIDS or refer them to where treatment is available. Physicians should provide counselling to patients before and after HIV antibody testing. Because of the potential psychologic, social and economic consequences attached to a positive HIV test result, informed consent must, with rare exceptions, be obtained from a patient before testing. However, the CMA endorses informed mandatory testing for HIV infection in cases involving the donation of blood, body fluids or organs. The CMA recognizes that people who have doubts about their serologic status may avoid being tested for fear of indiscretion and therefore supports voluntary non-nominal testing of potential HIV carriers on request. The CMA supports the Canadian Blood Service and Hema-Québec in their programs of testing and screening blood donations and blood products. Confidentiality in reporting and contact tracing The CMA supports the position that cases of HIV infection should be reported non-nominally with enough information to be epidemiologically useful. In addition, each confirmed case of AIDS should be reported non-nominally to a designated authority for epidemiologic purposes. The CMA encourages attending physicians to assist public health authorities to trace and counsel confidentially all contacts of patients with HIV infection. Contact tracing should be carried out with the cooperation and participation of the patient to provide maximum flexibility and effectiveness in alerting and counselling as many potentially infected people as possible. In some jurisdictions physicians may be compelled to provide detailed information to public health authorities. In such circumstances, the CMA urges those involved to maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible and to take all reasonable steps to inform the patient that their information is being disclosed. The CMA Code of Ethics (article 22) advises physicians that disclosure of a patient’s HIV status to a spouse or current sexual partner may not be unethical and, indeed, may be indicated when physicians are confronted with an HIV-infected patient who is unwilling to inform the person at risk. Such disclosure may be justified when all of the following conditions are met: the partner is at risk of infection with HIV and has no other reasonable means of knowing of the risk; the patient has refused to inform his or her sexual partner; the patient has refused an offer of assistance by the physician to do so on the patient's behalf; and the physician has informed the patient of his or her intention to disclose the information to the partner. The CMA stresses the need to respect the confidentiality of patients with HIV infection and consequently recommends that legal and regulatory safeguards to protect such confidentiality be established and maintained. Infection control Health care institutions and professionals should ensure that adequate infection-control measures in the handling of blood and body fluids are in place and that the rights of professionals directly involved in patient care to be informed of and protected from the risks of HIV infection are safeguarded. The CMA does not recommend routine testing of hospitalized patients. The CMA urges appropriate funding agencies to assess the explicit and implicit costs of infection control measures and to ensure that additional funds are provided to cover these extraordinary costs. Occupational exposure and the health care professional Health care workers should receive adequate financial compensation in the case of HIV infection acquired as a result of accidental occupational exposure. Physicians and other health care providers with HIV infection have the same rights as others to be protected from wrongful discrimination in the workplace and to be eligible for financial compensation for work-related infection. Physicians with HIV infection should consult appropriate colleagues to determine the nature and extent of the risk related to their continued involvement in the care of patients.
Documents
Less detail

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14079
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Antimicrobials (which include antibiotics) are a precious public resource and an essential tool for fighting infections in both humans and animals. Their importance to human medical, nutritional and economic security cannot be understated. Yet globally, antimicrobials are losing their effectiveness more quickly than new such drugs, treatments and therapies are being identified and introduced to market.1 Over time, this dynamic has eroded the human antimicrobial arsenal, placing the lives and futures of an unacceptable number of people at risk. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites come into contact with antimicrobial drugs, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, antimalarials and anthelmintics, and undergo changes. The drugs are rendered ineffective and cannot eradicate infections from the body. AMR is an international challenge that threatens to reverse over a century of progress in public health, health care and human development attributable to antimicrobial use. Indeed, the effects of AMR are already being felt across Canada’s health care system. Currently, Canada’s dedicated investment in solutions to militate against encroaching AMR in the AMR and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) fields (both federally and provincially/territorially) can only be viewed as wholly inadequate to address the scope of the problem and the risks it poses for the health of Canadians. Therefore, to: (1) promote awareness of AMR; (2) incentivize investment in AMR mitigation strategies; and (3) support the mobilization of an effective suite of more clinically effective management/treatment practices and policies, the following target audience recommendations are offered.a a All the policy recommendations made in this document are not meant to be interpreted as clinical practice guidelines. Any individual who suspects they may have an infection should promptly consult a physician. 2 Key AMR principle — the “One Health” approach a) The complexity of AMR underscores the need for coordinated action known as the “One Health” approach. The term implies integrated strategies that span the human, animal/agricultural and environmental sectors. Thus, cooperation across a wide variety of stakeholders is necessary to address the collective nature of AMR. These stakeholders include governments, health professionals, private and public partners, and the public at large. b) The One Health approach will require attention and investment in the following domains: (1) surveillance of antimicrobial prescribing and usage; (2) infection prevention and control practices that mitigate the spread of resistant pathogens; (3) stewardship programs and practices that educate health professionals, the public, and the private sector and nudge each into more appropriate patterns of supply and demand; and (4) a program of innovation, research and development focused on diagnostics, vaccines and alternative treatments to reduce reliance on antimicrobials. This includes the development of novel antimicrobials that expand the currently available arsenal. c) Given the global dimensions of AMR, a successful One Health approach will require ambitious investments in global AMR mitigation. Given that health infrastructure and resources are limited in low- to middle-income countries, the impacts of AMR will primarily be felt in those settings. Recommendations 1. Physicians and allied health professionals Should: a) Be aware that AMR is a serious public health crisis. b) Know that various Canadian prescribing aides/guidelines are available to assist physicians in choosing appropriate antibiotics and improving practice (e.g., Choosing Wisely Canada). c) Know that using antibiotics appropriately can help combat AMR and that diagnosis and laboratory testing play a key role. This includes only prescribing antibiotics for conditions that are clinically infectious and of a non-viral nature. Viral infections are the greatest source of antibiotic misuse. d) Consider delayed prescriptions and/or prioritize follow-up for patients when diagnosis is initially undifferentiated or when symptoms worsen, progress or are prolonged. e) Know that prevention of infections through hand hygiene, vaccination and appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis is evidence based and effective f) Know that durations of therapy and dosage rates for treating many infections change with time and that you should prescribe antimicrobials for the shortest effective duration (using the narrowest spectrum possible). 3 g) Consider the potential side effects of antibiotics (including C. difficile and allergic reactions) in prescribing and when counselling patients as to their potential side effects. h) Engage in conversations with patients about antimicrobials regarding: i. their appropriate use; ii. their potential risks; iii. when to delay, begin or end an antimicrobial prescription (e.g., delayed prescriptions); and iv. when to seek medical reassessment if symptoms worsen or persist. i) Ask your local hospital or specialty organization about educational initiatives related to antibiotic prescribing. j) Collaborate where possible with colleagues in other prescribing professions to reduce unnecessary antimicrobial use. 2. Patients and the Canadian public Should: a) Be aware that AMR is a significant problem that is linked to the inappropriate use of antimicrobials like antibiotics. Therefore, commit to only taking antibiotics if they are prescribed and only as directed by an authorized health professional. i. Never share, or use, the antibiotics of others as it may contribute to AMR and have serious consequences for your health. b) Consider that your expectations about antimicrobials may unduly pressure physicians, and other prescribers, to provide you a prescription when an antimicrobial would not be appropriate or helpful. c) Engage in a conversation with prescribers about: i. whether an antimicrobial is necessary; ii. the risks associated with taking an antimicrobial; iii. whether there are simpler and safer options to pursue; and iv. when you should take further actions if your symptoms worsen or do not improve. d) Rather than keeping antimicrobials in your medicine cabinet, throwing them in the garbage/toilet or sharing them with family or friends, practise a One Health mindset. Dispose of all unused and expired antimicrobials at your local pharmacy. This will limit the spread of resistance and prevent antimicrobials from finding their way into the environment. e) Help limit resistance by staying up to date with all recommended vaccinations, and practise good hand hygiene. f) If you or a family member have had personal experiences with AMR, consider sharing them with local politicians (provincial/territorial and federal). 3. Governments (federal, provincial/territorial) Should: 4 a) (Including internationally) immediately make substantial, long term, coordinated and directly dedicated financial investments in AMR and AMS. Specific areas to prioritize include: i. AMR and AMS awareness campaigns targeted to the public; ii. campaigns that support health professionals to incorporate AMS principles into their everyday practice; iii. detailed, and integrated, action plans based on clear metrics of success and that address the needs of communities, primary care practitioners, patients and health care organizations (including long-term care facilities); iv. practical surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, purchasing, prescribing and use that maximizes the opportunity to respond to changing landscapes; v. studying in detail the links, and associated risks, between animal health and agricultural practices and human health; vi. scaling up local AMS initiatives at the provincial/territorial and national health care delivery levels; vii. pharmaceutical development pipelines and non-pharmacological treatment options for AMR infections; viii. inexpensive, accurate and timely point-of-care diagnostic tests (usable in the community, at the bedside or in a clinic) to optimize prescribing; and ix. fostering clinical research, development and innovation in the fields of AMR and AMS. b) Scale up coordination between federal and provincial/territorial AMR and AMS activities. c) Hold regular, high-level meetings of ministers of health, agriculture and finance (both federally and provincially/territorially) to discuss the implications of unchecked AMR and how best to mobilize public finances to address it. d) Strongly consider an arms-length, national-level taskforce to address AMR and AMS. e) Strengthen the roles of the chief public health officer and the provincial/territorial chief medical officers in addressing AMR and AMS. f) Undertake a timely review of the Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARRS) with an emphasis on: i. scaling up the system; ii. standardizing all AMR reporting metrics across the country; and iii. injecting adequate resources into AMR surveillance and tracking antimicrobial usage rates. g) Establish a permanent review body on infectious disease, including pharmacists, microbiologist and other experts, to evaluate the forthcoming Pan-Canadian Action Plan on AMR and release regular progress reports. 5 4. Health care institutions and organizations Should: a) Implement strategic AMR plans that are coordinated, cross-departmental and adopted institution wide. These should be premised on: i. standardized and comprehensive reporting metrics for AMR and antimicrobial usage; ii. tailored infection prevention and control programs to screen for and effectively prevent new AMR infections; iii. improving public and professional awareness of AMR organization wide; iv. improving conservation measures such as prescribing practices (audit and feedback, incentives programs, etc.); and v. supporting and incentivizing appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials. b) Evaluate whether existing policies and procedures, diagnostics and testing capacities, and multidisciplinary and organizational cultures are strategically geared toward combatting AMR. c) Where possible, develop collaborations with other local health institutions, clinical researchers and community, public and private partners to promote AMS. 5. Accreditation and regulatory bodies Should: a) Regularly review and establish meaningful criteria for accreditation, ethical codes and regulatory practice standards surrounding AMR and AMS so that practitioners and health institutions can be informed, supported and kept up to date on emerging AMR trends, practices and issues. b) Adopt profession-specific mandatory requirements for AMR and AMS (proper credentialing and training, regular updating of knowledge and competence for prescribing antimicrobials, appropriate data collection regarding antimicrobial usage, etc.) as part of credentialing. c) Work to promote, support and enhance existing AMS practices and programs. d) Collaborate with health institutions, professional health associations and other accreditation and regulatory bodies to implement AMS goals/plans. 