SECTION TK
FEATURE
Brenda Copps, a Hamilton family physician
and Chair of the policy working group. “The
stakes were high, so we did not want to end up
with policies that were rushed through. We
needed to look at our expectations, and have
others look at our expectations, from every
conceivable angle. We did that and as a result
we have policies that are workable, reasonable
and very much in the public interest,” she said.
While elements of the draft policies received
support from many respondents, concern
that the expectations would unduly burden
individual physicians, requiring them to
provide solutions to broader system level issues
emerged as a general theme in the feedback.
The College recognized from the outset that
physicians can not be solely responsible for
ensuring that continuity of care is achieved;
health system-level factors that are beyond the
control or influence of individual physicians
also impact continuity of care. Our consulta-
tion process helped us identify those limits.
(Please see article below)
“During the consultation, respondents often
offered more moderate steps that physicians
could take to address continuity of care issues
and we thought many of these steps seemed
reasonable, while still retaining a focus on
patient safety,” said Dr. Copps.
In addition to the external consultation,
which garnered nearly 700 responses, the Col-
lege also worked closely with stakeholders to
find common ground and expand upon areas
of agreement.
“At the heart of all our conversations was a
shared understanding that continuity of care is
an essential component of patient-centred care
and is critical to patient safety,” said Dr. Peeter
Poldre, President of the College and a mem-
ber of the policy working group. “And we all
understood the importance of information ex-
change across different parts of the health-care
system. So it was never a discussion of “why do
we need to do this?” but rather an exploration
of how best to do this,” he said.
The set of inter-related policies address a
range of issues. They are: Availability and
Coverage, Managing Tests, Transitions in
Care, and Walk-in Clinics.
Below is a description of some of the changes
System level changes will support, enhance College expectations
The expectations set out in the
Continuity of Care policies aim
to help close some of the gaps
in the system, but system level
changes are also needed in order to
complement, support, and enhance
the expectations the College has set
out.
For example, we believe that
breaks in continuity of care may be
minimized by engaging patients in
their care and providing them with the
information and tools they need to
navigate the system. And emerging
10
DIALOGUE ISSUE 2, 2019
technologies can help strengthen
patient engagement. With patient
portals becoming more common,
patients will have greater opportunity
to access their test results directly
and in some cases, view their entire
health record.
Changes in the way hospitals develop
discharge summaries, with a focus
on patient needs and comprehension,
also has the potential for better
supporting transitions from hospital
to home and minimizing breakdowns.
Further growth in terms of access
to these emerging tools will help
to support patients and facilitate
continuity of care.
Engaging patients in their health-
care and adopting technological
solutions where they are reasonably
available have the potential to
meaningfully facilitate continuity
of care. Doing so will complement
physicians’ efforts in this regard and
together many potential breakdowns
may be avoided.