Report 1
"Governments acknowledge that they cannot reduce wait times on their own"
Statement of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Health
Toronto, Ontario - October 22-23, 2005
"A Conservative Government will be open to innovations
which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care,
and ensure better coordination and information sharing
in the delivery of health"
Conservative Party of Canada; Policy Declaration; March 19, 2005
Shorter Waits and Improved Flows Training Program (SWIFT)/
Réduction de l'attente par des processus intégrés de services (RAPIDS)
A Proposal from the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (PDF version)
Waiting is an important issue in health care, and wait time issues powerfully influence health politics and policy agendas. Governments have made major commitments to decrease wait times, notably in the five clinical areas specified in the 2003 Health Accord and confirmed by the federal government and the provinces in the December 2005 agreements on benchmarks. Progress requires not only commitment and in some cases funding, but also concrete tools and processes to manage a complex system. The quality improvement literature contains stories of major success in reducing wait times on a local and even (in the case of the UK in particular) a national scale. Dramatic improvement is possible if people have the knowledge, tools and support to bring it about.
This proposal, led by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (PDF version), will develop the Shorter Waits and Improved Flows Training (SWIFT) program. The two objectives of the program are:
In December 2005 we surveyed 14 of the leading senior managers and clinicians across the country to assess their interest in such a program, and to obtain their advice on how it might be developed and implemented to be effective and responsive to their needs and circumstances. In all but one case there was enthusiastic support for the program and a commitment to sponsor and support trainees.
The following proposal for SWIFT incorporates the findings of this survey and suggests that the detailed form and content of the program should be defined by:
The overall design and structure of SWIFT will build on the successes and lessons learned from similar CHSRF capacity development programs for evidence-informed decision-making such as the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program (PDF version). Rather than rely on a single educational institution for delivery the program will run from a central coordinating office that selects the best faculty from many national and international educational institutions. This coordinated national characteristic also facilitates the fully bilingual nature of the program, the development of national peer-networking (a highly valued product of these programs by participants), and an ability to rapidly adapt the curriculum to changing regional needs using ongoing monitoring and evaluation data.
By moving the 'training' from the traditional university-based environment into a nationally coordinated program it is far more responsive to the needs and contexts of its clients. It is also better able to create a national community of graduates poised to improve patient flows, reduce wait-times, and improve patient satisfaction using the best available evidence. These individuals and the network they form will serve as a vital ongoing resource to assist organizations across the country to improve their performance.
The program, offered in both official languages, will involve a combination of:
Our experience with the EXTRA program has demonstrated that SWIFT will require significant organizational commitment to implementing wait times and patient flow strategies to improve access. With a backlog of skill development needs an initial 'blitz phase' will create 400-500 graduates in the first five years of the program. In the second five-year 'consolidation phase' maintenance and growth will be achieved with 60-80 graduates per year. In addition, the maximum benefit stemming from the gradually expanding network of graduates will take time to manifest. For these reasons, this proposal is constructed as two five year phases on the premise that the full benefits will only be achieved with a minimum 12-year program - the two 5-year offerings with the addition of one year to prepare for the first intake and one year to complete evaluations and reports.
SWIFT will target people in a position to introduce wait time management techniques and flow processes into important areas of care. The eligibility pool should be inclusive and provide opportunities for all involved in the patient flow management process. Examples include:
Our experience with EXTRA has taught us that proper planning is critical to the success of this type of program. In the first year of funding, we will consult with partners, leaders in the health system, and potential candidates to ensure that the program is designed to meet the specific needs of the system and its clients. We will design a curriculum that addresses the right issues and competencies, and develop an IT desktop that is configured to the specific needs of trainees. We will assemble and train a world-class faculty, and create the necessary training materials in both official languages. We will ensure that the logistical details are in place for us to deliver a rigorous, high quality and sustainable training experience.
Following a ramp-up period, the program will serve 4 regionally-based cohorts of 25 trainees each year for at least the first 5 years - the 'blitz phase'. In the subsequent five years, the 'consolidation' phase, the four cohorts will be reduced in size to between 15 and 20. Participation in the program will be spread out over the course of one year.
Given that managing wait times and patient flows is an organizational and systemic rather than an individual issue, it is not surprising that the survey of health system leaders revealed unanimous agreement that it is more effective to solicit organizations as applicants rather than individuals. Organizations will express their intentions and commitments to improve wait time performance, and will be asked to designate the individual(s) to participate in the program. If demand is sufficiently high, it could be feasible to offer a combination of SWIFT-funded and organization-funded slots (to accommodate large organizations who might wish to have larger numbers trained). In addition, there could be a "train the trainer" approach to build capacity faster in enthusiastic organizations.
