Centralization and integration of public health systems: Perspectives of public health leaders on factors facilitating and impeding COVID-19 responses in three Canadian provinces

The extent to which power, resources, and responsibilities for public health are centralized or decentralized within a jurisdiction and how public health functions are integrated or coordinated with health care services may shape pandemic responses. However, little is known about the impacts of centralization and integration on public health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine how public health leaders perceive centralization and integration facilitated and impeded effective COVID-19 responses in three Canadian provinces. We conducted a comparative case study involving semi-structured interviews with 58 public health system leaders in three Canadian provinces with varying degrees of centralization and integration. Greater public health system centralization and integration was seen by public health leaders to facilitate more rapidly initiated and well-coordinated provincial COVID-19 responses. Decentralization may have enabled locally tailored responses in the context of limited provincial leadership. Opacity in provincial decision-making processes, jurisdictional ambiguity impacting Indigenous communities, and ineffectual public health investments were impediments across jurisdictions and thus appear to be less impacted by centralization and integration. Our study generates novel insights about potential structural facilitators and impediments of effective COVID-19 pandemic responses during the second year of the pandemic. Findings highlight key areas for future research to inform system design that support leaders to manage large-scale public health emergencies.

Regionalization for health improvement: A systematic review

Regionalization is the integrated organization of a healthcare system, wherein regional structures are responsible for providing and administrating health services in a specific region. This method was adopted by several countries to improve the quality of provided care and to properly utilize available resources. Thus, a systematic review was conducted to verify effective interventions to improve health and management indicators within the health services regionalization. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016042314). We performed a systematic search in databases during February and March 2017 which was updated in October 2020. There was no language or date restriction. We included experimental and observational studies with interventions focused on regionalization-related actions, measures or policies aimed at decentralizing and organizing health offerings, rationalizing scarce capital and human resources, coordinating health services. A methodological assessment of the studies was performed using instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute and GRADE was also used to assess outcomes. Thirty-nine articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and sixteen interventions were identified that indicated different degrees of recommendations for improving the management of health system regionalization. The results showed that regionalization was effective under administrative decentralization and for rationalization of resources. The most investigated intervention was the strategy of concentrating procedures in high-volume hospitals, which showed positive outcomes, especially with the reduction of hospitalization days and in-hospital mortality rates. When implementing regionalization, it must be noted that it involves changes in current standards of health practice and in the distribution of health resources, especially for specialized services.

[The difficult steering of health system reform: the case of New Brunswick (Canada)]

INTRODUCTION

In many developed countries, reforms of public healthcare systems are ongoing but do not always achieve desired results. In this article, we present the history of the healthcare system reform in the Canadian province of New Brunswick with the objective of analyzing its difficult steering by the state, in light of the dynamics between the actors involved.

METHOD

Qualitative methods were chosen. Data collection includes semi-structured interviews (N = 39) with representatives of the State, such as health ministers, and other relevant stakeholders, such as managers, citizens or health professionals.

RESULTS

The stakeholders were compelled by various aspects of the reform, for example francophone health care services, that had consequences on the trajectory of change. To stay on target, the State must adapt to the dynamic interactions of the actors involved.

CONCLUSION

Reforms take place over a long period of time and their programming by the State can be very difficult, as it requires the mobilization of different types of instruments at its disposal. In order to influence the behaviour of the actors concerned, the State must define a goal whose general orientations are agreed upon, succeed in forging bonds of trust and managing resistance, and finally, use standardized data in order to provide a normative framework and evaluate the progress of the reform project.

Managers and clinicians: Perceptions of the impact of regionalization in two regions in Canada

The aim of this paper is to examine the approach taken to regionalization in Ontario, Canada, and its impact on health system performance as perceived by managers and clinicians. This is a qualitative study, with thematic analysis, based on interviews with 23 managers and clinicians working in primary healthcare and emergency care in two regions of Ontario. Our findings demonstrate that both sets of actors see regional structures as contributing significantly to improving their respective health system although they also identify areas that require improvement. Managers and clinicians agreed on propositions to focus on health determinants, major considerations specific to the local context (population, geography) and support for a three-level system with well-defined functions. However, they also expressed differing propositions about the political power of hospitals.

Creating Partnerships to Achieve Health Care Reform: Moving Beyond a Politics of Scale?

This article critically exams efforts to achieve primary health care reform using a consultative and relationship-building approach. The study is set in a predominantly rural region of British Columbia, Canada, and concerns the efforts of a regional health authority to engage actively with community members to develop more integrated and patient-centered primary health care delivery. We examine points of tension between providers and administrators engaged in the reform process and show how these are often expressed discursively as a binary opposition involving central and local interests. We offer a critical examination of this politics of scale and seek to unpack claims of hierarchy and power as a means to offer insight into health care reform processes more generally.

Administrative ethics: Good intentions, bad decisions

The Canadian healthcare system is costly. Each day, health leaders must make decisions about what healthcare services will be offered, how they will be funded, to whom they will be made available, and within what administrative and clinical structure they will be managed and delivered. These decisions, their justification, and the ethics framework employed can vary greatly across the Canadian landscape. These high-stakes decisions must not only draw upon healthcare science but the science of business finance, risk management, and organizational design. However, in equal measure and often overlooked, these decisions must draw upon our values, upon our ethics. Sometimes we get it right, and other times, decidedly less so. When timely and fair access to effective and efficient healthcare services is not rendered, matters of justice, fairness, rights, and a host of other constructs are often cited. However, these important constructs are commonly misunderstood, contributing, in part, to well-intentioned but ultimately unethical decisions.

Study of the Local Health Integration Network: impact of Ontario’s Regionalization Policy

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to undertake an examination of the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) Health Policy proposal. This policy established a decentralized approach to health system management in the province of Ontario, Canada by creating 14 crown agencies, LHINs.

Design/methodology/approach

This policy is examined against the five policy stages of the Stages Model: agenda setting, formulation, legitimation, implementation and evaluation. The examination was based on a review of grey literature, including key government reports and briefs.

Findings

This policy did not follow the Stages Model sequentially: the policy was implemented while it was still undergoing its legitimacy phase. Formal reviews were undertaken following implementation and found areas for improvement: poor integration amongst all the LHINs; poor patient navigation persists; LHINs lack the capacity and competency to engage in regional capacity planning; and planning and integration is not centered around patient needs. As a result, a decade after the introduction of LHINs, the Ontario HealthCare System has not achieved systems improvement when measured against accepted government indicators of performance.

Originality/value

This integration policy highlights the context and evolution of Ontario’s healthcare system governance in the past decade and contributes to the body of knowledge on the impact of regionalization on health systems and patient care.