Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


25 records – page 1 of 3.

Acting on today's and tomorrow's health care needs: Prebudget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14123
Date
2019-08-02
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2019-08-02
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance this pre-budget submission. It provides recommendations to address major pan-Canadian challenges to the health of Canadians: improve how we provide care to our growing elderly population; improve access to primary care across the country; increase digital health literacy to take advantage of the benefits of new health information technologies; and better prepare for and mitigate the health impacts of a changing climate on Canadians. Seniors Care Health systems across the country are currently struggling to meet the needs of our aging population. People aged 85 years and over—many of whom are frail—make up the fastest growing age group in Canadai. Provincial and territorial health care systems (as well as care systems for populations falling under federal jurisdiction) are facing many challenges to meet the needs of an aging population. Canadians support a strong role for the federal government in leading a national seniors strategy and working with the provinces to ensure that all Canadians have the same level of access and quality of services, no matter where they live. The 2017 federal/provincial/territorial funding agreement involving $6 billion over 10 years to improve access to home care services is a welcomed building block. But without greater investment in seniors care, health systems will not keep up. To be truly relevant and effectively respond to Canadians’ present and future needs, our health care system must provide integrated, continuing care able to meet the chronic and complex care needs of our growing and aging population. This includes recognizing the increased role for patients and their caregivers in the care process. The federal government must ensure transfers are able to keep up with the real cost of health care. Current funding levels clearly fail to do so. Health transfers are estimated to rise by 3.6% while health care costs are expected to rise by 5.1% annually over the next decade.ii Recommendation: The federal government ensure provincial and territorial health care systems meet the care needs of their aging populations by means of a demographic top-up to the Canada Health Transfer.iii Providing care often comes with a financial cost such as lost income due to the caregiver’s withdrawal from the workforce to provide care. There are also increasing out-of-pocket costs for both caregivers and care receivers for health care-related expenses—privately covered expenditures on home and long-term care for seniors are projected to grow by an average of 5.8 per cent annually—nearly 1.5 times the pace of household disposable income growth. While the federal government offers tax credits that can be claimed by care receivers/caregivers, they are significantly under-utilized. While representing a significant proportion of caregivers, those with low or no income receive little to no federal government support through these programs. Middle-income earners also receive less than those earning high incomes. 4 Recommendation: The federal government create a Seniors Care Benefit that would be an easier, fairer and more effective way to support caregivers and care receivers alike.iv Access to Care Since the mid-1990s, the federal and provincial/territorial governments (FPT) have provided sustained leadership in promoting and supporting the transformation of primary care in Canada. In 2000, the First Ministers concluded the first of three Health Accords in which they agreed to promote the establishment of primary health care teamsv supported by a $800 million Primary Health Care Transition Fund (PHCTF) funded by the federal government, but jointly governed. The PHCTF resulted in large-scale sustained change in primary care delivery models in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta with interest in other jurisdictions as well. However, the job is far from finished. Across Canada, access to primary care is challenging for many Canadians with a persistent shortage of family physicians. In 2017, 4.7 million Canadians aged 12+ reported they did not have a regular health care provider.vi Even those who have a regular provider experience wait time issues. There has been widespread interest in primary care models since the development of the College of Family Physicians of Canada’s (CFPC) vision document Family Practice: The Patient’s Medical Home (PMH), initially launched in 2011vii and recently re-launched.viii The model is founded on 10 pillars depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. The Patient’s Medical Home, 2019 The updated model places increased emphasis on team-based care and introduces the concept of the patient’s medical neighborhood that sets out connections between the primacy care practice and all delivery points in the surrounding community. While comprehensive baseline data are lacking, it seems 5 safe to conjecture that most Canadians are not enrolled in a primary care model that would measure up to the model’s 10 pillars. Recommendation: The federal government, in concert with provinces and territories, establish a targeted fund in the amount of $1.2 billion to support a new time-limited Primary Health Care Transition Fund that would build on the success of the fund launched in 2000 with the goal of widely introducing a sustainable medical home model across jurisdictions. This would include the following key elements:
Age-sex-weighted per capita allocation across the provinces and territories;
Joint governance of the FPT governments with meaningful stakeholder engagement;
Respect for the Canada Health Act principles;
Common objectives (e.g., modeled on the CFPC Patient’s Medical Home framework);
Operating Principles specifying eligible/ineligible activities;
Reporting provisions and agreed-upon metrics; and