6. Colleges and faculties for medicine and allied health professions Should: a) Promote and support more educational resources for AMS and AMR, throughout the continuum of education (undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education). i. Topics for these resources should include (1) awareness of AMR and AMS, (2) appropriate diagnostic testing, (3) strategies to minimize antimicrobial use and (4) personal prescribing practices. b) Promote and support research on AMR and the implementation and dissemination of effective AMS strategies. 6 1 Public Health Agency of Canada. Tackling antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use: a pan-Canadian framework for action. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2017. Available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/drugs-health-products/tackling-antimicrobial-resistance-use-pan-canadian-framework-action/tackling-antimicrobial-resistance-use-pan-canadian-framework-action.pdf (accessed 2018 Aug 10). BACKGROUND TO CMA POLICY Antimicrobial Resistance See also CMA Policy Antimicrobial Resistance PD19-08 OVERVIEW The world is at the tipping point of a post-antibiotic era. “Worldwide, we are relying more heavily on antibiotics to ensure our medical, nutritional, and economic security; while simultaneously causing the decline of their usefulness with overuse and ill-advised use.” It is estimated that the world’s use of antimicrobials increased by 65% between 2000 and 2015 — mainly in low- to middle-income countries. Dr. Margaret Chan, the former head of the World Health Organization (WHO), described antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a slow-moving tsunami for public health. Other experts have characterized AMR as a looming “antibiotic apocalypse,” warning that all countries “will face disastrous consequences if the spread of AMR is not contained.” Others are now calling AMR the “climate change” of health care. According to the UK’s review on AMR, an estimated 10 million people globally will die annually by 2050, and AMR will surpass cancer to become the leading cause of death. AMR occurs when “microorganisms (such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites) change when they are exposed to antimicrobial drugs (such as antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, antimalarials, and anthelmintics). … As a result, the medicines become ineffective and infections persist in the body, increasing the risk of spread to others.” Microorganisms that develop antimicrobial resistance are sometimes referred to as “superbugs.” “Nightmare bacteria,” as they have been dubbed, are bacterial strains that no conventional antimicrobial can effectively treat; their incidence is on the rise. AMR represents a unique challenge for the medical profession as it is estimated that as many as 50% of current antibiotic prescriptions are either inappropriate or unnecessary. In addition, taking an antimicrobial involves potentially considerable exposure to side effects or risk. At stake are many currently routine, and lifesaving, forms of medical treatment. Critically, these include many medications for currently treatable bacterial infections, and many forms of surgery (including cesarean delivery), radiation therapy, chemotherapy and neonatal care.4 THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF AMR AMR is driven by a complex set of interlocking factors. These include: (1) increased global travel and medical tourism; (2) inappropriate, and unnecessarily high, use of antimicrobials in the agrifood sector; (3) poor medical prescribing practices; (4) inadequate implementation of infection prevention and control measures; (5) lack of knowledge, inappropriate expectations and misuse of antimicrobials on the part of the general public; (6) availability of poor-quality antimicrobials; (7) lack of access to rapid, affordable and accurate rapid diagnostic tools and infrastructure; (8) inadequate and underused surveillance data from AMR surveillance systems; (9) international travel rates; and (10) low commercial interest in, or support for, new antimicrobial research and development. To make progress on AMR, we need to carefully think about how to address its various drivers. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a term describing coordinated efforts, at any program level, to: (1) promote the appropriate use of antimicrobials; (2) improve patient outcomes; (3) reduce microbial resistance and preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobials; and (4) decrease the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. AMS efforts are based on the “One Health” approach. These include: (1) surveillance; (2) conservation of existing AM effectiveness; (3) innovation through research and development; and (4) infection prevention and control. Fundamentally, AMR can be thought of as a collective action problem, similar in character to the problem of climate change.3, While all stakeholders have a role to play in combatting AMR, each has very different resources, abilities and perspectives on AMR. Canada and much of the developed world have the luxury of health infrastructures, finances and regulatory frameworks that can make AMR mitigation possible. But in low- to middle-income countries — places where antibiotics might be the only real health care available — the very discussion of AMS can be perceived as threatening. Simply put, this illustrates the fact that solutions to AMR need to mobilize and leverage a collective strategy that is as broad and as connected as possible. To be successful, these solutions will need to do so in a manner that acknowledges the local reality of health care delivery. Global investment in antimicrobial research and development is underwhelming, a dynamic described as a “drying up” of the pharmaceutical pipeline.8 This is evidenced by the recent large-scale withdrawal of major pharmaceutical companies from antimicrobial research and development, reflecting the lack of profitability in this area. On the pharmaceutical side, there are clear barriers to companies investing in the development of novel antimicrobials. Underlying factors include: (1) 10-year timelines, and an estimated minimum $1 billion price tag for development; (2) high development failure rates for new antimicrobials; (3) the inevitable emergence of resistance to any newly developed antimicrobial; (4) antimicrobials being offered at relatively cheap dosage rates over shorter durations of use; and (5) the need to preserve the efficacy of any antimicrobial’s future use, which limits their economic viability.8 WHAT ARE THE CANADIAN CONTEXTS? AMR is already a major costly public health challenge in both the US and Canada. AMR infections are clearly linked to poorer health outcomes, longer hospital stays and higher mortality rates.3 The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) estimates that roughly 18,000 hospitalized Canadians contract drug-resistant infections per year. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute estimates that 8,000 Canadian patients die annually with an AMR-related infection. It is estimated that close to 23 million antibiotic prescriptions are written annually for patients in Canada, the approximate equivalent to 1.6% of the population being on an antimicrobial on any given day. An action plan in Canada is being developed by PHAC. On the surface, the action plan appears comprehensive in that it outlines a One Health approach.10 However, despite commitments to take comprehensive, measurable action on AMS, Canadian leadership on AMR has historically lagged because of a lack of concrete coordination between PHAC and the provinces and because it has been challenging to implement local initiatives systemically. Previous shortcomings were highlighted in the Auditor General of Canada’s 2015 report and again in a 2017 issue brief by HealthCareCAN.18 Although efforts continue and the action plan is set for release at some point in 2019, concerns remain that: (1) the scope of coordinated efforts with the provinces and territories requires an interest in cooperation that may not exist between the two levels of government; (2) relative to the scope of the problem, sufficient and dedicated resources won’t be allocated; and (3) efforts on the industrial and agricultural fronts may not be sufficiently coordinated with AMR efforts for human health. In the spring of 2018 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) released a report outlining 10 recommendations for action on AMR in Canada. Although the federal government “accepted” most of the committee’s recommendations, no meaningful (and dedicated) AMR funding has been announced in advance of the action plan’s launch. Indeed, the federal government’s response to the HESA report sought to downplay the need for either urgent action or additional resources. This was done by pointing to nominal federal AMR efforts over the span of more than a decade. It should be noted that a small number of excellent localized AMS initiatives exist and have begun yielding promising local AMS results in Canada. AMR and AMS champions such as Choosing Wisely Canada, Do Bugs Need Drugs, and the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada have long argued that with proper resourcing, localized initiatives can be scaled up to a systemic level of application within provincial health care systems. GLOBALLY, WHERE DOES AMR STAND? Urgent action is required at an international level to combat AMR. Although AMR remains a complex public health challenge, the benefits of AMS are clear. The preservation of these precious resources will save lives and can positively affect both quality of care and health care delivery costs.7,14 Globally, many higher income nations and, increasingly, middle-income countries have now developed AMR/AMS action plans. Like the situation in Canada, these emerging and existing global action strategies remain largely unimplemented. Initial cash infusions into the AM drug development pipeline are beginning to emerge.8 Despite this, experts warn that such investments are too short term and wholly inadequate to address the scope of the looming AMR crisis.8, This reflects the many complexities that exist in the implementation of AMR action plans, owing in large part to: (1) a general lack of resources or prioritization; (2) complacency about AMR as a pressing public health concern; (3) difficulties in generalizing local AMS efforts; (4) coordination between sectorial actors; and (5) a lack of tangible AMR metrics and evidence. If AMS gains are to be made in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of limited resources in those settings will need to be considered.13 Realistically these countries will require various forms of monetary incentives and assistance to be able to effectively adopt AMR programs. If such support is not provided, human health rights will be affected and global AMS efforts will be undermined. Finally, there are now well-established calls for an international model, even a treaty, to be implemented on AMR/AMS.12,
Documents
Less detail

Appropriateness in health care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11516
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2020-02-29
Date
2014-12-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA POLICY Appropriateness in Health Care Summary This paper discusses the concept of appropriateness in health care and advances the following definition: The Canadian Medical Association adopts the following definition for appropriateness in health care: It is the right care, provided by the right providers, to the right patient, in the right place, at the right time, resulting in optimal quality care. Building on that definition it makes the following policy recommendations: * Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop a comprehensive framework by which to assess the appropriateness of health care. * Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop robust educational products on appropriateness in health care and to disseminate evidence-informed strategies for necessary changes in care processes. * Provinces and territories should work with providers to put in place incentives to decrease the provision of marginally useful or unnecessary care. Introduction As health systems struggle with the issue of sustainability and evidence that the quality of care is often sub-optimal, increasing attention is focused on the concept of appropriateness. A World Health Organization study published in 2000 described appropriateness as "a complex, fuzzy issue"1. Yet if the term is to be applied with benefit to health care systems, it demands definitional clarity. This policy document presents the Canadian Medical Association definition of appropriateness which addresses both quality and value. The roots of the definition are anchored in the evolution of Canadian health care over the last two decades. The document then considers the many issues confronting the operationalization of the term. It concludes that appropriateness can play a central role in positive health system transformation. Definition At the Canadian Medical Association General Council in 2013 the following resolution was adopted: The Canadian Medical Association adopts the following definition for appropriateness in health care: It is the right care, provided by the right providers, to the right patient, in the right place, at the right time, resulting in optimal quality care. This definition has five key components: * right care is based on evidence for effectiveness and efficacy in the clinical literature and covers not only use but failure to use; * right provider is based on ensuring the provider's scope of practice adequately meets but does not far exceed the skills and knowledge to deliver the care; * right patient acknowledges that care choices must be matched to individual patient characteristics and preferences and must recognize the potential challenge of reconciling patient and practitioner perceptions; * right venue emphasizes that some settings are better suited in terms of safety and efficiency to delivering a specific type of care than others; * right time indicates care is delivered in a timely manner consistent with agreed upon bench marks. It is essential to appreciate that the "right cost" is a consequence of providing the right care, that it is an outcome rather than an input. In other words, if all five components above are present, high quality care will have been delivered with the appropriate use of resources, that is, at the right cost. Equally, however, it should be cautioned that right cost may not necessarily be the affordable cost. For example, a new drug or imaging technology may offer small but demonstrable advantages over older practices, but at an enormous increase in cost. Some might argue that right care includes the use of the newer drug or technology, while others would contend the excessive opportunity costs must be taken into consideration such that the older practices remain the right care. An Evolving Canadian Perspective from 1996 to 2013 In a pioneering paper from 1996 Lavis and Anderson wrote: ...there are two