Search

A challenging issue in contemporary Canadian Medicare is the evolution of end-of-life care. Utilizing data from the 2016 and 2018 Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys, this paper compares the support and priorities of the adult public (n = 1500), health professionals (n = 400), and administrators (n = 100) regarding key components for end-of-life care just prior to and post legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada. In 2016 and 2018, the public, health professionals and administrators strongly supported enhanced availability of all proposed end-of-life care options: pain management, hospice and palliative care, home care supports, and medically assisted death. In 2018, when asked which option should be top priority, the public rated enhanced medically assisted death first (32%), followed by enhanced hospice and palliative care (22%) and home care (21%). Enhanced hospice and palliative care was the top priority for health professionals (33%), while administrators rated enhanced medically assisted death first (26%). Despite legalization and increasing support for MAiD over time, health professionals have increasing fear of legal or regulatory reprisal for personal involvement in medically assisted death, ranging from 38% to 84% in 2018, versus 23% to 42% in 2016. While administrators fear doubled since 2016 (40%-84%), they felt the necessary system supports were in place to easily implement medically assisted death. Optimal management of end-of-life care is strongly supported by all stakeholders, although priorities for specific approaches vary. Over time, professionals increasingly supported MAiD but with a rising fear of legal/regulatory reprisal despite legalization. To enhance future end-of-life care patterns, continued measurement and reporting of implemented treatment options and their system supports, particularly around medically assisted death, are needed.

This article reviews perceptions of Canada's public and health professionals regarding access and quality of healthcare. Principal data sources were 13 sequential Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys, from 1998 to 2018. Over time, the data series reveals that an increasing majority of the public report receiving quality care, rising from a national average of 53% in 2002 to 61% in 2018. Regionally, the variation in quality care has been relatively narrow, ranging from 52% in the Atlantic and Prairie provinces to 65% in Ontario in 2018. Professionals' ratings for delivery of quality care in 2018 were slightly higher than the public, averaging 65% and ranging from 58% among nurses to 72% and 74% among physicians and administrators. Despite the favourable ratings received for quality of healthcare, a persistent and growing issue in all regions of the country is concern around timely access to care. In 1998, 4% of the public rated prolonged wait times as a concern; in 2018, 43% rated it as their greatest concern. Regionally, the variation in 2018 ranged from 34% in the Atlantic provinces to 49% in Alberta. This concern about timely access involves all major components of healthcare delivery and is anticipated to worsen. Proposals to improve timely access have been suggested, with interdisciplinary, team-based care being the most strongly supported proposal. The Canadian Medicare system is currently recognized as a valued component of our national identity. However, sub-optimal access continues to undermine quality of care. In the absence of improved access, healthcare quality and outcomes will also remain sub-optimal.

Canada's universal healthcare program, medicare, continues to evolve. An area of care that has gained increasing attention over the past several years is the general concept and specific components of patient centricity in healthcare delivery. This paper compares key measures of patient-centred care practices recorded in the 2013 and 2016 Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys, with the most recent preferences of the public and health professionals obtained in the 2018 HCIC survey, including priorities for improved future care. Timely access and caring care were the public's top-supported components of patient-centred care in the 2013 and 2016 HCIC surveys. In the 2018 HCIC survey, the Canadian public's overwhelming choice as the top-priority component of patient-centred care continued to be care readily and timely accessed, provided in a caring and respectful environment and based on need versus the ability to pay. In contrast, the public's lesser-supported option in all surveys was measurement and stakeholder feedback of actual care and outcomes. Among professionals in 2018, timely access and caring care were also rated as the top characteristics of patient-centred care, followed by care supported by research and expert opinion. Also similar to the public, Canadian healthcare professionals in 2018 rated measurement and feedback of delivered care and outcomes at the bottom of their support list. When the public and professionals were asked in the 2018 survey to prioritize their implementation choices for enhanced patient-centred care going forward, both stakeholder groups chose timely access as their first priority. Measurements and feedback of care and outcomes were rated at the lower end of choices in both groups in 2018. In summary, among key stakeholders, healthcare that is not readily and timely accessed remains the perceived greatest impediment to achievement of patient-centred care in contemporary Canadian medicare. The continued reality of undue delay in accessing healthcare in Canada is disturbing. A companion risk going forward is that all other components of patient-centred care will retreat to a level of irrelevance. Measurement and feedback of care, particularly its timeliness of access and outcomes, are necessary to monitor progress, stimulate innovation and ensure the success of Canadian medicare. Things can be better., (Copyright © 2019 Longwoods Publishing.)