Sustainability plans. Digital/Virtual Care Canada and most industrialized countries will experience a digital health revolution over the next decade with great potential to improve patient and population health. Digital health can be described as the integration of the electronic collection and compilation of health data, decision support tools and analytics with the use of audio, video and other technologies to deliver preventive, diagnostic and treatment services that promote patient and population health. While most Canadian physicians’ offices and health care facilities are now using some form of electronic record keeping and most households have internet access, there remains a large deficit in using virtual care, both within jurisdictions and across provincial/territorial boundaries. Recently the CMA, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada established a Virtual Care Task Force to identify opportunities for digital health to improve health care delivery, including what regulatory changes are required for physicians to deliver care to patients within and across provincial/territorial boundaries. To take full advantage of digital health capabilities it will be essential for the population to have a functional level of digital health literacy: the ability to seek, find, understand and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem.ix This also includes the capability of communicating about one’s health to health care professionals (e.g., e-consults), self-monitoring health (e.g., patient portals) and receiving treatment online (e.g., Web-based cognitive behavioral therapy).x There are no current data available on health literacy in Canada, let alone digital health literacy. One basic barrier to achieving digital health literacy is access to, and usage of the Internet, which has been termed the “digital divide” (e.g., older Canadians and low income households are less likely to have Internet access).Error! Bookmark not defined. 6 In 2001 the federal government established the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC). Its mandate includes informing consumers about their rights and responsibilities in dealing with financial institutions and providing information and tools to help consumers understand and shop for financial products and services.xi In 2014 the FCAC appointed a Financial Literacy Leader who has focused on financial literacy, including activities such as conducting financial capability surveys and the development of a National Strategy for Financial Literacy.xii Considering the anticipated growth of digital/virtual care it would be desirable to understand and promote digital health literacy across Canada. What the federal government has done for financial literacy could serve as a template for digital health literacy. Recommendation: The federal government establish a Digital Health Literacy Secretariat to:
Develop indicators and conducting surveys to measure and track the digital health literacy of Canadians;
Develop tools that can be used both by Canadians and their health care providers to enhance their digital health literacy; and
Assess and make recommendations on the “digital divide” that may exist among some population sub-groups due to a lack of access to information technology and lower digital health literacy. Climate Change and Health Climate change is the public health imperative of our time. There is a high level of concern among Canadians about their changing climate. A 2017 poll commissioned by Health Canada demonstrates a high level of concern among Canadians about their changing climate: 79% were convinced that climate change is happening, and of these, 53% accepted that it is a current health risk, with 40% believing it will be a health risk in the future. The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified air pollution and climate change as one of the biggest threats to global health. Health care professionals see first-hand the devastating health impacts of our changing climate including increased deaths from fine particulate matter air pollution and increased heat-related conditions. Impacts are most common in vulnerable populations such as adults over 65 years, the homeless, urban dwellers and people with a pre-existing disease. Canada’s health care system is already treating the health effects of climate change. A lack of progress in reducing emissions and building adaptive capacity threatens both human lives and the viability of Canada’s health system, with the potential to disrupt core public health infrastructure and overwhelm health services, not to mention the economic and social costs. The federal government must provide leadership to deal with the impact already being felt in Canada and around the world. Recommendation: 7 The federal government make strong commitments to minimize the impact of climate change on the health of Canadians by:
Ensuring pan-Canadian and inter-jurisdictional coordination to standardize surveillance and reporting of climate-related health impacts such as heat-related deaths, develop knowledge translation strategies to inform the public, and generate clinical and public health response plans that minimize the health impacts;
Increasing funding for research on the mental health impacts of climate change and psychosocial adaptation opportunities; and
Ensuring funding is provided to the health sector to prepare for climate change impacts through efforts to increase resiliency (i.e., risk assessments, readiness to manage disease outbreaks, sustainable practice). 8 i Statistics Canada. The Chief Public Health Officer's Report on the State of Public Health in Canada, 2014: Public Health in the Future. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2015. Available: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cphorsphc-respcacsp/2014/chang-eng.php; (accessed 2016 Sep 19). ii The Conference Board of Canada. Meeting the care needs of Canada’s aging population. Ottawa: The Conference Board; 2018. iii Canadian Medical Association. Meeting the demographic challenge: Investments in seniors care. Pre-budget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. August 3, 2018. https://policybase.cma.ca/documents/Briefpdf/BR2018-16.pdf iv The Conference Board of Canada. Measures to Better Support Seniors and Their Caregivers. March 2019. https://www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/health-advocacy/Measures-to-better-support-seniors-and-their-caregivers-e.pdf v Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. News release – First Ministers’ meeting communiqué on health. September 11, 2000. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/news-release-first-ministers-meeting-communique-on-health/. Accessed 04/22/19. vi Statistics Canada. Primary health care providers, 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00001-eng.pdf?st=NGPiUkM5. Accessed 04/21/19. vii College of Family Physicians of Canada. A vision for Canada. Family Practice: the patient’s medical home. http://www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/Resource_Items/PMH_A_Vision_for_Canada.pdf. Accessed 04/22/19. viii College of Family Physicians of Canada. The patient’s medical home 2019. https://patientsmedicalhome.ca/files/uploads/PMH_VISION2019_ENG_WEB_2.pdf. Accessed 04/21/19. ix Norman C, Skinner H. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(2):e9. Doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9. x Van der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the digital health literacy instrument: measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e27. Doi:10.2196/jmir.6709. xi Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. About FCAC. xii Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. National Strategy for Financial Literacy. Phase 1: strengthening seniors’ financial literacy. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/financialliteracy/financialliteracycanada/documents/seniorsstrategyen.pdf. Accessed 06/24/19. https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/corporate/about.html. Accessed 07/01/19.
Documents
Less detail