distinct types of appropriateness: appropriateness of a service and appropriateness of the setting in which care is provided. The differences between the two parallel the differences between two other concepts in health care: effectiveness and cost-containment...An appropriate service is one that is expected to do more good than harm for a patient with a given indication...The appropriateness of the setting in which care is provided is related to cost effectiveness2. This very serviceable definition moved beyond a narrow clinical conception based solely on the therapeutic impact of an intervention on a patient, to broader contextual consideration focused on venue. Thus, for example, the care provided appropriately in a home-care setting might not be at all appropriate if given in a tertiary care hospital. Significantly, the authors added this important observation: "Setting is a proxy measure of the resources used to provide care"2. This sentence is an invitation to expand the original Lavis and Anderson definition to encompass other resources and inputs identified over the ensuing decades. Three elements are especially important. Timeliness became an issue in Canadian health care just as the Lavis and Anderson paper appeared. In 1997 almost two-thirds of polled Canadians felt surgical wait times were excessive, up from just over half of respondents a year earlier3. By 2004 concern with wait times was sufficiently pervasive that when the federal government and the provinces concluded the First Ministers' Agreement, it included obligations to provide timely access to cancer care, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration4. These rapid developments indicate that timeliness was now considered an essential element in determining the appropriateness of care. A second theme that became prominent in health care over the last two decades was the concept of patient-centredness. When the Canadian Medical Association released its widely endorsed Health Care Transformation in Canada in 2010, the first principle for reform was building a culture of patient-centred care. Succinctly put, this meant that "health care services are provided in a manner that works best for patients"5. To begin the process of operationalizing this concept CMA proposed a Charter for Patient-centred Care. Organized across seven domains, it included the importance of: allowing patients to participate fully in decisions about their care; respecting confidentiality of health records; and ensuring care provided is safe and appropriate. This sweeping vision underscores the fact that care which is not matched to the individual patient cannot be considered appropriate care. A third significant development over the last two decades was heightened awareness of the importance of scopes of practice. This awareness arose in part from the emphasis placed on a team approach in newer models of primary care6, but also from the emergence of new professions such as physician assistants, and the expansion of scopes of practice for other professionals such as pharmacists7. As the same health care activity could increasingly be done by a wider range of health professionals, ensuring the best match between competence required and the service provided became an essential element to consider when defining appropriateness. Under-qualified practitioners could not deliver quality care, while overly-qualified providers were a poor use of scarce resources. To summarize, as a recent scoping review suggested, for a complete conceptualization of appropriateness in 2013 it is necessary to add the right time, right patient and right provider to the previously articulated right care and right setting8. Why Appropriateness Matters The most frequent argument used to justify policy attention to appropriateness is health system cost. There is a wealth of evidence that inappropriate care - avoidable hospitalizations, for example, or alternative level of care patients in acute care beds - is wide spread in Canada9; eliminating this waste is critical to system sustainability. In Saskatchewan, for example, Regina and Saskatoon contracted in 2011 with private clinics to provide a list of 34 surgical procedures. Not only were wait times reduced, but costs were 26% lower in the surgical clinics than in hospitals for doing the same procedures10. There is, however, an equally important issue pointing to the importance of ensuring appropriate care: sub-optimal health care quality. In the United States, for example, a study evaluated performance on 439 quality indicators for 30 acute and chronic conditions. Patients received 54.9% of recommended care, ranging from a high of 78.7% for senile cataracts to 10.5% for alcohol dependence11. A more recent Australian study used 522 quality indicators to assess care for 22 common conditions. Patients received clinically appropriate care in 57% of encounters, with a range from 90% for coronary artery disease to 13% for alcohol dependence12. While no comparable comprehensive data exist for Canada, it is unlikely the practices in our system depart significantly from peer nations. Focusing on appropriateness of care, then, is justified by both fiscal and quality concerns. Methodology: the Challenge of Identifying Appropriateness While there is a clear need to address appropriateness - in all its dimensions - the methods by which to assess the appropriateness of care are limited and, to date, have largely focused on the clinical aspect. The most frequently used approach is the Rand/University of California Los Angeles (Rand) method. It provides panels of experts with relevant literature about a particular practice and facilitates iterative discussion and ranking of the possible indications for using the practice. Practices are labeled appropriate, equivocal or inappropriate13. A systematic review in 2012 found that for use on surgical procedures the method had good test-retest reliability, interpanel reliability and construct validity14. However, the method has been criticized for other short-comings: panels in different countries may reach different conclusions when reviewing the same evidence; validity can only be tested against instruments such as clinical practice guidelines that themselves may have a large expert opinion component2; Rand appropriateness ratings apply to an "average" patient, which cannot account for differences across individuals; and, finally, Rand ratings focus on appropriateness when a service is provided but does not encompass underuse, that is, failure to provide a service that would have been appropriate9. The Rand method, while not perfect, is the most rigorous approach to determining clinical appropriateness yet devised. It has recently been suggested that a method based on extensive literature review can identify potentially ineffective or harmful practices; when applied to almost 6000 items in the Australian Medical Benefits Schedule, 156 were identified that may be inappropriate15. This method also presents challenges. For example, the authors of a study using Cochrane reviews to identify low-value practices note that the low-value label resulted mainly from a lack of randomized evidence for effectiveness16. Assessing the appropriateness of care setting has focused almost exclusively on hospitals. Some diagnoses are known to be manageable in a community setting by primary care or specialty clinics. The rate of admissions for these ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) - which fell from 459 per 100,000 population in 2001-02 to 320 per 100,00 in 2008-09 - is one way of gauging the appropriateness of the hospital as a care venue9. A second measure is the number of hospital patients who do not require either initial or prolonged treatment in an acute care setting. Proprietorial instruments such as the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP)17or the InterQual Intensity of Service, Severity of Illness and Discharge Screen for Acute Care (ISD-AC)18 have been used to assess the appropriateness of hospital care for individual patients. While these instruments have been applied to Canadian hospital data19,20, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to the reliability and utility of such tools21-23. Benchmarks exist for appropriate wait times for some types of care in Canada through the work of the Wait Time Alliance4. These include: chronic pain, cancer care, cardiac care, digestive health care, emergency rooms, joint replacement, nuclear medicine, radiology, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatric surgery, plastic surgery, psychiatric illness, and sight restoration. The recommendations are based on evidence-informed expert opinion. The other two domains of appropriateness - right patient, right provider - as yet have no objective tools by which to assess appropriateness. Barriers Determining appropriateness demands a complex and time-consuming approach, and its operationalization faces a number of barriers. The availability of some health care services may be subject to political influence which will over-ride appropriateness criteria. For example, recommendations to close smaller hospitals deemed to be redundant or inefficient may not be implemented for political reasons. Patient expectations can challenge evidence-based appropriateness criteria. In a primary care setting, for instance, it may be difficult to persuade a patient with an ankle sprain that an x-ray is unlikely to be helpful. The insistence by the patient is compounded by an awareness of potential legal liability in the event that clinical judgment subsequently proves incorrect. Choosing Wisely Canada recommends physicians and patients become comfortable with evidence-informed conversations about potentially necessary care24. Traditional clinical roles are difficult to revise in order to ensure that care is provided by the most appropriate health professional. This is especially true if existing funding silos are not realigned to reflect the desired change in practice patterns. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even if agreed upon appropriateness criteria are developed, holding practitioners accountable for their application in clinical practice is extremely difficult due to data issues25. Chart audits could be conducted to determine whether appropriateness criteria were met when specific practices were deployed, but this is not feasible on a large scale. Rates of use of some practices could be compared among peers from administrative data; however, variation in practice population might legitimately sustain practice variation. For diagnostic procedures it has been suggested that the percentage of negative results is an indicator of inappropriate use; however, most administrative claim databases would not include positive or negative test result data26. This data deficit must be addressed with health departments and regional health authorities. Important Caveats There are several additional constraints on the use of the concept by health system managers. First, the vast majority of practices have never been subject to the Rand or any other appropriateness assessment. Even for surgical procedures clinical appropriateness criteria exist for only 10 of the top 25 most common inpatient procedures and for 6 of the top 15 ambulatory procedures in the United States. Most studies are more than 5 years old27. Second, while the notion is perhaps appealing to policy makers, it is incorrect to assume that high use of a practice equates with misuse: when high-use areas are compared to low use areas, the proportion of inappropriate use has consistently been shown to be no greater in the high-use regions28,29. Finally, it is uncertain how large a saving can be realized from eliminating problematic clinical care. For example, a US study modeling the implementation of recommendations for primary care found that while a switch to preferentially prescribing generic drugs would save considerable resources, most of the other items on the list of questionable activities "are not major contributors to health care costs"30. What is important to emphasize is that even if dollars are not saved, by reducing inappropriate care better value will be realized for each dollar spent. Policy Recommendations These methodological and other challenges31 notwithstanding, the Canadian Medical Association puts forward the following recommendations for operationalizing the concept of appropriateness and of clinical practice. 1. Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop a comprehensive framework by which to assess the appropriateness of health care. Jurisdictions should develop a framework32 for identifying potentially inappropriate care, including under-use. This involves selecting criteria by which to identify and prioritize candidates for assessment; developing and applying a robust assessment methodology; and creating mechanisms to disseminate and apply the results. Frameworks must also include meaningful consideration of care venue, timeliness, patient preferences and provider scope of practice. International examples exist for some aspects of this exercise and should be adapted to jurisdictional circumstances. Necessarily, a framework will demand the collection of supporting data in a manner consistent with the following 2013 General Council resolution: The Canadian Medical Association supports the development of data on health care delivery and patient outcomes to help the medical profession develop an appropriateness framework and associated accountability standards provided that patient and physician confidentiality is maintained. 2. Provinces and territories should work with providers to develop robust educational products on appropriateness in health care and to disseminate evidence-informed strategies for necessary changes in care processes. Both trainees and practicing physicians should have access to education and guidance on the topic of appropriateness and on practices that are misused, under-used, or over-used. Appropriately designed continuing education has been shown to alter physician practice. Point of care guidance via the electronic medical record offers a further opportunity to alert clinicians to practices that should or should not be done in the course of a patient encounter33. An initiative co-led by the Canadian Medical Association that is designed to educate the profession about the inappropriate over use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is Choosing Wisely Canada. The goal is to enhance quality of care and only secondarily to reduce unnecessary expenditures. It is an initiative consistent with the intent of two resolutions from the 2013 General Council: The Canadian Medical Association will form a collaborative working group to develop specialty-specific lists of clinical tests/interventions and procedures for which benefits have generally not been shown to exceed the risks. The Canadian Medical Association believes that fiscal benefits and cost savings of exercises in accountability and appropriateness in clinical care are a by-product rather than the primary focus of these exercises. 