The initial focus will be on research-based approaches to managing acute care wait times and related patient flow issues. The initial survey revealed a wide spectrum of other interests that could be offered as optional modules as the program evolves. Among the areas that might be considered are research-based approaches to:
SWIFT will provide on-site, intensive training in wait time and patient flow organization and management. Based on preliminary thinking at CHSRF and the initial survey feedback, and using a variety of pedagogical tools, the core curriculum will provide participants with evidence-based training, tools, and approaches to address areas such as:
The program will also incorporate contextual content such as:
Based on the initial survey and the preliminary overview of content, but subject to further refinement of the curriculum, the program will be shaped around the following form:
The experience of CHSRF with existing capacity development programs argues for measures to encourage strong organizational commitments to the program. Thus SWIFT will require that:
The core partners for this program along with CHSRF have already confirmed their enthusiasm and interest: the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Academy of Canadian Executive Nurses, the Canadian Society of Physician Executives, and the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation. It will also be crucial to attract a Quebec core organization such as the AQÉSSS (L'Association québécoise d'établissements de santé et de services sociaux).
In addition to these core partners, the involvement of organizations that can assist with curriculum development and delivery, communications and knowledge translation, and recruitment is highly desirable. Examples of such organizations are:
Some jurisdictions have already developed or supported programs to enhance knowledge and strategies to reduce wait times (e.g. Ontario' Health Improvement Teams, Health Quality Council in Saskatchewan). We expect that these activities will continue, and SWIFT/RAPIDS will monitor the initiatives to ensure that our program is both complementary and innovative.
The uniqueness and value-added of our program lies in the following areas:
In consultation with program partners, an Advisory Committee will be established to oversee the curriculum development and overall design of the program. It will also be charged with recommending ongoing adaptation in response to the results of regular progress monitoring and outcome evaluation.
The CHSRF Board of Trustees will be responsible for the administration of funds and the accountability for its appropriate use in line with the program's stated goals and objectives. An annual report will be produced and submitted to the Government of Canada and other related funding partners in which expected annual performance will be matched against actual outcomes and performance measures.
The proposed budget that we are requesting has been calculated for four phases: ramp-up (year 1), blitz intake phase (years 2-6), consolidation intake phase (years 7-11) and wind-down (year 12).
The costs for each phase are:
Detailed calculations for the $29.5M total costs are outlined on the following page.
| Ramp-up Year 1 |
Blitz Phase Years 2-6 |
Consolidation Phase Years 7-11 |
Wind-down Year 12 |
Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing | 287,750 | 2,104,250 | 1,971,500 | 443,000 | 4,806,500 |
| Consultancy | 100,000 | 129,750 | 79,000 | 308,750 | |
| Curriculum development | 150,000 | 344,000 | 100,000 | 594,000 | |
| Travel - committee | 32,000 | - | - | 32,000 | |
| Communications and promotion | 100,000 | 515,500 | 412,000 | 1,027,500 | |
| Trainees - travel & residencies | 2,846,000 | 2,395,500 | 5,241,500 | ||
| Faculty - travel, residencies and stipends | 1,564,500 | 1,752,250 | 3,316,750 | ||
| Senior organizational officials - participation costs | 676,000 | 444,750 | 1,120,750 | ||
| Course materials / on-going network costs | 250,000 | 564,250 | 894,000 | 1,708,250 | |
| IT Platform / Desktop | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 3,000,000 | ||
| Site rentals / venues | 321,250 | 293,000 | 614,250 | ||
| Candidate review / selection | 355,000 | 203,250 | 558,250 | ||
| Translation (documentation and simultaneous) | 417,000 | 169,000 | 586,000 | ||
| Program evaluation | 625,000 | 375,000 | 1,000,000 | ||
| Miscellaneous | 50,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 50,000 | 600,000 |
| Final program evaluation | 200,000 | 200,000 | |||
| Concluding conference | 150,000 | 150,000 | |||
| Concluding debrief | 50,000 | 50,000 | |||
| Final documentation production | 50,000 | 50,000 | |||
| Subtotal | 969,750 | 12,212,500 | 10,839,250 | 943,000 | 24,964,500 |
| Overhead | 174,750 | 2,198,250 | 1,951,000 | 169,750 | 4,493,750 |
| Total | 1,144,500 | 14,410,750 | 12,790,250 | 1,112,750 | 29,458,250 |