Allocation of resources

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9886
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-63
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, strongly urges governments that decisions regarding the allocation of resources for new and existing health care treatments, programs, policies and products be consistent with the best available scientific evidence.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health systems, system funding and performance
Resolution
GC10-63
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, strongly urges governments that decisions regarding the allocation of resources for new and existing health care treatments, programs, policies and products be consistent with the best available scientific evidence.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, strongly urges governments that decisions regarding the allocation of resources for new and existing health care treatments, programs, policies and products be consistent with the best available scientific evidence.
Less detail

Antibiotic resistant organisms in humans

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9902
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC10-79
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, will work with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to investigate the agriculture-related release of antibiotic resistant organisms and residual antibiotics into earth and water ecosystems, as well as the role they play in the emergence of antibiotic resistant organisms in humans.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC10-79
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, will work with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to investigate the agriculture-related release of antibiotic resistant organisms and residual antibiotics into earth and water ecosystems, as well as the role they play in the emergence of antibiotic resistant organisms in humans.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, will work with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to investigate the agriculture-related release of antibiotic resistant organisms and residual antibiotics into earth and water ecosystems, as well as the role they play in the emergence of antibiotic resistant organisms in humans.
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

Charter for Patient-centred Care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9847
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC10-15
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, patient advocacy groups and other medical and health organizations to further develop the elements of the Charter for Patient-centred Care.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC10-15
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, patient advocacy groups and other medical and health organizations to further develop the elements of the Charter for Patient-centred Care.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, patient advocacy groups and other medical and health organizations to further develop the elements of the Charter for Patient-centred Care.
Less detail
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC10-67
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliates and associate organizations, calls on governments to add chronic pain to the list of recognized chronic diseases.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Resolution
GC10-67
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliates and associate organizations, calls on governments to add chronic pain to the list of recognized chronic diseases.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association, in collaboration with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliates and associate organizations, calls on governments to add chronic pain to the list of recognized chronic diseases.
Less detail