3. Provinces and territories should work with providers to put in place incentives to decrease the provision of marginally useful or unnecessary care. Practitioners should be provided with incentives to eliminate inappropriate care. These incentives may be financial - delisting marginal activities or providing bonuses for achieving utilization targets for appropriate but under-used care. Any notional savings could also be flagged for reinvestment in the health system, for example, to enhance access. Giving physicians the capacity to participate in audit and feedback on their use of marginal practices in comparison to peers generally creates a personal incentive to avoid outlier status. Public reporting by group or institution may also move practice towards the mean30. In any such undertakings to address quality or costs through changes in practice behaviour it is essential that the medical profession play a key role. This critical point was captured in a 2013 General Council resolution: The Canadian Medical Association will advocate for adequate physician input in the selection of evidence used to address costs and quality related to clinical practice variation. Conclusion When appropriateness is defined solely in terms of assessing the clinical benefit of care activities it can provide a plausible rational for "disinvestment in" or "delisting of" individual diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. However, such a narrow conceptualization of appropriateness cannot ensure that high quality care is provided with the optimal use of resources. To be truly useful in promoting quality and value appropriateness must be understood to mean the right care, provided by the right provider, to the right patient, in the right venue, at the right time. Achieving these five components of health care will not be without significant challenges, beginning with definitions and moving on to complex discussions on methods of measurement. Indeed, it may prove an aspirational goal rather than a completely attainable reality. But if every encounter in the health system - a hospitalization, a visit to a primary care provider, an admission to home care - attempted to meet or approximate each of the five criteria for appropriateness, a major step towards optimal care and value will have been achieved across the continuum. Viewed in this way, appropriateness has the capacity to become an extraordinarily useful organizing concept for positive health care transformation in Canada. Approved by CMA Board on December 06, 2014 References 1. World Health Organization. Appropriateness in Health Care Services, Report on a WHO Workshop. Copenhagen: WHO; 2000. 2. Lavis JN, Anderson GM. Appropriateness in health care delivery: definitions, measurement and policy implications. CMAJ. 1996;154(3):321-8. 3. Sanmartin C, Shortt SE, Barer ML, Sheps S, Lewis S, McDonald PW. Waiting for medical services in Canada: lots of heat, but little light. CMAJ. 2000;162(9):1305-10. 4. Wait Time Alliance. Working to Improve Wait Times Across Canada. Toronto: Wait Time Alliance; 2014. Available: http://www.waittimealliance.ca. (accessed April 18, 2013) 5. Canadian Medical Association. Health Care Transformation in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2010. 6. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Policy: Achieving Patient-centred Collaborative Care. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2008. 7. Maxwell-Alleyne A, Farber A. Pharmacists' expanded scope of practice: Professional obligations for physicians and pharmacists working collaboratively. Ont Med Rev. 2013;80(4):17-9. 8. Sanmartin C, Murphy K, Choptain N, et al. Appropriateness of healthcare interventions: concepts and scoping of the published literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3)342-9. 9. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada 2010. Ottawa: CIHI; 2010. 10. MacKinnon J. Health Care Reform from the Cradle of Medicare. Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute; 2013. 11. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. NEJM. 2003;348(26):2635-45. 12. Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;197(2):100-5. 13. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53-63. 14. Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ko CY, Shekelle PG. The appropriateness method has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing overuse and underuse of surgical procedures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1133-43. 15. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(10):556-60. 16. Garner S, Docherty M, Somner J, et al. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):6-12. 17. Gertman PM, Restuccia JD. The appropriateness evaluation protocol: a technique for assessing unnecessary days of hospital care. Med Care. 1981;19(8):855-71. 18. Mitus AJ. The birth of InterQual: evidence-based decision support criteria that helped change healthcare. Prof Case Manag. 2008;13(4):228-33. 19. DeCoster C, Roos NP, Carriere KC, Peterson S. Inappropriate hospital use by patients receiving care for medical conditions: targeting utilization review. CMAJ. 1997;157(7):889-96. 20. Flintoft VF, Williams JI, Williams RC, Basinski AS, Blackstien-Hirsch P, Naylor CD. The need for acute, subacute and nonacute care at 105 general hospital sites in Ontario. Joint Policy and Planning Committee Non-Acute Hospitalization Project Working Group. CMAJ . 1998;158(10):1289-96. 21. Kalant N, Berlinguet M, Diodati JG, Dragatakis L, Marcotte F. How valid are utilization review tools in assessing appropriate use of acute care beds? CMAJ. 2000;162(13):1809-13. 22. McDonagh MS, Smith DH, Goddard M. Measuring appropriate use of acute beds. A systematic review of methods and results. Health policy. 2000;53(3):157-84. 23. Vetter N. Inappropriately delayed discharge from hospital: what do we know? BMJ. 2003;326(7395):927-8. 24. Choosing Wisely Canada. Recent News. Ottawa: Choosing Wisely Canada; 2015. Available: www.choosingwiselycanada.org. (accessed Dec 2014) 25. Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519. 26. Baker DW, Qaseem A, Reynolds PP, Gardner LA, Schneider EC. Design and use of performance measures to decrease low-value services and achieve cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):55-9. 27. Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ingraham AM, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Appropriateness criteria to assess variations in surgical procedure use in the United States. Arch Surg. 2011;146(12):1433-40. 28. Chassin MR, Kosecoff J, Park RE, et al. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. JAMA. 1987;258(18):2533-7. 29. Keyhani S, Falk R, Bishop T, Howell E, Korenstein D. The relationship between geographic variations and overuse of healthcare services: a systematic review. Med care. 2012;50(3):257-61. 30. Kale MS, Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. "Top 5" lists top $5 billion. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1856-8. 31. Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23. 32. Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin TL, Hiller JE. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190(5):269-73. 33. Shortt S GM, Gorbet S. Making medical practice safer: the role of public policy. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2010;22(3):159-68.
Documents
Less detail

CMA Patient Safety Policy Framework (Update 2010)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9747
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-02-27
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-02-27
Replaces
CMA Patient Safety Policy Framework (2001)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA PATIENT SAFETY POLICY FRAMEWORK (Update 2010) BACKGROUND The CMA’s mission is to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians. This means, among other things, ensuring that the health care system is safe for patients and providers and effective in achieving good health outcomes for individuals and society. Unfortunately, studies published in recent years have raised concern that health care is not as safe as it could be; data collected by researchers in various countries has shown that there are unacceptably high levels of preventable adverse events, as high as 16% in one study of adverse events associated with hospital admissions. A study conducted by G. R. Baker, P.G. Norton et al, “The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada” showed an adverse event rate of 7.5 per 100 hospital admissions. (1) This suggests that of the nearly 2.5 million hospital admissions yearly in Canada, approximately 185,000 are associated with an adverse event and 70,000 of those possibly preventable. These studies have focused attention on health care error and adverse events, but patient safety requires that participants in the health care system are constantly aware of the risks present in the system, and that risks are addressed proactively - preferably before an adverse event occurs. If a preventable adverse event does occur, it provides an opportunity to learn about and correct sources of error. The CMA considers that a national patient safety strategy, aimed at building a culture of safety, is a priority. This Policy Framework has been developed to provide a clear statement of the CMA’s views on the principles that should underpin a patient safety strategy and to ensure clear support and direction for CMA members and staff involved in patient safety initiatives. PRINCIPLES The Health Care System Outcomes Errors and adverse events are inevitable in any complex system and more complex systems are more prone to errors. Nevertheless, studies have demonstrated an unacceptably high level of preventable adverse events associated with management of health care. 1. Patient safety initiatives should aim to improve health outcomes for patients by minimizing the rate of preventable adverse events and improving the management of events when they occur. Quality 2. Patient safety is one aspect of quality health care; activities relating to patient safety should result in a net increase in the quality of health care. Systemic factors 3. Patient safety initiatives should recognize that error and adverse events occur because of qualities of the system within which individuals operate. A primary concern of initiatives should be to prevent future errors by addressing the system rather than blaming and punishing individuals. Accountability The Canadian public has a reasonable expectation that health care will not result in avoidable injury. 4. Patient safety initiatives should support the accountability of the health sector, including providers, funders and regulators, to patients and the wider public for the safety of health care. Participants in Health Care Patients as partners 5. Patient safety initiatives should promote the role of patients as partners in the provision of safe care, including the prevention and management of adverse events. 6. Patient safety initiatives should encourage and anticipate the full and appropriate disclosure to patients of relevant information that is material to their health and healthcare, including information about adverse events or effects. Professional responsibility and support With a very few exceptions, health care is delivered by competent, caring professionals who are striving to achieve a good outcome for patients. 7. Patient safety initiatives should recognize the responsibility of professionals for achieving and maintaining the standard of their own practice. 8. Patient safety initiatives, while responding appropriately to adverse events, should be sensitive to the professional role and personal well being of individual physicians and other health care providers. Learning and Collaboration 9. Patient safety initiatives should promote and reflect teamwork, communication and collaboration at all levels. 10. Patient safety initiatives should support learning from one’s own experience and the sharing of knowledge so that it is possible to learn from the experience of others. Legal and Regulatory Environment 11. Patient Safety initiatives should promote a legal and regulatory environment that supports open communication and effective management of adverse events. 12. The protection afforded to the opinions expressed within quality assurance committees must be upheld Evidence Base and Evaluation Patient safety initiatives should be based on sound evidence. Patient safety initiatives should contain provision for appropriate evaluation. Patient safety initiatives should contain provision for broad dissemination of findings. PATIENT SAFETY INITIATIVE AREAS Building a culture of safety in Canadian health care will require the collaboration of many different groups and organizations. The CMA can play a leadership role within this larger group and within its own constituency of over 70,000 physicians. In some instances, it will be the CMA’s role to advocate for initiatives that can be delivered only by another provider or through a consortium; in other instances, CMA can assume sole responsibility for taking action. The CMA has identified that, as priorities, it will support: Advocacy for changes to legislation and regulation that would remove disincentives for health care providers to share information about adverse events. Raising awareness of patient safety and changing attitudes towards risk, error and adverse events within the health care community. Developing and providing resources such as clinical practice guidelines and information technology systems that have been shown to standardize practice and reduce adverse events. Reporting systems that collect and aggregate data on risks so that good practices can be developed and shared. Education and training for health care professionals and managers to provide them with the conceptual and practical tools to introduce change into their practice and organizations. Advocacy for, and development of, an agenda for patient safety research in Canada. The involvement of government at all levels in supporting and committing resources to initiatives for improved patient safety. GLOSSARY Adverse event – any unintended injury or complication that is caused by health care management rather than the patient’s disease and that leads to prolonged hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Adverse events do not necessarily result from error, for example a toxic reaction to a drug in a patient without apparent risk factors for the reaction. Error – the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (“error of execution”) or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (“error of planning”). An error may not result in an adverse event if the error does not result in harm or is intercepted. Risk – the chance of injury or loss as defined as a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property, the environment or other things of value. (1) G. Ross Baker, Peter G. Norton, Virginia Flintoft, Régis Blais, Adalsteinn Brown, Jafna Cox, Ed Etchells, William A. Ghali, Philip Hébert, Sumit R. Majumdar, Maeve O'Beirne, Luz Palacios-Derflingher, Robert J. Reid, Sam Sheps, and Robyn Tamblyn. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 2004; 170: 1678 - 1686.
