An Integration Journey: Road Trips from Afar • Thursday, May 1, 2008 • QHN Symposium 2008 • Cathy Fooks • President and CEO • The Change Foundation
Changed Change Foundation • Established and endowed in 1995 by the OHA • First ten years focused on grants, drivers of change and knowledge transfer • Refocused in 2007 to become a policy “think tank” • Two thematic research areas: understanding integration and quality improvement efforts in the community sector
Jurisdictional Review • Purpose was to look at efforts to integrate service delivery, to extract common features or elements and to identify lessons learned. • Literature review and case studies
Jurisdictional Review • Managed care in the US • NHS (four different reforms) • Regional health boards/coordinated care in Australia • District health boards in New Zealand • Local health authorities in The Netherlands • Six health reforms in Germany • Regional health authorities in Canada
Common Elements • At least 11 elements were identified as success factors in all jurisdictions • One element that was not successfully implemented in all jurisdictions but was referenced by all as important (whether or not they achieved it)
Common Element 1 - Comprehensiveness • Comprehensiveness of services across the continuum despite multiple points of access for specific patient populations • Cited as first principle by all • Includes services from primary care through tertiary and back into the community and in some locations includes linkage to social care organizations • Some, but not all, include population health focus
Comprehensiveness • Under the auspices of the LHINs: • Public hospitals (2007/08) • Mental health & addictions agencies (2008/09) • Community support service agencies (2008/09) • CHCs (2008/09) • LTC Homes (2008/09) • CCACs (2009/10)
Comprehensiveness • Not under the auspices of the LHINs: • Physicians • Public health • Ambulance services • Labs • Provincial networks and priority programs
Common Element 2 – Patient Focus • All cite the justification for integrated delivery is to meet patient need • Leads to huge focus on internal process redesign within organizations but also across transition points • Those with more of a population health focus stress the need to engage their communities in planning • Size is referenced in the literature with a view that larger integrated systems have a more difficult time retaining a patient focus
Patient Focus • Not a lot of systematic information on this yet • Satisfactions surveys in some sectors • Can look at whether system is organized for easy patient access • Can look at whether patients had enough information to make decisions
Patient Focus – % of People Reporting Wait of Six Days or More to see DoctorSource: Commonwealth Fund, 2007
Patient Focus - % Reporting Doctor Explained Things in a Way They Could Source: Commonwealth Fund, 2007
Patient Focus - Patient Care Outside of Usual Office Hours in OntarioSource: National Physician Survey, 2007 • % Answering Yes: • 79.7% have physician available for patient care during non office hours • 31.4% staffed clinic by physician or others in practice • 12.9% medical telephone advice with access to medical record • 25.8% medical telephone advice without access to medical record
Patient Focus – MD Use of Email Source: National Physician Survey, 2007 • 53.2% use to communicate with colleagues for clinical purposes • 64.9% use to communicate with colleagues for other purposes • 15.4% use to communicate with patients for clinical purposes • 5.3% use to communicate with patients for other purposes
Common Element 3 - Geographic Rostering • Geographic coverage with patient rostering with or without charge back • Size is again referenced although from the opposite perspective – that is, larger numbers of clients are thought to create a more efficient integrated delivery system (generally thought to be about 1,000,000 minimum) • Much harder to get volumes in the Canadian context with our geography – density becomes important
Geographic Rostering • LHIN boundaries are geographic • Some rostering at the primary care level (not related to LHINs)
% Support by Group Requiring Patients to Register with One Primary Health Care Provider, Canada Source, Health Care in Canada, 2007
Common Element 4 - Interprofessional Teams • Development of interprofessional teams (assumes clinicians are in the tent either as employees or through contract) as best use of resources • A lot of barriers are cited particularly around alignment of financial incentives • Literature stresses the need for role clarity, an understanding of the decision authority for patient care (hierarchical or shared) • If not clear, can result in much slower care processes and can inhibit real integration
Interprofessional Teams - % Support by Group Requiring Health Professionals to Work in TeamsSource: Health Care in Canada, 2007
Common Element 5 – Standardized Care • Care in an integrated system ideally can be standardized to support a quality agenda • Use and acceptance of provider-developed, evidence-based clinical care guidelines and protocols are cited as important • Also links to the facilitation of interprofessional teams, as all team members are following the same protocol
Standardized Care – Usage of Standardized Protocols, Hospital Group AverageSource: Hospital Report, Acute Care, 2007
Standardized Care – Usage of Standardized Protocols, Hospital Group Range • Teaching: 13.9% – 81.1% • Community: 1.8% – 69.9% • Small: 0.0% – 74.1%
Common Element 6 - Measurement • Performance measurement focused on: • Process of integration • System, provider and patient outcomes • Can start as an accountability approach but usually develops quickly into a quality focus
Common Element 6 - Measurement • Literature contains a lot of work on indicator development but general conclusion that there is a “scarcity of literature relating to the performance of integrated health systems as whole” • May be related to definitional difficulties, number of players involved, diversity of goals, capacity to attribute effects