Climate Change and Human Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9809
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-06-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Last Reviewed
2018-03-03
Date
2010-06-09
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
Climate Change and Human Health Background Climate change is increasingly recognized as a significant threat facing society and has the potential to be one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st Century1. While the damage is being done now, many of the health effects may arise only decades in the future2. Possible impacts could include some or all of the following: * Increased mortality, disease and injuries from heat waves and other extreme weather events; * Continued change in the range of some infectious disease vectors (i.e. 260-320 million more cases of malaria predicted by 2080, with six billion more at risk for dengue fever); * Effects on food yields- increased malnutrition; * Increased flooding in some areas and increased droughts in others, along with other impacts on freshwater supply; * Increases in foodborne and waterborne illnesses; * Warming and rising sea levels adding to displacement and also impacting water supply through salination; * Impaired functioning of ecosystems; * Negative effects on air quality associated with ground level ozone, including increases in cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality, asthma, and allergens; * Displacement of vulnerable populations (especially in coastal areas)1; and * Loss of livelihoods3. Most of the impacts of climate change will result from amplifying the existing health hazards found in populations4. How susceptible a population is to the effects of climate change is dependent on their existing vulnerabilities (i.e. disease burden, resources etc.) as well as their adaptive capacity5. The World Health Organization has projected that countries that have, and will likely continue to suffer the greatest effects, are those who have contributed the smallest amount to the causes of climate change.6 While the vast majority of climate change deaths will occur in developing countries with systemic vulnerabilities, a recent Health Canada report has noted that Canada is likely to experience higher rates of warming in this century than most other countries in the world. Climate change scenarios predict an increased risk of extreme weather and other climate events for all regions of Canada, with the exception of extreme cold7. Canadians most vulnerable to climate change include seniors, children and infants, socially disadvantaged individuals, and those with pre-existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease8. Those living in cities could be especially vulnerable due to the impact of the heat island effect. However, given their greater access to emergency, health, social, and financial resources, they might also have the greatest adaptive capacity9. The health consequences of climate change have the potential to be more severe in far northern regions. Populations in Canada's north including aboriginals have already begun to see differences in their hunting practices as a result of changing ice patterns10, and the melting of permanent snowpacks11. Changes in ice patterns have also led to increased injuries12. In some places in the North, climate changes have led to greater risks from avalanches, landslides and other hazards13. Further problems are related to the infrastructure in Northern Canada, with some communities already noticing degradation of structures due to the thawing of the permafrost14. Given that much of the Northern infrastructure is already in disrepair, this represents a considerable problem. Geographic isolation, and a lack of resources may further exacerbate the situation15. What CMA has done? Physicians have a critical role to play in advancing public understanding of the potential impact of climate change on health and promoting health protecting responses. The CMA has been working on the issue of climate change and human health for a number of years. CMA was supportive of Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and urged the Government of Canada to commit to choosing a climate change strategy that satisfied Canada's international commitments while also maximizing the clean air co-benefits and smog-reduction potential of any greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. In 2007, a number of resolutions were passed at General Council calling on government to properly plan for the health impacts of climate change and put in place measures to mitigate the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations in Canada's north. In that same year, CMA and the Canadian Nurses Association updated a joint position statement first entered into in 1994 calling for environmentally responsible activity in the health-care sector. Most recently, the CMA has been an integral part of the drafting of the World Medical Association (WMA) policies on health and climate change. The WMA Declaration of Delhi on Health and Climate Change was adopted at its annual General Assembly in New Delhi, India in October 2009, The declaration calls for action in five main areas; advocacy to combat global warming; leadership-help people be healthy enough to adapt to climate change; education and capacity building; surveillance and research; and collaboration to prepare for climate emergencies. This policy is written to complement the WMA declaration. What needs to be done? Climate change may lead to significant impacts on human health. While it is unlikely that these outcomes can be avoided, there are some strategies that can be employed to help