Documents
Less detail

CMA statement on emerging therapies

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy10352
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
26-08-2010
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
26-08-2010
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
CMA Statement on Emerging Therapies The CMA is keenly aware of the heart-rending suffering experienced by MS patients and the devastating impact it has on families and we recognize how desperately they are seeking treatments to alleviate their symptoms. Physicians and researchers dedicate their lives to finding new treatments to prevent and ease the suffering of patients while supporting those battling disease. Along with the physician's care and compassion, clinical research is a key weapon in the battle to manage and treat disease. The CMA believes that all medical decisions must be based upon scientific evidence. That is at the heart of our commitment to patient-centred care. The CMA is committed to the principle that, before any new treatment is adopted and applied by the medical profession, it must first be rigorously tested and recognized as evidence-based. This principle is highly relevant in the case of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) recent recommendations. The CMA concurs with the CIHR's position on the need for an evidence-based approach to the development of clinical trials of the recently proposed condition called "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency" (CCSVI). We would hope that the findings of the seven diagnostic studies that are underway will be shared and analyzed as soon as they become available, and that clinical intervention trials would be supported as indicated by the evidence and if researchers come forward with scientifically sound ethical protocols. If additional Canadian funding bodies initiate clinical research in the area, we would encourage CIHR to provide advice if requested.
Documents
Less detail

CMA Statement on Racism

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14245
Date
2020-06-02
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2020-06-02
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Text
Racism is a structural determinant of health and drives health and social inequities. The recent incidents of anti-Black violence, racism and discrimination in the US and Canada also shed light on the structural inequities and racism that exist within the medical profession and the health system. The profession of medicine is grounded in respect for all people. This commitment recognizes that everyone has equal and inherent worth, the right to be valued and respected, and the right to be treated with dignity. It’s critical that our medical culture – and society more broadly – upholds these values. But today, we’re reminded that there’s much more to do as a profession, and as a global community, to get us there. Earlier this year, we launched our first-ever policy on equity and diversity in medicine Opens in a new window to help break down the many broad and systemic barriers that remain, to reduce discrimination and bias within our profession, and to create physically and psychologically safe environments for ourselves, our colleagues and our patients. Alongside this policy comes a commitment to holding ourselves accountable to recognizing and challenging behaviours, practices and conditions that hinder equity and diversity, including racism. Instances of racism, intolerance, exclusion, violence and discrimination have no place in medicine, and no place in our society. The Canadian Medical Association condemns racism in all its forms. Today, we stand alongside all those who have been affected by these appalling and inexcusable actions and beliefs. Dr. Sandy Buchman President, Canadian Medical Association
Documents
Less detail

Complementary and alternative medicine (update 2015)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11529
Date
2015-05-30
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2015-05-30
Replaces
Complementary and alternative medicine (Update 2008)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (Update 2015) This statement discusses the Canadian Medical Association's (CMA) position on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). CAM, widely used in Canada, is increasingly being subject to regulation. The CMA's position is based on the fundamental premise that decisions about health care interventions used in Canada should be based on sound scientific evidence as to their safety, efficacy and effectiveness - the same standard by which physicians and all other elements of the health care system should be assessed. Patients deserve the highest standard of treatment available, and physicians, other health practitioners, manufacturers, regulators and researchers should all work toward this end. All elements of the health care system should "consider first the well-being of the patient."1 The ethical principle of non-maleficence obliges physicians to reduce their patient's risks of harm. Physicians must constantly strive to balance the potential benefits of an intervention against its potential side effects, harms or burdens. To help physicians meet this obligation, patients should inform their physician if the patient uses CAM. CAM in Canada CAM has been defined as "a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine."i This definition comprises a great many different, otherwise unrelated products, therapies and devices, with varying origins and levels of supporting scientific evidence. For the purpose of this analysis, the CMA divides CAM into four general categories: * Diagnostic Tests: Provided by CAM practitioners. Unknown are the toxicity levels or the source of test material, e.g., purity. Clinical sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value should be evidence-based. * Products: Herbal and other remedies are widely available over-the-counter at pharmacies and health food stores. In Canada these are regulated at the federal level under the term Natural Health Products. * Interventions: Treatments such as spinal manipulation and electromagnetic field therapy may be offered by a variety of providers, regulated or otherwise. * Practitioners: There are a large variety of practitioners whose fields include chiropractic, naturopathy, traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine, and many others. Many are unregulated or regulated only in some provinces/territories of Canada. Many Canadians have used, or are currently using, at least one CAM modality. A variety of reasons has been cited for CAM use, including: tradition; curiosity; distrust of mainstream medicine; and belief in the "holistic" concept of health which CAM practitioners and users believe they provide. For most Canadians the use is complementary (in addition to conventional medicine) rather than alternative (as a replacement). Many patients do not tell their physicians that they are using CAM. Toward Evidence-Informed Health Care Use of CAM carries risks, of which its users may be unaware. Indiscriminate use and undiscriminating acceptance of CAM could lead to misinformation, false expectations, and diversion from more appropriate care, as well as adverse health effects, some of them serious. The CMA recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments respond to the health care needs of Canadians by ensuring the provision of clinical care that continually incorporates evidence-informed technological advances in information, prevention, and diagnostic and therapeutic services.2 Physicians take seriously their duty to advocate for quality health care and help their patients choose the most beneficial interventions. Physicians strongly support the right of patients to make informed decisions about their medical care. However, the CMA's Code of Ethics requires physicians to recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that they consider to be beneficial to the patient or to others.3 Until CAM interventions are supported by scientifically-valid evidence, physicians should not recommend them. Unless proven beneficial, CAM services should not be publicly funded. To help ensure that Canadians receive the highest-quality health care, the CMA recommends that CAM be subject to rigorous research on its effects, that it be strictly regulated, and that health professionals and the public have access to reliable, accurate, evidence-informed information on CAM products and therapies. Specific recommendations are provided below: a) Research: Building an Evidence Base To date, much of the public's information on CAM has been anecdotal, or founded on exaggerated claims of benefit based on few or low-quality studies. The CMA is committed to the principle that, before any new treatment is adopted and applied by the medical profession, it must first be rigorously tested and recognized as evidence-informed.4 Increasingly, good-quality, well-controlled studies are being conducted on CAM products and therapies. The CMA supports this development. Research into promising therapies is always welcome and should be encouraged, provided that it is subject to the same standards for proof and efficacy as those for conventional medical and pharmaceutical treatments. The knowledge thus obtained should be widely disseminated to health professionals and the public. b) An Appropriate Regulatory Framework Regulatory frameworks governing CAM, like those governing any health intervention, should enshrine the concept that therapies should have a proven benefit before being represented to Canadians as effective health treatments. i) Natural Health Products. Natural health products are regulated at the federal level through the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada. The CMA believes that the principle of fairness must be applied to the regulatory process so that natural health products are treated fairly in comparison with other health products.5 The same regulatory standards should apply to both natural health products and pharmaceutical health products. These standards should be applied to natural health products regardless of whether a health claim is made for the product. This framework must facilitate the entry of products onto the market that are known to be safe and effective, and impede the entry of products that are not known to be safe and effective until they are better understood. It should also ensure high manufacturing standards to assure consumers of the products' safety, quality and purity. The CMA also recommends that a series of standards be developed for each natural health product. These standards should include: * manufacturing processes that ensure the purity, safety and quality of the product; * labelling standards that include standards for consumer advice, cautions and claims, and explanations for the safe use of the product to the consumer.6 The CMA recommends that safety and efficacy claims for natural health products be evaluated by an arm's length scientific panel, and claims for the therapeutic value of natural health products should be prohibited when the supportive evidence does not meet the evidentiary standard required of medications regulated by Health Canada.7 Claims of medical benefit should only be permitted when compelling scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy exists.8 The Canadian Medical Association advocates that foods fortified with "natural health" ingredients should be regulated as food products and not as natural health products The CMA recommends that the regulatory system for natural health products be applied to post-marketing surveillance as well as pre-marketing regulatory review. Health Canada's MedEffect adverse reaction reporting system now collects safety reports on Natural Health Products. Consumers, health professionals and manufacturers are encouraged to report adverse reactions to Health Canada. ii) CAM Practitioners. Regulation of CAM practitioners is at different stages. The CMA believes that this regulation should: ensure that the services CAM practitioners offer are truly efficacious; establish quality control mechanisms and appropriate standards of practice; and work to develop an evidence-informed body of competence that develops with evolving knowledge. Just as the CMA believes that natural health products should be treated fairly in comparison with other health products, it recommends that CAM practitioners be held to the same standards as other health professionals. All CAM practitioners should develop Codes of Ethics that insure practitioners consider first the best interests of their patients. Among other things, associations representing CAM practitioners should develop and adhere to conflict of interest guidelines that require their members to: * Resist any influence or interference that could undermine their professional integrity;9 * Recognize and disclose conflicts of interest that arise in the course of their professional duties and activities, and resolve them in the best interests of patients;10 * Refrain, for the most part, from dispensing the products they prescribe. Engaging in both prescribing and dispensing , whether for financial benefit or not, constitutes a conflict of interest where the provider's own interests conflict with their duty to act in the best interests of the patient. c) Information and Promotion Canadians have the right to reliable, accurate information on CAM products and therapies to help ensure that the treatment choices they make are informed. The CMA recommends that governments, manufacturers, health care providers and other stakeholders work together to ensure that Canadians have access to this information. The CMA believes that all natural health products should be labeled so as to include a qualitative list of all ingredients. 