Pharmacare, a recently proposed addition to Canada's universal medicare program, has become a prominent topic in the public discourse, but funding and leadership have not been established. Repeated Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys of the adult public and a broad spectrum of health professionals reveal very strong support for a national system that is easy to access and covers all prescribed pharmaceuticals. Although the practical details of universal pharmacare remain to be established, there is strong support among the public and professionals as well as increasing federal government interest in moving forward and ultimately implementing pharmacare. At the same time, HCIC surveys indicate that a high percentage of patients do not take their medications as directed, both for acute and chronic illnesses. The data suggest that pharmacare's success will be severely challenged by this. Of the four major challenges preventing usual care from being the best care - suboptimal access, non-diagnosis, non-prescription and non-adherence - risk from some form of non-adherence is often ranked first by care professionals. The most commonly reported reasons for non-adherence in clinical settings are patients' forgetfulness and how they feel in the moment on any given day. Costs of therapy, lack of understanding or poor knowledge transfer between prescribers and patients regarding therapeutic risks and benefits are rarely cited causes for poor adherence. These findings from the 2018 HCIC survey are not new. They are very consistent with measurements in the 2016 and other previous HCIC surveys. They do, however, raise practical challenges for the creation and ongoing management of universal pharmacare. Specifically, a patient-centred care component designed to improve non-adherence to prescribed therapies is needed. Ideally, it should include a measurement and feedback component on adherence that shares data with and between patients, health professionals and payers. Things can be better., (Copyright © 2019 Longwoods Publishing.)

Repeated Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys over the past two decades have consistently reported that the adult public and clinical and administrative health professionals consider medicare to be successful in terms of quality of care, despite a growing concern that timely access to care remains challenging. These key stakeholders have also recently signalled that major change strategies are likely necessary for continuing success. In the 2018 survey, both the public and professionals ranked highest the creation of a national comprehensive pharmacare plan, entirely funded by the federal government, or with federal funding for those not currently covered by existing pharmaceutical plans. The majority of the public and health professionals in 2018 were also remarkably concordant regarding preferred leadership for designing, instituting and managing a national pharmacare program. The public's priority, supported by 50% of the adult population, was shared leadership involving governments, medical academia and the pharmaceutical/biotech industries, followed by government leadership at 33%. Among professionals, preference for shared leadership averaged 60% and governmental leadership averaged 33%. Based on these data, restriction of pharmacare's leadership exclusively to any single stakeholder raises concern of a critical lack of support for success. A coalition of governments, research hospitals/health authorities and the pharmaceutical/biotech industry - the highest-ranked candidates as potential leaders - would likely provide the best chance to garner the majority of public support and enhance the chances of success in the short and long terms. In summary, the addition of universal pharmacare to medicare's existing healthcare portfolios is an attractive strategy to advance Canadian healthcare and outcomes. The federal government has taken the initial step. Recruitment of additional leaders sharing aspiration, inspiration and experience to optimize pharmacare's development and measure its outcomes is needed. Things can be better., (Copyright © 2019 Longwoods Publishing.)

