Homelessness is a social condition increasing in frequency and severity across Canada. Interventions to end and prevent homelessness include effective case management in addition to an affordable housing provision. Little standardization exists for service providers to guide their decision making in developing and maintaining effective case management programs. The purpose of this 2-part article is to articulate dimensions of promising practice for case managers working in a "Housing First" context. Part 1 discusses research processes and findings and Part 2 articulates the 6 dimensions of quality.
Practice settings include community-based organizations that employ and support case managers whose primary role is moving people from homelessness into permanent supportive housing.
Six dimensions of promising practice are critically important to reducing barriers, improving sector collaboration, and ensuring that case managers have appropriate and effective training and support. Dimensions of promising practice are (1) collaboration and cooperation-a true team approach; (2) right matching of services-person-centered; (3) contextual case management-culture and flexibility; (4) the right kind of engagement-relationships and advocacy; (5) coordinated and well-managed system-ethics and communication; and (6) evaluation for success-support and training.
Effective, coordinated case management, in addition to permanent affordable housing has the potential to reduce a person's or family's homelessness permanently. Organizations and professionals working in this context have the opportunity to improve processes, reduce burnout, collaborate and standardize, and, most importantly, efficiently and permanently end someone's homelessness with the help of dimensions of quality for case management.
Persons with severe mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) have a high prevalence of somatic conditions compared to the general population. Mortality data in the Nordic countries reveal that these persons die 15-20 years earlier than the general population. Some factors explaining this high prevalence may be related to the individuals in question; others arise from the health care system's difficulty in offering somatic health care to these patient groups. The aim of the present study was therefore to explore the experiences and views of patients, relatives and clinicians regarding individual and organizational factors which facilitate or hinder access to somatic health care for persons with severe mental illness.
Flexible qualitative design. Data was collected by means of semi-structured individual interviews with patients with severe mental illness, relatives and clinicians representing primary and specialized health care. In all, 50 participants participated.
The main barrier to accessing somatic care is the gap between the organization of the health care system and the patients' individual health care needs. This is observed at both individual and organizational level. The health care system seems unable to support patients with severe mental illness and their psychiatric-somatic comorbidity. The main facilitators are the links between severe mental illness patients and medical departments. These links take the form of functions (i.e. systems which ensure that patients receive regular reminders), or persons (i.e. professional contacts who facilitate patients' access the health care).
Health care services for patients with severe mental illness need reorganization. Organizational structures and systems that facilitate cooperation between different departments must be put in place, along with training for health care professionals about somatic disease among psychiatric patients. The links between individual and organizational levels could be strengthened by introducing professional contacts, such as liaison physicians and case managers. This is also important to reduce stress and responsibility among relatives.
Over the past decade, the need for healthcare delivery systems to identify and address patient safety issues has been propelled to the forefront. A Canadian survey, for example, demonstrated patient safety to be a major concern of frontline nurses (Nicklin & McVeety 2002). Three crucial patient safety elements, current knowledge, resources, and context of care have been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO 2009). To develop strategies to respond to the scope and mandate of the WHO report within the Canadian context, a pan-Canadian academic-policy partnership has been established.
This newly formed Pan-Canadian Partnership, the Queen's Joanna Briggs Collaboration for Patient Safety (referred throughout as "QJBC" or "the Partnership"), includes the Queen's University School of Nursing, Accreditation Canada, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and is supported by an active and committed advisory council representing over 10 national organizations representing all sectors of the health continuum, including patients/families advocacy groups, professional associations, and other bodies. This unique partnership is designed to provide timely, focused support from academia to the front line of patient safety. QJBC has adopted an "integrated knowledge translation" approach to identify and respond to patient safety priorities and to ensure active engagement with stakeholders in producing and using available knowledge. Synthesis of evidence and guideline adaptation methodologies are employed to access quantitative and qualitative evidence relevant to pertinent patient safety questions and subsequently, to respond to issues of feasibility, meaningfulness, appropriateness/acceptability, and effectiveness.
This paper describes the conceptual grounding of the Partnership, its proposed methods, and its plan for action. It is hoped that our journey may provide some guidance to others as they develop patient safety models within their own arenas.
To assess whether the model of service delivery affects the equity of the care provided across age groups.
One hundred thirty-seven practices, including traditional fee-for-service practices, salaried community health centres (CHCs), and capitation-based family health networks and health service organizations.
To compare the quality of care across age groups using multilevel linear or logistic regressions. Health service delivery measures and health promotion were assessed through patient surveys (N = 5111), which were based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool, and prevention and chronic disease management were assessed, based on Canadian recommendations for care, through chart abstraction (N = 4108).