11 Information on CAM should be user-friendly and easy to access, and should include: * Instructions for use; * Indications that the product or therapy has been convincingly proven to treat; * Contraindications, side effects and interactions with other medications; * Should advise the consumer to inform their health care provider during any encounter that they are using this product.12 This information should be provided in such a way as to minimize the impact of vested commercial interests on its content. In general, brand-specific advertising is a less than optimal way of providing information about any health product or therapy. In view of our limited knowledge of their effectiveness and the risks they may contain risks, the advertising of health claims for natural health products should be severely restricted. The CMA recommends that health claims be promoted only if they have been established with sound scientific evidence. This restriction should apply not only to advertising, but also to all statements made in product or company Web sites and communications to distributors and the public. Advertisements should be pre-cleared to ensure that they contain no deceptive messages. Sanctions against deceptive advertising must be rigidly enforced, with Health Canada devoting adequate resources to monitor and correct misleading claims. The CMA recommends that product labels include approved health claims, cautions and contraindications, instructions for the safe use of the product, and a recommendation that patients tell physicians that they are using the products. If no health claims are approved for a particular natural health product, the label should include a prominent notice that there is no evidence the product contributes to health or alleviates disease. The Role of Health Professionals Whether or not physicians and other health professionals support the use of CAM, it is important that they have access to reliable information on CAM products and therapies, so that they can discuss them with their patients. Patients should be encouraged to report use of all health products, including natural health products, to health care providers during consultations. The CMA encourages Canadians to become educated about their own health and health care, and to appraise all health information critically. The CMA will continue to advocate for evidence-informed assessment of all methods of health care in Canada, and for the provision of accurate, timely and reliable health information to Canadian health care providers and patients. i Working definition used by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. 1 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. 2 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC00-196 - Clinical care to incorporate evidence-based technological advances. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2000. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 3 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 4 Canadian Medical Association. CMA statement on emerging therapies [media release]. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2010. Available: www.facturation.net/advocacy/emerging-therapies. 5 Canadian Medical Association. CMA statement on emerging therapies [media release]. Available: www.facturation.net/advocacy/emerging-therapies. 6 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 1998. 7 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC08-86 - Natural health products. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2008. 8 Canadian Medical Association. Policy resolution GC10-100 - Foods fortified with "natural health" ingredients. Ottawa (ON): The Association; 2010. Available: 9 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Paragraph 7. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 10 Canadian Medical Association. CMA code of ethics (update 2004). Ottawa: The Association; 2004. Paragraph 11. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/CMAPolicy/PublicB.htm. 11 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa: The Association; 1998. 12 Canadian Medical Association. Brief BR1998-02 - Regulatory framework for natural health products. Ottawa: The Association; 1998.
Documents
Less detail

Concussion in Sport, Leisure, and Occupational Settings

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14023
Date
2019-03-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2019-03-02
Replaces
Head injury and sport (2011)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Concussions and head injuries are a common occurrence in sport and leisure activities, and frequently occur in occupational settings as well. While the majority of individuals who suffer from a concussion will recover with time, others may be at risk for serious and lasting complications. These include (1) children; (2) previous history of head injury or concussion; (3) prior mental health symptoms; and (4) missed diagnosis and management. This aim of this advocacy and policy document is to improve safety during activity by raising awareness of concussions, and by working to improve the detection and safe management of concussions when they occur. It is not a clinical practice guideline. It should not be perceived as a plea to avoid sports or leisure activities, but rather as a call for safer sporting, leisure, and occupational practices. The documented health benefits that result from establishing an active lifestyle in youth and maintaining it throughout life cannot be overstated. Achieving balance of safe play in sport, leisure and occupational activities while promoting greater physical activity levels for Canadians would have the effect of reducing health care costs in Canada, while promoting a healthier concussion recovery culture for all Canadians. Therefore, to promote better concussion and head trauma awareness and prevention, as well as better management/treatment practices, the following policy recommendations for key target audiences across all levels of sport, leisure, and occupational activity are made. Key Concussion & Head Injury Principles: a) The detection of concussions and head injury should be a shared responsibility and any stakeholder/observer to such an injury should verbally raise their concerns that a concussion may have occurred. i. It is important to understand that individuals with a possible concussion, or head injury, may not be able to recognize that they are suffering from a concussion; ii. It is important to recognize that engrained within popular culture are dangerous notions (e.g., to minimize, ignore, downplay, or play through the pain, etc.) that cause individuals/observers to ignore the real, often hidden, dangers of such injuries. b) Broadly speaking, access to the latest edition of the internationally recognized Concussion Recognition Tool (CRT) should be promoted/available to help identify the signs and symptoms of a possible concussion; c) Any individual who sustains more than a minor head injury should be immediately removed from play, activity, or occupation, and not permitted to return on the same day3 (regardless of whether a concussion is later suspected). i. These individuals should be the subject of observation for developing/evolving concussion symptoms or emergency warning signs (especially within the first 4 hours post-injury, but also up to 48 hours when red-flag symptoms are present). d) Following first aid principles, where an individual displays signs of a serious head or spinal injury, that individual should lie still (not moving their head or neck) until a qualified individual has performed an evaluation; to determine whether emergency evacuation for medical assessment is necessary. e) Any individual with a suspected concussion (especially where red-flag symptoms are present), or more severe traumatic brain injury, should be promptly evaluated by a physician to: i. Either rule-out or confirm a diagnosis via an appropriate medical assessment; and ii. Institute the provision of an age-appropriate follow-up care plan (including progressive return to school, work, and play protocols) if such an injury is confirmed.1 f) Ideally, a physician knowledgeable in concussion management determines when, and how, a concussed individual should progressively return to both cognitive (school or work) and physical activities. g) Following a suspected, or diagnosed concussion, an individual should not return to play, or resume any activity associated with a heightened risk of head trauma, until cleared by a physician to do so.1 Recommendations For: 1. Physicians: Should: a) Where possible, encourage safe play practices in sports, and where appropriate, educate patients about the risks of head injuries (associated with high-risk behavior in sports, leisure and occupational activities). b) Gain/maintain, through relevant continuous medical education, competencies related to the assessment, diagnosis and management of concussion according to most current clinical practice recommendations (e.g., latest edition of the CRT, SCAT, Child SCAT, Acute Concussion Evaluation Tool, etc.). c) Be aware that clinical practice guidelines and assessment tools exist to assist in assessing and treating concussed individuals (e.g., Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation, Parachute Canada, etc.). d) When assessing a patient with a potential concussion: i. Rule out the presence of more severe traumatic brain and musculoskeletal injury; ii. Assess for any previous concussion history, risk factors and newly arising complications; iii. Educate and instruct parents, athletes and any individual that sustains a concussion about what to do, and what to expect, in the post concussive phase. (This should be based on the most current age-appropriate concussion management guidelines);4 iv. Provide individualized recommendations on how to optimally apply the progressive return-to-school, work, and play strategies with consideration for the specificities of the patient’s usual activities and responsibilities;4 v. Work to provide concussed patients timely access for medical reassessment in the event of worsening or persistent symptoms (including mental health); and vi. In the presence of persistent or worsening symptoms (including mental health), consider what external, evidence based, concussion resources may be necessary as well as referral. 2. Medical Colleges & Faculties: Should: a) Promote/support medical education regarding; awareness, detection/diagnosis; and the appropriate management of concussions, throughout the continuum of medical education (undergraduate, post-graduate, and continuing medical education). b) Support research in concussion prevention, detection, and treatment or management. 3. Athletes in Contact/Collision Sports: Should: a) (Prior to the commencement of the sporting season) be given age-appropriate instruction2 to understand: i. How to identify the signs and symptoms of a possible concussion using the latest edition of the internationally recognized CRT (e.g. Concussion Recognition Tool, or Concussion Awareness Training Tool (CATT)); ii. The risks associated with concussion (including long term and mental health); especially, the risks of potentially life-threatening complications associated with continued sport participation, while presenting with signs or symptoms of a possible concussion; iii. What to do/expect if a concussion is ever suspected (including for teammates), and the expected role of the athlete and team members; iv. Removal and progressive returns to school, work and play policies/procedures, and the expected role of the athlete in the recovery process; and v. How to foster a healthy sporting culture (that promotes: safe play practices; fosters concussion/injury prevention and reporting; peer-to-peer support; and combat injury stigmatization). b) Have such instruction reinforced periodically throughout the sporting season as needed. c) Be aware of, and seek treatment for, potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 4. Parents with Minors in Contact/Collision Sports: Should: a) Prior to the commencement of a sporting season, request and be open to receiving instruction2 on: i. How to identify the signs and symptoms of a possible concussion using the latest edition of the internationally recognized CRT (e.g. Concussion Recognition Tool, or Concussion Awareness Training Tool (CATT)); ii. The risks associated with concussion; especially, the risks of potentially life-threatening complications associated with continued sport participation, while presenting with signs or symptoms of a possible concussion; iii. What to do/expect if a concussion is ever suspected for an athlete; iv. Removal and progressive returns to school, work and play policies/procedures, and the expected role of the parent(s) in the recovery process; and v. How to foster a healthy sporting culture that promotes: safe play practices; fosters concussion/injury prevention and reporting; peer-to-peer support; and combats injury stigmatization. b) Have such instruction reinforced periodically throughout the sporting season as needed. c) Be prepared to address potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 5. Individuals Who Sustain a Head Injury Outside of Organized Sports: Should: a) Be aware of possible signs and symptoms of a possible concussion, and immediately withdraw from activity and seek medical assessment a possible concussion is suspected.1 i. Refer to the latest addition of the internationally recognized CRT (Concussion Recognition Tool) for further guidance on signs and symptoms.3 b) Understand the risks associated with concussion; including the risks of potentially life-threatening complications associated with repeated head injury if signs or symptoms of a possible concussion are present. c) In the event of a diagnosis of concussion, judiciously implement the medical recommendations received regarding their gradual return