The overarching purpose of serial Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys of the adult Canadian public and a broad spectrum of healthcare professionals over the past two decades has been the development of an evidence-based map to inform strategic and clinical decisions to improve care and outcomes for Canadians. Recent surveys reveal a growing concern that medicare may require complete rebuilding or major strategic repairs. On the other hand, a majority of stakeholders perceive continuing underlying quality in our clinical care and look forward to both system- and patient-centred initiatives to improve future care. Currently, the most strongly supported strategic improvement target among the public and professional caregivers is enhanced availability of less expensive prescription medications. With regard to practical implementation of this strategy, the public's (39%) and healthcare professionals' (39-54%) preference was institution of a nation-wide pharmacare plan, funded by a federal tax. There was also pan-stakeholder concordance around the two least favoured potential strategies: increasing taxes and shifting money from other funded services. In terms of improving clinical care, the public and all professional groups were also concordant in most strongly supporting increases in home and community care services, disease prevention/wellness education and use of non-physician care providers and electronic health records. There was also remarkable concordance regarding who is most responsible for implementing these preferred innovations: research hospitals/health authorities, government funding agencies and pharmaceutical/biotech industries. In summary, contemporary Canadian public and health professionals agree on key strategic and practical priorities to improve future care and outcomes. Moreover, they concur on who should lead their implementation. This public/professional concordance supporting evidence-driven choices and leadership for improving care is not common. It is, however, an opportunity, providing a call to arms for other stakeholders, particularly governments and industry, to recognize the opportunity and their leadership expectations and to act upon them. Things can be better., (© 2018 Longwoods Publishing.)

Canadians' health and its care continue to evolve. Chronic diseases affect more than 50% of our aging population, but the majority of public and professional stakeholders retain a sense of care quality. An emergent issue, however, is generating an increasingly wide debate. It is the concept of patient-centred care, including its definition of key components, and efficacy. To advance the evidence base, the 2013-2014 and 2016 Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys measured pan-stakeholder levels of support and implementation priorities for frequently proposed components of patient centricity in healthcare. The public's highest rated component was timely access to care, followed by perceived respect and caring in its delivery, with decisions made in partnership among patients and professional providers, and within a basic belief that care should be based on patients' needs versus their ability to pay. Health professionals' levels of support for key components largely overlapped the public's levels of support for key components, with an additional accent on care influenced by an evidence base and expert opinion. In terms of priority to actually implement enhanced patient-centred care options, timely access was universally dominant among all stakeholders. Caring, respectful care, also retained high implementation priority among both the public and professionals, as did care decisions made in partnership, and, among professionals, care driven by research and expert opinion. Low priorities, for both the public and professionals, were the actual measurements of patient-centred care delivery and its impact on outcomes. In summary, there is remarkable concordance among all stakeholders in terms of favoured interventions to enhance patient-centred care, namely, timely access, caring, partnering and communicative delivery of evidence-based care. Unfortunately, the lack of contemporary imperative around the value of measuring and reporting actual use and outcomes of favoured interventions means uncertainty of their efficacy will persist for the foreseeable future. Things can be better.

A new dimension has been added to Canadian Medicare ߝ exemption from prosecution for physicians, nurse practitioners and assistants providing medical assistance in dying for competent and informed adult patients with a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing intolerable physical or psychological suffering, irreversible decline in capabilities and reasonably foreseeable natural death. To define stakeholders' perceptions on all contemporary end-of-life care options, we analyzed data from the 2016 Health Care in Canada Survey comprising representative samples of the adult public (n = 1,500), physicians (n = 102), nurses (n = 102), pharmacists (n = 100), administrators (n = 100) and allied health professionals (n = 100). Among the public, enhanced pain management, hospice/palliative care and home/family care were all supported at, or above, the 80th percentile; medically assisted death was supported by 70%. Among all professionals, hospice/palliative care, pain management and home care garnered >90% support; support for medically assisted death ranged from 58% (physicians) to 79% (allied professionals). In terms of priority to implement available options, medically assisted death was rated first by 46% of the public, overall, and by 69% of the sub-group who strongly supported it, followed by enhanced pain management (45%) and home care (42%). Among professionals, top implementation priorities (range: 57ߝ61%) were: enhanced pain management, hospice/palliative care and home care support. Priority for medically assisted death ranged between 25% and 41%, although among professionals who strongly supported it, it was their top priority (52%). When asked to balance patients' right to access assisted death, versus some professionals' reluctance to provide it, 42% of the public and the majority of professionals thought providers should be allowed to opt out if they referred patients to another willing provider. And many professionals perceive some risk of either legal or regulatory reprisal if they assist in patients' deaths. In summary, there is substantial contemporary support for all components of end-of-life care among all stakeholders. However, non-lethal care modalities remain generally preferred, perhaps, at least in part, because medical professionals have a pervasive concern of going in harm's way by participating in assisted death, or by refusing. Things can be better.