Older individuals reported better health service delivery in all models. This age effect ranged from 1.9% to 5.7%, and was larger in the 2 capitation-based models. Individuals aged younger than 30 years attending CHCs had more features of disadvantage (ie, living below the poverty line and without high school education) and were more likely than older individuals to report discussing at least 1 health promotion subject at the index visit. These differences were deemed an appropriate response to greater needs in these younger individuals. The prevention score showed an age-sex interaction in all models, with adherence to recommended care dropping with age for women. These results are largely attributable to the fact that maneuvers recommended for younger women are considerably more likely to be performed than other maneuvers. Chronic disease management scores showed an inverted U relationship with age in fee-for-service practices, family health networks, and health service organizations but not in CHCs.
The salaried model might have an organizational structure that is more conducive to providing appropriate care across age groups. The thrust toward adopting capitation-based payment is unlikely to have an effect on age disparities.
Cites: J Health Econ. 1993 Dec;12(4):431-5710131755
Cites: Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(3):429-451644507
Cites: Can J Cardiol. 1998 Jun;14 Suppl C:1C-23C9676173
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2005 Apr;95(4):674-8015798129
University of Alberta Pulmonary Research Group, CIHR Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health, University of Alberta, 173 HMRC University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2S2, Canada. email@example.com
Indigenous peoples across all the continents of the globe live with major gaps in health status and health outcomes associated with well-described social determinants of health, such as poverty and poor education. Indigenous peoples face additional health determinant issues associated with urbanization, isolation from traditional territories, and loss of cultural continuity. Indigenous children are particularly vulnerable as they grow up in isolation from their cultural and social roots and yet are also separated from the mainstream environment of their society. Programs to address these difficult health issues should be viewed as complex clinical interventions with health researchers, social scientists, and clinicians working together with Indigenous peoples to identify the most pressing needs and most appropriate and workable solutions that will result in effective policies and practices.
We studied the workings of a rehabilitation team in a videoconference setting to note the pros and cons of videoconferencing in the development of interprofessional care plans (ICPs). We recorded every videoconference held by the teams of the specialized centre and the regional centre for clients with traumatic brain injuries over an 18-month period. Thirteen recorded videoconferences, lasting for 30-98 min, were analysed through an observation grid. On the whole, efficient teamwork was observed: the mean productivity level was 96%, while the percentage of time dedicated to the resolution of technical issues was 2%. During the videoconferences, the clinical coordinator and the client addressed the group most often. One of the most commonly mentioned advantages was the good visual contact provided by videoconferencing. The most often quoted disadvantage was the poor sound quality. The findings from the study support the adoption of videoconferencing and suggest a few guidelines for the development of ICPs.
Rosser and Kasperski build upon and consolidate several earlier reports to put forward a "bottom-up" model for the integration of health services for Ontario that establishes the family physician as the focal point of entry to the healthcare system. The essential features of this model are as follows: 1. Each person in the province should choose a family physician and formalize a partnership with this physician. 2. Each family physician should be in some form of group practice or practice network ranging in size from 7 to 30 physicians. 3. Urgent care would be provided by the members of the physician group on a 24-hour-a-day/7-days-per-week basis. 4. The family physician would be responsible for maintaining a comprehensive record for each patient through the use of information technology. 5. All providers in the system with whom a patient had contact would be required to forward copies of all reports and associated information from that contact to the family physician. 6. The group model will be characterized by collaboration, with the use of nurse practitioners and family-practice nurses to provide preventative and chronic care, the use of midwives to augment the provision of obstetrical, prenatal and postnatal care, and community access and hospital-in-the-home services. 7. Family physicians would be supported by a geographically defined group of specialists providing secondary care, such as psychiatrists, pediatricians and obstetricians, who would also coordinate tertiary care. 8. Every family physician should be an active staff member of his or her local hospital. 9. At some level of aggregation a family physician would be responsible for facilitating/implementing quality-improvement programs for community physicians. 10. Family physicians would be supported through a blended funding model.
Comment On: Healthc Pap. 1999 Winter;1(1):5-2112606855
In 2002 Canadians were less anxious about the state of their health care system than they were a few years earlier, when perceptions peaked that the system needed major reform. They expressed strong support in 2002 for maintaining the status quo on health care financing (that is, no user fees and no two-tier care) within the traditional domains of physician and hospital care. But they appeared more receptive to two-tier care and for-profit delivery for the newer and rapidly expanding domains of home care and high-tech care.