limit the negative consequences. Education and Capacity Building There is a need for greater public and health professional awareness and education about climate change in order to gain understanding of the health consequences and support for strategies to reduce green house gases and mitigate climate change effects. CMA recommends: 1. A national public awareness program on the importance of the environment and global climate change to personal health; 2. Encouraging health sciences schools to enhance their provision of educational programs on environmental health; and fostering the development of continuing education modules on environmental health and environmental health practices. Surveillance and Research There are important gaps in our knowledge on the health impacts of climate change as well as the effectiveness of various mitigation and adaptation strategies. Surveillance and reporting functions need to be strengthened to allow for greater accuracy in modeling of future impacts. CMA recommends: 3. That the federal government must address the gaps in research regarding climate change and health by undertaking studies to - quantify and model the burden of disease that will be caused by global climate change - identify the most vulnerable populations, the particular health impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, and possible new protections for such populations; - increase the collection and accuracy of health data, particularly for vulnerable and underserved populations; - report diseases that emerge in conjunction with global climate change, and participate in field investigations, as with outbreaks of infectious diseases; and - develop and expand surveillance systems to include diseases caused by global climate change. Reducing the Burden of Disease to Mitigate Climate Change Impacts How susceptible a population is to the effects of climate change is dependent on their existing vulnerabilities. Therefore, work needs to be done to reduce the burden of diseases and improve upon the social determinants of health for vulnerable populations in Canada and globally. CMA recommends: 4. That the federal and provincial/territorial governments work together to improve the ability of the public to adapt to climate change and catastrophic weather events by - Encouraging behaviours that improve overall health, - Creating targeted programs designed to address specific exposures, - Providing health promotion information and education on self-management of the symptoms of climate-associated illness, - Ensuring physical infrastructure that allows for adaptation; 5. That the federal government develop concrete actions to reduce the health impact of climate-related emissions, in particular those initiatives which will also improve the general health of the population; 6. That the federal government support the Millennium Development Goals and support the principles outlined in the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health report; and Preparing for Climate Emergencies To deal with the future burden of climate change related health issues there is a need to ensure adequate health capacity and infrastructure. Rebuilding of public health capacity globally is seen as the most important, cost-effective, and urgently needed response to climate change16. Domestically, there is a need to ensure adequate surge capacity within the health care system to be prepared for an increase in illness related to climate change effects. There is also a need to strengthen not only the health systems, but the infrastructure (i.e. housing) for vulnerable populations including Aboriginals and those in the North. CMA recommends that the federal and provincial /territorial governments work together to: 7. Strengthen the public health system both domestically and internationally in order to improve the capacity of communities to adapt to climate change; 8. Ensure adequate surge capacity within Canada's health system to handle the increase in climate change related illness; 9. Ensure the health of vulnerable populations is adequate to handle climate change related situations; 10. Develop knowledge about the best ways to adapt to and mitigate the health effects of climate change; 11. Integrate health professionals into the emergency preparedness plans of government and public health authorities so that front-line providers are adequately informed and prepared to properly manage any health emergencies. Advocacy to Combat Climate Change Finally, there is a need to take action to reduce the damaging effects of climate change. The global community needs to come together to reduce the levels of green house gases being released in the atmosphere, and focus on safer more environmentally friendly energy sources. Investments in cuts to greenhouse gas emissions would greatly outweigh their costs, and could help to reduce the future burden of climate change related illness17. CMA recommends: 12. That the government of Canada become a global leader in promoting equitable, carbon neutral economic, industrial, and social policies, and practices that fight global warming and adopt specific green house gas reduction targets as determined by the evolving science of climate change. 