Living with fire is a challenge for human communities because they are influenced by socio-economic, political, ecological and climatic processes at various spatial and temporal scales. Over the course of 2 days, the authors discussed how communities could live with fire challenges at local, national and transnational scales. Exploiting our diverse, international and interdisciplinary expertise, we outline generalizable properties of fire-adaptive communities in varied settings where cultural knowledge of fire is rich and diverse. At the national scale, we discussed policy and management challenges for countries that have diminishing fire knowledge, but for whom global climate change will bring new fire problems. Finally, we assessed major fire challenges that transcend national political boundaries, including the health burden of smoke plumes and the climate consequences of wildfires. It is clear that to best address the broad range of fire problems, a holistic wildfire scholarship must develop common agreement in working terms and build across disciplines. We must also communicate our understanding of fire and its importance to the media, politicians and the general public.This article is part of the themed issue 'The interaction of fire and mankind'., (© 2016 The Author(s).)

Severe wildfires are an intermittent problem in England. The paper presents the first analysis of wildfire policy, showing its halting evolution over two decades. First efforts to coordinate wildfire management came from local fire operation groups, where stakeholders such as fire services, land owners and amenity groups shared knowledge and equipment to tackle the problem. A variety of structures and informal management solutions emerged in response to local needs. Knowledge of wildfire accumulated within regional and national wildfire forums and academic networks. Only later did the need for central emergency planning and the response to climate change produce a national policy response. Fire statistics have allowed wildfires to be spatially evidenced on a national scale only since 2009. National awareness of wildfire was spurred by the 2011 fire season, and the high-impact Swinley Forest fire, which threatened critical infrastructure and communities within 50 miles of London. Severe wildfire was included in the National Risk Register for the first time in 2013. Cross-sector approaches to wildfire proved difficult as government responsibility is fragmented along the hazard chain. Stakeholders such as the Forestry Commission pioneered good practice in adaptive land management to build fire resilience into UK forests. The grass-roots evolution of participatory solutions has also been a key enabling process. A coordinated policy is now needed to identify best practice and to promote understanding of the role of fire in the ecosystem.This article is part of a themed issue 'The interaction of fire and mankind'., (© 2016 The Author(s).)

Canada's health and its care are evolving. Evidence from serial Health Care in Canada surveys of the public and health professionals over the last two decades reveal a persistent sense of care quality, despite an aging population, decreasing levels of good and excellent health, increasing prevalence of chronic illnesses; and sub-optimal access to timely and patient-centred care. Stakeholders are, however, somewhat pessimistic and many sense complete rebuilding, or major changes, may be necessary. To improve access, the primary health concern of all Canadians - increasing medical and nursing school enrolment, and requiring professionals to work in teams - have attracted increasingly high support from both the public and professionals. However, physicians' support lags behind that of nursing, pharmacy and administrative colleagues; and, currently, only a minority of patients and professionals are actively involved in team care programs. Another example in which high levels of support may not necessarily translate into priority implementation of promising interventions is the realm of patient-centred care. The public and all professionals report a very high level of general support for care provided in a caring and respectful manner. However, while the public rank it second in implementation priority, following timely access, the majority of professionals rank it only fourth. By contrast, there is remarkable pan-stakeholder concordance around interventions to improve the overall health system, with the majority of public and professional stakeholders rating the creation of national supply systems as their top priority to expedite the clinical and cost efficiency of new treatments. There is a similar pan-stakeholder concordance around priority of responsibility to drive innovations, the top three being: federal/provincial governments; research hospitals/regional health authorities; and the pharmaceutical industry. In summary, Canadians are at a healthcare crossroads. Population health is decreasing, chronic diseases are increasing and desire for timely access to patient-centred, team-delivered and technology-supported care remain top concerns. Despite some disconnects between theoretical support for, and priority to implement, promising innovations, there is universal support to optimize resources to make things better. And there is concordance around the leadership best suited to lead innovation. Things can be better.