to cognitive and physical activity (including the need for medical reassessment in the presence of persistent symptoms). d) Openly communicate their recovery needs and work with any group or individual who might support them in their recovery process (e.g., employers, family members, school, etc.). e) Be aware of, and seek treatment for, potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 6. Coaches, Trainers, Referees, & First Responders: Should: a) Receive certified emergency first aid training. b) Receive periodic education (ideally annually) on national standards regarding the signs and symptoms, potential long-term consequences, appropriate steps for initial intervention, and immediate management (including: athlete removal-from-play; observation; determining when medical assessment is necessary; and progressive return to school, work and play procedures). c) Be trained in the use of the latest edition of the internationally recognized CRT (Concussion Recognition Tool) – to detect whether an injured individual is suffering from a concussion.2 d) Be knowledgeable and responsible to ensure safety and safe play practices are applied throughout the sporting season. e) Be responsible for fostering a healthy sporting culture (promote safe play practices, foster concussion/injury prevention and reporting, peer-to-peer support and combat injury stigmatization). f) Be prepared to address potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 7. Licensed Health Care Providers Involved as Therapists in Sport Environments: Should: a) Be fully licensed in their professional field and pursue continuing professional development to maintain competencies related to concussion and head injuries. b) Promote the implementation of properly adapted concussion management protocols (that comply with the most current clinical recommendations, based on consideration for the specificities of each sport environment and available resources). c) Work with qualified physicians to initiate/implement tailored medically supervised concussion management protocols that define: i. Mutual and shared health professional responsibilities to optimize the quality, and safety of patient care (within one’s scope of practice); and ii. The optimal corridors for timely access to medical (re)assessment with due consideration for available resources. d) Be prepared to address potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 8. Educational Institutions & Sports Organizations: Should: a) (Especially in the cases involving minors) implement, and keep updated, prevention strategies to include: i. Safety standards that include safe play policies; and ii. Mandatory safety gear/equipment (tailored to individual sport settings). b) Mandatory concussion and head injury protocols that work to: i. Reduce the occurrence of concussions and head injury by promoting: safe play practices; fostering concussion/injury prevention and reporting; peer-to-peer support, and combatting injury stigmatization; ii. Ensure the prompt detection, and standardized early management of concussion and head injuries, by informing all potential stakeholders (in the preseason phase) about the nature/risks of concussion and head injury, and how any such occurrence will be dealt with should they occur; iii. Enshrine into practice removal-from-play, and post-injury observation of athletes; iv. Progressively reintegrate students back into symptom guided educational and physical activities based on the most current recommendations;2 v. Reintegrate injured athletes back into unrestricted training activities and sport once medical clearance has been obtained; and vi. Foster better lines of communication for injury management/recovery between: parents, athletes, coaches, school personnel, therapists and physicians. vii. Address potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 9. Employers (Occupational Considerations) Should: a) Comply with workplace safety laws and implement safety standards to reduce the incidence of head injuries in the work environment. b) Integrate considerations for concussion and head injury in health and safety protocols that work to: i. Reduce the occurrence of concussions and head injury by promoting: safe practices; concussion/injury prevention and reporting; peer-to-peer support, and combats injury stigmatization; ii. Ensure prompt detection and standardized early management of concussion and head injuries by informing potential stakeholders about the nature/risks of concussion and head injury, and how occurrences will be dealt with should they occur; iii. Enshrine into practice/ workplace culture the removal-from-work, and post-injury observation of workers; iv. Progressively reintegrate workers back into symptom guided cognitive and physical activities based on the most current recommendations; v. Reintegrate injured workers with a confirmed diagnosis of concussion, progressively back into work activities only once medical clearance has been obtained; and vi. Foster better lines of communication, and support for, injury management between: employees, employers, medical professionals and insurances. vii. Address the potentially serious mental health issues that may arise post-concussive injury. 10. Governments & Professional Regulatory Bodies: Should: a) Implement comprehensive public health strategies for the Canadian population to: i. Increase awareness that concussions can be sustained in accidents, sports, leisure and occupational contexts; ii. Inform head injuries should be taken seriously; and iii. Explain how and why concussions should be prevented and promptly assessed by a physician where they are suspected to have occurred. b) Define appropriate scopes of practice for all health professionals involved in the field of concussion detection, management, and treatment. c) Work with key stakeholders to develop compensation structures to support physicians to allocate the time necessary to: (1) conduct appropriate assessments to rule out concussions, (2) provide ongoing concussion management, and (3) develop detailed medical clearance plans. d) Work with key stakeholders to develop standardized educational tools for physicians to provide to patients with concussions. i. Ideally this would include contextualized tools for sports teams, schools, and employers. e) Adopt legislation or regulation for educational institutions and community-based sport associations to establish clear expectations/obligations regarding concussion awareness and management for youth in sports (e.g., Ontario’s Rowan’s law). i. To have meaningful impact, such initiatives must also be accompanied by: implementation funding to support the development and implementation of sport specific concussion management protocols; and monitoring/compliance programs. f) Establish a national concussion and sports injury surveillance system (with standardized metrics) to collect detailed head and sport injury related information. Thus, providing the ability to research such injuries in an ongoing and timely manner. g) Provide research opportunities/funding on concussions. Specific examples of research areas to prioritize include: i. Effective prevention strategies for both adults and children in a range of sport, leisure, or occupational environments; ii. The incidence and impact of concussions in children, and how to reduce their occurrence (inside and outside of sport); iii. Address knowledge gaps for concussion identification, management, and medical clearance for physicians not specialized in concussion care; iv. Explore all health professionals’ participation in concussion management providing for respective: competency, expertise, interdisciplinary collaboration, and appropriate roles; v. Evaluate how emerging point of care diagnostics and biomarker testing will be incorporated into sport, leisure and work environments; vi. Continued development of effective, user-friendly, and age appropriate management strategies/tools for physicians regarding concussion identification, management, and medical clearances; and vii. Develop a harmonized understanding of “concussion” and “mild traumatic brain injury” (MTBI) constructs/concepts, so that adults with concussion signs or symptoms, who do not meet the more restrictive MTBI criteria, are properly managed. McCrory P, Meeuwisse W, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus Statement on Concussion in Sport - the 5th International Conference on Concussion in Sport Held in Berlin. Br J Sports Med 2017, 51: 838-847. Parachute Canada. Canadian Guideline on Concussion in Sport. 2017. Available: http://www.parachutecanada.org/injury-topics/item/canadian-guideline-on-concussion-in-sport (accessed 2018 Jul 31). Concussion in Sport Group. Concussion Recognition Tool 5. Br J Sports Med 2017 51: 872. Available: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2017/04/26/bjsports-2017-097508CRT5.full.pdf (accessed 2018 July 31st). (accessed 2018 Jul 31). Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation. Guidelines for Concussion/Mild Traumatic Brain Injury & Persistent Symptoms. Health Care Professional Version. 3rd Ed, Adults (18 + years of age). Toronto: Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation; 2018. Available: http://braininjuryguidelines.org/concussion/fileadmin/media/adult-concussion-guidelines-3rd-edition.pdf (accessed 2018 Jul 31). Concussion in Sport Group. Sport Concussion Assessment Tool – 5th Ed. Br J Sports Med 2017, 0:1-8. Available: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2017/04/26/bjsports-2017-097508CRT5.full.pdf (accessed 2018 July 31). Approved by the CMA Board of Directors March 2019
Documents
Less detail

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (Update 2009)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9489
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2009-05-31
Topics
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2009-05-31
Replaces
Fetal alcohol syndrome (Update 2000)
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Text
FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER (UPDATE 2009) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a leading cause of environment-related birth defects and developmental disabilities in North America. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) believes that the prudent choice for women who are or may become pregnant is to abstain from alcohol, and encourages their partners to support them in this endeavour. The CMA urges Canadian governments to enact legislation that requires alcoholic beverages sold in Canada to be labelled with warnings of the hazards of consuming alcohol during pregnancy. The CMA also calls upon the federal government to examine the role that advertising plays in promoting the consumption of alcoholic beverages and to review existing policies and regulations in this area. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is an umbrella term used to describe the range of disabilities and diagnoses that result from drinking alcohol during pregnancy. It is estimated that more than 3,000 babies in Canada are born with FASD every year. Those who live with FASD may have mild to very severe problems with their health. They may have delays in their development, intellectual problems and problems in their social lives. Examples of these include: * skeletal abnormalities such as facial deformities * physical disabilities such as kidney and internal organ problems * depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder * difficulty understanding the consequences of their actions These disabilities are lifelong and those affected may need lifelong support. The drinking patterns of teenagers and the potential for women of reproductive age to consume alcohol mean that the health care system must actively address the prevention of FASD. Also, alcohol use may play a considerable role in unplanned pregnancy and inadequate prenatal and postnatal care. The CMA strongly supports all activities that encourage Canadians to moderate their alcohol consumption. The association encourages the public to be aware of the issues related to alcohol consumption, particularly the adverse effects on the fetus. In a continued effort to support the reduction of alcohol consumption, the CMA urges Canadian governments to enact legislation that requires alcoholic beverages sold in Canada to be labelled with warnings of the hazards of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.1 Appropriate agencies should also adopt regulations and/or policies to ensure that warnings about the adverse interaction between alcohol and both prescription and non-prescription products are prominently displayed or distributed wherever alcohol and drugs are sold or dispensed.2 The CMA also calls upon the federal government to examine the role that advertising plays in promoting the consumption of alcoholic beverages and to review existing policies and regulations in this area. The adverse effects of alcohol consumption by pregnant women are preventable. The CMA believes that the prudent choice for women who are or may become pregnant is to abstain from alcohol and encourages their partners to support them in this endeavour. Physicians should use appropriate screening methods to identify alcohol use in their patients. Physicians can play a leading role in educating and counselling women, spouses and family members about the dangers of alcohol to the fetus. The CMA also recommends that alcohol and drug addiction treatment services give high priority to the needs of pregnant women seeking help. 1 General Council resolution 89-67: That the Canadian Medical Association urge Governments in Canada to enact legislation requiring that all alcoholic beverages sold in Canada be labelled with warnings on the hazard from the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Note: this motion was rescinded because it was superseded by the Policy on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (2000). 2 General Council resolution 87-31
