Tag Archives: Erie-St. Clair LHIN

Why are six LHINs still afraid to let the community speak directly to their boards?

The Local Health Integration Networks spend a lot of time talking about community engagement.

In his 2010 report The LHIN Spin, the Ontario Ombudsman stated “the reality of community decision-making has fallen far short of the political spin.”

Andre Marin writes: “there are no clear minimum standards for soliciting community views on systematic priorities or specific integration plans, and different LHINs interpret their public outreach obligations differently.”

Marin picked up on the common complaint that while the LHINs regularly take steps to obtain local stakeholder views on the general state of the health care system, the performance has been less than adequate when it comes to changes that “have direct immediate impact on the lives of local residents.”

Following that 2010 report, the province issued a toolkit in the following year that proposed guidelines on LHIN community engagement.

Continue reading

Falls Prevention: Will the LHINs overcome the impact of delisting and fiscal restraint?

Taken by themselves, the numbers are startling.

About 50 per cent of injury-related hospitalizations for seniors are from falls.

We spend an estimated $962 million a year dealing with the health outcomes from falls.

Falls are responsible for 95.1 per cent of all hip fractures.

One in three seniors is likely to fall at least once per year.

Six Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) had identified falls as a priority and have already implemented comprehensive prevention programs.

Last July the LHIN Collaborative (LHINC) put out its own framework and toolkit, aiming to establish a province-wide strategy on falls.

Continue reading

CCACs not given sufficient resources to deal with “home first” initiative

The government speaks regularly about moving services out of hospitals and into community-based care, including nursing homes and home care.

They tell us that it is not only more cost-effective, but it is preferred by patients.

So what is the deal with holding the line on CCACs and nursing home beds at a time when the hospitals are being placed under extreme pressure to move alternate level of care patients into the community?

The latest conflict is in Windsor, where the LHIN has refused to give the Community Care Access Centre a waiver to run a $5.2 million deficit.

The CCAC is arguing demand is on the rise and patients will be stranded in hospital if they are unable to provide home care services. Just yesterday Windsor Regional Hospital CEO David Musyj was urging patients to go elsewhere in the anticipated post-Christmas rise in demand for ER services.

No home care. No hospital care. People in the Windsor area must be truly wondering about the direction of their health care.

The CCAC says the overall increase in home care patients is rising by 1,000 to 1,500 per year in Erie St. Clair, and coming out of hospital sooner, these patients are more costly to serve. The cost of the CCACs end-of-life program is rising by 11 per cent per year.

The CCAC is also facing more demand because of delay in the building of a planned 256 bed long-term care home at St. Clair College. They say that delay is costing them $3 million annually.

The LHIN is willing to help out with a one-time grant of $1.5 million while they “study” the needs of the CCAC. In an unusually frank retort, CCAC Executive Director Betty Kutcha told the Windsor Star that “in my view, they’ve got a $1.5 million solution, so they’re trying to fit our problem into that.”

We are hearing that the Home First program – an initiative where hospitals are supposed to discharge patients home to wait for long-term care placement – is increasing overall community referrals to the CCACs by 10 per cent or more. This is a significant strain on their budgets.

Even the Auditor General of Ontario was skeptical in his summer report of the government’s plans to reduce the rate of growth in hospital spending based on service from home care and long-term care where the level of restraint is expected to be even more severe.

When the Health Restructuring Commission of the late 1990s made its recommendations around the transfer of mental health services to community-based agencies, they were adamant that no beds should close until community-based resources were established. The government cut the beds, didn’t provide anywhere near adequate service in the community, and left us with a system that has been the subject of one report after another calling for better.

Are we to repeat the experience as the government pushes hospitals to discharge patients before adequate community resources are put in place?

Seems we never learn.

The trouble with LHINs

Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) have become lightning rods in many communities.

The Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN was the focus of a scathing Ontario Ombudsman report “The LHIN Spin” which suggested public engagement was no more than lip service.

The South East LHIN recently sent their local communities into a panic after it floated the idea of concentrating all surgeries in Kingston.

The Erie St. Clair LHIN generated headlines last year when it unveiled plans to bring in a Disney speaker at a cost of close to $10,000. The speaking engagement was cancelled, although not the cost.

Aside from a horrible name, the LHINs have made many blunders to turn Ontarians against them – at least among the citizens that are even aware they exist.

68 per cent of PC supporters oppose plan to kill the LHINs

In a February 2011 Vector Poll, only 22 per cent of respondents claim to have either heard or read something about LHINs. Vector has been polling this question since 2006 with barely a change in results. After a brief description of what the LHINs do, 77 per cent of Ontarians opposed shutting them down. More troublesome to PC leader Tim Hudak, 68 per cent of PC voters are opposed to his promise to kill the LHINs.

It’s like that old song, “I can’t live with you, but I can’t get along without you.”

If the LHINs are likely here to stay, how do we fix them?

For starters, it’s about time the province come up with its overall strategic plan. It was supposed to be the guide for the LHINs to develop their own regional integrated health service plans. Instead, the province has been flighty in its priorities, often changing from Minister to Minister. George Smitherman was all about aging at home. David Caplan was about mental health. Deb Matthews is focused on getting alternate level of care patients out of hospitals.