Measurement • Current Published • CCO provider survey specific to integrated cancer services • Hospitals reporting some data related to transitions (eg ALC) • Planned Published • Integration indicators in accountability agreements • Ontario Health Quality Council populating high performing system framework – integration is one component • Developing • LHINs developing series of indicators • JPPC developing indicators for home care
Common Element 7- IT • Heavy investment in information technology, information management and communication mechanisms • Especially key when providers are not co-located • For quality, efficiency and productivity reasons • System-wide and provider-specific information systems that relate to each other • Underpins most of the other elements • Absence cited as huge barrier
IT – Hospitals Using Clinical Information Technology, Hospital Group AverageHospital Report, Acute Care, 2007
IT – Hospitals Using Clinical Information Technology, Hospital Group Range • Teaching: 63.6% - 98.3% • Community: 21.8% – 94.8% • Small: 9.1% - 70.3%
Use of IT in Main Patient Care SettingSource: National Physician Survey, 2007 • % Indicating they have: • Electronic health records: 31.5% • Electronic scheduling 50.7% • Electronic reminder for pt care 14.0% • Electronic interface to external pharm 4.3% • Electronic interface to lab/diag imag 26.4% • Electronic interface to share pt info 23.6% • Electronic warning for adverse drugs 13.6%
Common Element 8 - Culture • Cohesive organizational culture with strong leadership and a shared vision of integration • Much harder to do under virtual or horizontal integration • Vertical integration also has its challenges but is more likely to change culture
Culture • ???
Common Element 9 - Leadership • Creating supportive environment, collegial culture, resolving conflicts requires a sophisticated leader and leadership vision • Capacity to assess effectiveness and change course if required
Leadership • Probably most telling element is that all others made refinements after a period of time (including Canadian RHAs) • Changed number of regions, renegotiated roles with province/state, established provincial or national health authorities to deal with high end specialty care • Will we?
Common Element 10 - Governance • Strong governance with decision making authority • Whatever the mechanisms, the model must promote coordination, align financial incentives, share risk and have clear accountabilities • Seasoned board members and experienced management staff were cited as critical to success • Hindrances cited include poorly designed structure, competitive system of governance, or too many management levels
Governance • LHIN Boards • Local Boards • MOHLTC • Agreement between MOHLTC and LHINs • Agreements between LHINs and local Boards just beginning • Language of coordination and shared risk is in there
Governance • Who does: • Goal setting • Evidence based measurement and monitoring • Allocation • Everyone seems to have a role to play? • Where is final authority?
Governance Views About Canadian RHAsSource: Lewis and Kouri, Healthcare Papers, 2004 • Boards CEOs Ministries • Clear division of • Authority 50% 31% 32% • Residents end run • RHA and go to the • Minister 58% 87% 96%
Governance Views About Canadian RHAsSource: Lewis and Kouri, Healthcare Papers, 2004 • Boards CEO Ministries • Boards are legally responsible • for things over which they have • insufficient control 77% 80% 59% • Boards are too restricted by rules 71% 70% 30% • Boards have less authority than • I expected 63% 64% 33%
Common Element 11 - Funding • Population based funding formula applied equitably with programmatic funding dedicated to specific services • The mechanisms for this vary greatly but all start with population based formula • Jurisdictions that did not align funding models found they did not promote teamwork, time spent on integrative activities or health promotion • Literature is unclear on best formula for integration purposes so at minimum age and gender have been used
Funding • LHINs and providers are supposed to have a balanced budget • LHIN to provide providers with funding (currently based on historical allocations, service volumes, operating plans – not population based) • If shortfall, parties will negotiate and revise requirements • Accountability agreement has process for recovery of funding by LHINs subject to appeal • Is this aligned with non-LHIN activity and provincial programs?
Not Quite So Common Element 12 – Involvement of Physicians • Two aspects • Engagement of clinical leadership in planning, design, and sometimes leading integration efforts. Much written about failure to do this and subsequent lack of integration success • Ways to integrate primary care providers if they are the initial point of care (often used as an integration measure) • Those that weren’t successful on this cite it as very important
Ontario 2008 • Continuum will be difficult while chunks of services are not aligned with LHINs • Will need to focus on transition points across if patient focus is to be honoured • Geographic boundaries are in place but hard to see how patients will be rostered without a linkage to primary care • Increased use of interprofessional teams within facilities and in the primary care setting – can we link them?
Ontario 2008 • Increasing usage of standardized protocols – more work to do but going in the right direction • A lot of discussion about measurement and a lot of indicators to be report – not a lot of actual measures of integration at present • Pockets of very exciting work on the IT front at the provider level – how to achieve system level linkage? • In future, further work to clarify governance and funding arrangements will likely be required.