13. That health care professionals act within their professional settings to reduce the environmental impact of medical activities and to develop environmentally sustainable professional settings; 14. That all Canadians act to minimize individual impacts on the environment, and encourage others to do so, as well. Conclusions The CMA believes that Canada must prepare now for the potential health threat that climate change poses to its population. While many of these effects will take decades to materialize, certain populations, such as those in Canada's north, or those in low lying coastal areas, are already starting to experience the impact of climate change. A focus on education and health promotion, as well as advocacy for improved public policy and primary health care resources will be a good start in dealing with this issue. Additionally, further research and data collection is necessary to improve our understanding of climate change and the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation strategies. Finally, the global community needs to act together to address the health and environmental impacts of climate change. By working together, in an international response, strategies can be implemented to mitigate any negative health effects of climate change. Canada's physicians believe that: What is good for the environment is also good for human health. It is past time for those of us in the health sector in Canada to engage fully in the debate and discussions within our own house, as well as in the broader body politic to ensure that protecting human health is the bottom line of environmental and climate change strategies. Bibliography 1 Currently a third of the world's population lives within 60 miles of the shoreline and 13 of 20 biggest world cities located on the coast- more than a billion people could be displaced (Costello et.al., 2009) 1 Costello, Anthony et.al. "Managing the health effects of climate change.' The Lancet Volume 373 May 16, 2009. pp.1693-1733. 2 World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization & United Nations Environment Programme (2003) Climate Change and Human Health- Risks and Responses, Summary. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/ccSCREEN.pdf 3 Confalonieri et.al., (2007) Human Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter8.pdf ; Epstein, Paul R. "Climate Change and Human Health." The New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14) October 6, 2005.; Friel, Sharon; Marmot, Michael; McMichael, Anthony J.; Kjellstrom, Tord & Denny Vagero. "Global health equity and climate stabilization: a common agenda." The Lancet Volume 372 November 8, 2008. pp.1677-1683. 4Confalonieri et.al., (2007) Human Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter8.pdf; World Health Organization (2009) Protecting Health From Climate Change: Global research priorities. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598187_eng.pdf 5 Health Canada (2001) Climate Change and Health & Well-being: A Policy Primer Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/climat/policy_primer-abecedaire_en_matiere/index-eng.php 6 Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Corvalan, Carlos & Maria Neira "Global climate change: implications for international public health policy." Bulletin of the World Health Organization. March 2007, 85 (3) pp.235-237 7 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 8 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 9 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 10 Ibid 11 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 12 Epstein, Paul R. "Climate Change and Human Health." The New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14) October 6, 2005. 13 Seguin, Jacinthe & Peter Berry (2008) "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity, Synthesis Report." Health Canada Available at: http://www.nbhub.org/hubfiles/pdf/HealthinChangingClimate_Synthesis_english_low.pdf 14 Field, Christopher B. et.al. (2007) North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf 15 Health Canada (2002) Climate Change And Health & Well-Being: A Policy Primer for Canada's North. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-02-290E.pdf 16 World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization & United Nations Environment Programme (2003) Climate Change and Human Health- Risks and Responses, Summary. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/ccSCREEN.pdf 17 Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Corvalan, Carlos & Maria Neira "Global climate change: implications for international public health policy." Bulletin of the World Health Organization. March 2007, 85 (3) pp.235-237
Documents
Less detail

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

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

Comprehensive pregnancy care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9882
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC10-84
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliate and associate organizations, and other stakeholders to further develop educational materials for primary care providers and women on the importance of pre-pregnancy and early-pregnancy health, and early access to comprehensive pregnancy care.
Policy Type
Policy resolution
Last Reviewed
2017-03-04
Date
2010-08-25
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Health care and patient safety
Resolution
GC10-84
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliate and associate organizations, and other stakeholders to further develop educational materials for primary care providers and women on the importance of pre-pregnancy and early-pregnancy health, and early access to comprehensive pregnancy care.
Text
The Canadian Medical Association will work with provincial/territorial medical associations, affiliate and associate organizations, and other stakeholders to further develop educational materials for primary care providers and women on the importance of pre-pregnancy and early-pregnancy health, and early access to comprehensive pregnancy care.
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

25 records – page 1 of 3.