Secondly, the LHINs are likely too small and have too few professional staff to effectively carry out their work. They like to crow about how small their administrative costs are relative to funding they shell out to hospitals, long term care homes, home care and other health providers, but it may be unreasonable. The Ministry has added to the workload with additional performance indicators and a broadened scope of oversight, but it refuses to allow the LHINs to hire appropriate staff to get the job done.

This may have something to do with point three – the LHINs have been very focused on reigning in costs, mostly at hospitals. It would be political folly to add to the LHIN administration while front line health professionals are being cut. This was supposed to be an exercise about quality, but clearly the focus has been on cost. One hospital CEO showed up at a LHIN board meeting to discuss progress on his hospital’s improvement plan. Missing from his presentation was information about the hospital’s performance on the LHIN’s quality indicators. To their credit, Ontario hospitals are in a far better place financially today, but it may be at a cost in quality.

The LHINs were supposed to take their strength from the communities they served, but no community has really warmed up to them. A few years ago OPSEU was invited to participate in a panel discussion on the LHINs by the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA). When the floor opened for questions, Mayors and Councillors of small towns lined up at the microphone to vent their frustration with the LHINs. The mayors felt the LHINs were unaccountable and were carrying out a hatchet operation on their local hospitals.

When a matter of concern comes up on the LHIN board’s agenda, often communities show up in considerable numbers. The LHINs lack any mechanism for representatives of these communities to address their concerns directly to the board. Recently two LHINs opened up their board meetings to deputations, although the process at Central East may be far too onerous and controlling to ever work.

When the LHINs did hold events for public consultation, these events often involved round tables with facilitators and set question lists. Many who have attended these events found the process manipulative.

When OPSEU took the Central East LHIN before judicial review in 2008, the lawyers for the government argued the LHINs were only responsible for high-level consultation, not on specific changes. In other words, the LHINs could ask what kind of health services a community might want, not on whether 20 mental health beds should be shut down at their local hospital and moved to another community.

It’s these specific initiatives when the public is most engaged, and it is these moments when the LHIN shuts them out of the process.

There are signs the LHINs are beginning to learn from their mistakes. At a recent Central East LHIN meeting they said they looked at integration between two addiction services and realized that while cooperation between the two of them was encouraged, it didn’t make sense for them to merge. The LHIN also acknowledged that Lakeridge Health was a good place to host one of these two services – a radical departure from the LHIN’s early days when it seemed they couldn’t move services out of hospital fast enough nor convince enough providers to integrate. This is the same LHIN than asked hospitals to set aside 1 per cent of their budget to allocate to a community-based health provider while trying to maintain it was making evidence-based decision-making.

There is a value to have a process by which health care providers must justify changes in service delivery.

The Southwest LHIN recently put the breaks on a plan by Grey Bruce Health Services to jettison speech language therapy for preschoolers. The hospital made the announcement under a hope and a prayer that the Health Unit would be able to pick up the work. The LHIN has since written to the hospital asking them to submit a formal integration proposal. Such a proposal will require more than a hope and prayer in the transfer of a service — it will need a HR transition plan.

The South West also responded to complaints that the Regional Mental Health Centre in London and St. Thomas was cutting beds without providing appropriate alternate services in the community. The LHIN allocated another $2.9 million for community delivery of mental health as a result. It won’t be nearly enough, but at least there was evidence they are listening.

It is far more productive to start talking about what the LHINs or their replacement might look like rather than take an axe to it all as Tim Hudak proposes. Diablogue will write more on this in the weeks to come.

Some LHIN boards finally open door to hear directly from public

From the beginning Local Health Integration Network board meetings have only allowed the public to witness the proceedings, never to participate.

Given the LHIN mandate to engage the public, the opportunity to be seen but not heard appeared absurd. Many a contentious meeting took place where community members were acknowledged in the room, but never allowed to express their concerns directly before the board.

Now several of the LHINs are establishing opportunities for the public to make deputations at the monthly LHIN board meetings.

The Central East LHIN has set extensive guidelines for individuals or groups to make deputations up to 15 minutes in length. The CE LHIN will set aside up to 30 minutes – or enough time for two deputations per meeting. The individual or group has to make an application to speak 30 days before the next board meeting, and the application must be clear about the proposed content and “align with the CE LHIN’s strategic aims.”

The application will be vetted and the Corporate Governance Coordinator will notify the interested party if they have been approved or not. Materials presented to the board must be similarly vetted.

Given an agenda for the LHIN board is seldom posted more than a few days before these meetings, the applicant will not necessarily know if they are speaking to a matter for a decision before the LHIN.

This appears to be a very cumbersome process, and will likely discourage many community organizations from participating. Many of the issues that come before the LHIN are seldom known in the community 30 days in advance.

By comparison, the Erie-St. Clair LHIN presents an open mic at its board meetings.  Open mic presenters have only need of registering in person on the day of the board meeting. They are limited to five minutes for their presentation, followed by another five minutes for questions and answers. There is no prescreening.

Erie St. Clair also makes opportunities for the community to present before open education sessions of the board.

At least these two LHINs are making an effort to open up. The Wellington-Waterloo LHIN makes no such opportunities available, insisting the public put their concerns in writing.

Most continue to maintain they are interested in hearing from the public, but just not at their board meetings where real decisions are made.

The province is presently rolling out new guidelines for public engagement, but there is no mandate to open up board meetings to community participation.

If the LHINs expect us to take community engagement seriously, they should do more to connect the community to their decision-making boards. Erie St. Clair and the Central East LHIN are at least making a start.