The Canadian public is aging. Population levels of excellent, or very good, health are decreasing, and the prevalence of chronic diseases is increasing. Timely access to caring and respectful care from health professionals, with supporting information transfer, are key qualities in patients' sense of centricity and hope for best outcomes. Data from the 2013-2014 Health Care in Canada (HCIC) survey reveal, however, that 38% of such patients do not always, or often, access this support. The lack of timely access may be one underlying driver for non-professional caregivers to contribute to the care, as well as the personal and financial management, of family members or friends with chronic disease. Previous HCIC surveys, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, reported non-professional caregivers' prevalence in the adult public at 21, 23 and 26%, respectively, compared with 19% in the 2013-2014 survey. In all the surveys, a notable feature of non-professional care providers has been their universality of contribution, across age, sex, geography and time. Caregivers pay, however, a price. They have a lower level of self-related health, a higher incidence of chronic illness and net-negative impacts on relationships, career and finances, including use of personal savings (53%) and necessity of quitting their job (12%). Conversely, they infrequently claim available tax (12%) or compassionate care (11%) benefits. Interestingly, non-professional caregivers work in team-care settings with health professionals more frequently (29%) than patients in the general population with chronic illnesses (18%). Nonetheless, their current levels of always, or often, receiving assisting support (46%) and information (53%) from health professionals are lower than the respective results reported by the general public (65% and 68%). In conclusion, non-professional patient care in Canada is a common, longstanding and not-for-profit enterprise. It is more likely driven by altruistic caring or sense of duty that balance, or overwhelm, its associated personal, medical and financial burdens. In the short term, practical opportunities for enhancement include broader recognition of caregivers' contributions, their improved access to professional support and communication and wider use of available governmental financial support. All are likely to enhance both patient-centred care and lessen the practical burdens of caregivers. Things can be better.

Eleven Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys, spanning 1998-2014, offer a comprehensive overview of the changing perceptions of physician, nurse, pharmacist, administrator and public stakeholders of the nation's health status, its burden of illness and its quality and cost of care. Overall, there persists a universal sense of quality in our health system--despite evidence that national health status is declining, chronic illnesses are increasing, patients' timely access to care and ability to afford care are diminishing and all these indicators are predicted to worsen over time. Among the public and health professionals, key priorities for improving future patient care are increasing professional schools' output and team-based care, along with enhanced use of national supply systems to reduce costs of care. Among HCIC survey partners, the overarching goal has been, and remains, the utilization of knowledge gained from the surveys to facilitate evidence-driven health policy and improved patient care and outcomes. Practical foci are the development of knowledge translation (KT) activities and assessment of their impact. This paper outlines current initiatives to track reach of member and non-member audiences for HCIC information; to ascertain how they perceive and value the various KT messages, vehicles and metrics; and to potentially identify a hierarchy of efficacy for impact factors. The primary objective is to inform future HCIC survey design and reporting, especially identification of KT vehicles and venues that are most effective in terms of reach and impact in facilitating understanding of, and subsequent action around, the knowledge generated.

Warmer, drier summers brought by climate change increase the potential risk of wildfires on the moorland of the Peak District of northern England. Fires are costly to fight, damage the ecosystem, harm water catchments, cause erosion scars and disrupt transport. Fires release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Accurate forecasts of the timing of fires help deployment of fire fighting resources. A probit model is used to assess the chance of fires at different times of the year, days of the week and under various weather conditions. Current and past rainfall damp fire risk. The likelihood of fire increases with maximum temperature. Dry spells or recent fire activity also signal extra fire hazard. Certain days are fire prone due to visitors and some months of the year are more risky reflecting the changing flammability of moorland vegetation. The model back-predicts earlier fires during a hot dry summer. The impact of climate change on fire incidence is not straightforward. Risks may be reduced if wetter winters and earlier onset of spring add to plant moisture content. Yet a warm spring increases biomass and potential fuel load in summer. Climate change may cause the timing of moorland wildfires to shift from a damper and more verdant spring to drought-stressed summer.