Documents
Less detail

Framework for Ethical Decision Making During the Coronavirus Pandemic

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14133
Date
2020-04-01
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2020-04-01
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Text
The current global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus has presented the international medical community with unprecedented ethical challenges. The most difficult of these has involved making decisions about access to scarce resources when demand outweighs capacity. In Canada, it is well accepted that everyone should have an equal opportunity to access and receive medical treatment. This is possible when there are sufficient resources. But in contexts of resource scarcity, when there are insufficient resources, difficult decisions have to be made about who receives critical care (e.g., ICU beds, ventilators) by triaging patients. Triage is a process for determining which patients receive treatment and/or which level of care under what circumstances in contexts of resource scarcity. Priority-setting for resource allocation becomes more ethically complex during catastrophic times or in public health emergencies, such as today’s COVID-19 pandemic, when there is a need to manage a potential surge of patients. Physicians from China to Italy to Spain to the United States have found themselves in the unfathomable position of having to triage their most seriously ill patients and decide which ones should have access to ventilators and which should not, and which allocation criteria should be used to make these decisions. While the Canadian Medical Association hopes that Canadian physicians will not be faced with these agonizing choices, it is our intent, through this framework, to provide them with guidance in case they do and enable them to make ethically justifiable informed decisions in the face of difficult ethical dilemmas. Invoking this framework to ground decisions about who has access to critical care and who does not should only be made as a last resort. As always, physicians should carefully document their clinical and ethical decisions and the reasoning behind them. Generally, the CMA would spend many months in deliberations and consultations with numerous stakeholders, including patients and the public, before producing a document such as this one. The current situation, unfortunately, did not allow for such a process. We have turned instead to documents, reports and policies produced by our Italian colleagues and ethicists and physicians from Canada and around the world, as well as provincial level documents and frameworks. The CMA is endorsing and recommending that Canadian physicians use the guidance provided by Emmanuel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine article dated from March 23rd, as outlined below. We believe these recommendations represent the best current approach to this situation, produced using the highest current standard of evidence by a panel of internationally recognized experts. We also recognize that the situation is changing constantly, and these guidelines may need to be updated as required. The CMA will continue to advocate for access to personal protective equipment, ventilators and ICU equipment and resources. We also encourage physicians to make themselves aware of any relevant provincial or local documents, and to seek advice from their regulatory body or liability protection provider. It should be noted that some provinces and indeed individual health care facilities will have their own protocols or frameworks in place. At the time of its publication, this document was broadly consistent with those protocols that we were given an opportunity to review. The CMA recognizes that physicians may experience moral distress when making these decisions. We encourage physicians to seek peer support and practice self-care. In addition, the CMA recommends that triage teams or committees be convened where feasible in order to help separate clinical decision making from resource allocation, thereby lessening the moral burden being placed on the individual physician. The CMA recommends that physicians receive legal protection to ensure that they can continue providing needed care to patients with confidence and support and without fear of civil or criminal liability or professional discipline. In this time of uncertainty, physicians should be reassured that their good faith efforts to provide care during such a crisis will not put them at increased medical-legal risk. Providing such reassurance is needed so that physicians have the confidence to continue to provide care to their patients. Recommendations: Recommendation 1: In the context of a pandemic, the value of maximizing benefits is most important. This value reflects the importance of responsible stewardship of resources: it is difficult to justify asking health care workers and the public to take risks and make sacrifices if the promise that their efforts will save and lengthen lives is illusory. Priority for limited resources should aim both at saving the most lives and at maximizing improvements in individuals’ post-treatment length of life. Saving more lives and more years of life is a consensus value across expert reports. It is consistent both with utilitarian ethical perspectives that emphasize population outcomes and with nonutilitarian views that emphasize the paramount value of each human life. There are many reasonable ways of balancing saving more lives against saving more years of life; whatever balance between lives and life-years is chosen must be applied consistently. Limited time and information in a Covid-19 pandemic make it justifiable to give priority to maximizing the number of patients that survive treatment with a reasonable life expectancy and to regard maximizing improvements in length of life as a subordinate aim. The latter becomes relevant only in comparing patients whose likelihood of survival is similar. Limited time and information during an emergency also counsel against incorporating patients’ future quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years, into benefit maximization. Doing so would require time-consuming collection of information and would present ethical and legal problems. However, encouraging all patients, especially those facing the prospect of intensive care, to document in an advance care directive what future quality of life they would regard as acceptable and when they would refuse ventilators or other life-sustaining interventions can be appropriate. Operationalizing the value of maximizing benefits means that people who are sick but could recover if treated are given priority over those who are unlikely to recover even if treated and those who are likely to recover without treatment. Because young, severely ill patients will often comprise many of those who are sick but could recover with treatment, this operationalization also has the effect of giving priority to those who are worst off in the sense of being at risk of dying young and not having a full life. Because maximizing benefits is paramount in a pandemic, we believe that removing a patient from a ventilator or an ICU bed to provide it to others in need is also justifiable and that patients should be made aware of this possibility at admission. Undoubtedly, withdrawing ventilators or ICU support from patients who arrived earlier to save those with better prognosis will be extremely psychologically traumatic for clinicians — and some clinicians might refuse to do so. However, many guidelines agree that the decision to withdraw a scarce resource to save others is not an act of killing and does not require the patient’s consent. We agree with these guidelines that it is the ethical thing to do. Initially allocating beds and ventilators according to the value of maximizing benefits could help reduce the need for withdrawal. Recommendation 2: Irrespective of Recommendation 1, Critical Covid-19 interventions — testing, PPE, ICU beds, ventilators, therapeutics, and vaccines — should go first to front-line health care workers and others who care for ill patients and who keep critical infrastructure operating, particularly workers who face a high risk of infection and whose training makes them difficult to replace. These workers should be given priority not because they are somehow more worthy, but because of their instrumental value: they are essential to pandemic response. If physicians and nurses and RTs are incapacitated, all patients — not just those with Covid-19 — will suffer greater mortality and years of life lost. Whether health workers who need ventilators will be able to return to work is uncertain but giving them priority for ventilators recognizes their assumption of the high-risk work of saving others. Priority for critical workers must not be abused by prioritizing wealthy or famous persons or the politically powerful above first responders and medical staff — as has already happened for testing. Such abuses will undermine trust in the allocation framework. Recommendation 3: For patients with similar prognoses, equality should be invoked and operationalized through random allocation, such as a lottery, rather than a first-come, first-served allocation process. First-come, first-served is used for such resources as transplantable kidneys, where scarcity is long-standing, and patients can survive without the scarce resource. Conversely, treatments for coronavirus address urgent need, meaning that a first-come, first-served approach would unfairly benefit patients living nearer to health facilities. And first-come, first-served medication or vaccine distribution would encourage crowding and even violence during a period when social distancing is paramount. Finally, first-come, first-served approaches mean that people who happen to get sick later on, perhaps because of their strict adherence to recommended public health measures, are excluded from treatment, worsening outcomes without improving fairness. In the face of time pressure and limited information, random selection is also preferable to trying to make finer-grained prognostic judgments within a group of roughly similar patients. Recommendation 4: Prioritization guidelines should differ by intervention and should respond to changing scientific evidence. For instance, younger patients should not be prioritized for Covid-19 vaccines, which prevent disease rather than cure it, or for experimental post- or pre-exposure prophylaxis. Covid-19 outcomes have been significantly worse in older persons and those with chronic conditions. Invoking the value of maximizing saving lives justifies giving older persons priority for vaccines immediately after health care workers and first responders. If the vaccine supply is insufficient for patients in the highest risk categories — those over 60 years of age or with coexisting conditions — then equality supports using random selection, such as a lottery, for vaccine allocation. Invoking instrumental value justifies prioritizing younger patients for vaccines only if epidemiologic modeling shows that this would be the best way to reduce viral spread and the risk to others. Epidemiologic modeling is even more relevant in setting priorities for coronavirus testing. Federal guidance currently gives priority to health care workers and older patients but reserving some tests for public health surveillance could improve knowledge about Covid-19 transmission and help researchers target other treatments to maximize benefits. Conversely, ICU beds and ventilators are curative rather than preventive. Patients who need them face life-threatening conditions. Maximizing benefits requires consideration of prognosis — how long the patient is likely to live if treated — which may mean giving priority to younger patients and those with fewer coexisting conditions. This is consistent with the Italian guidelines that potentially assign a higher priority for intensive care access to younger patients with severe illness than to elderly patients. Determining the benefit-maximizing allocation of antivirals and other experimental treatments, which are likely to be most effective in patients who are seriously but not critically ill, will depend on scientific evidence. These treatments may produce the most benefit if preferentially allocated to patients who would fare badly on ventilation. Recommendation 5: People who participate in research to prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and therapeutics should receive some priority for Covid-19 interventions. Their assumption of risk during their participation in research helps future patients, and they should be rewarded for that contribution. These rewards will also encourage other patients to participate in clinical trials. Research participation, however, should serve only as a tiebreaker among patients with similar prognoses. Recommendation 6: There should be no difference in allocating scarce resources between patients with Covid-19 and those with other medical conditions. If the Covid-19 pandemic leads to absolute scarcity, that scarcity will affect all patients, including those with heart failure, cancer, and other serious and life-threatening conditions requiring prompt medical attention. Fair allocation of resources that prioritizes the value of maximizing benefits applies across all patients who need resources. For example, a doctor with an allergy who goes into anaphylactic shock and needs life-saving intubation and ventilator support should receive priority over Covid-19 patients who are not frontline health care workers. Approved by the CMA Board of Directors April 2020
Documents
Less detail

14 records – page 1 of 2.