The use of a policy dialogue to facilitate evidence-informed policy development for improved access to care: the case of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS)

Abstract

BackgroundPolicy dialogues are critical for developing responsive, effective, sustainable, evidence-informed policy. Our multidisciplinary team, including researchers, physicians and senior decision-makers, comprehensively evaluated The Winnipeg Central Intake Service, a single-entry model in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to improve patient access to hip/knee replacement surgery. We used the evaluation findings to develop five evidence-informed policy directions to help improve access to scheduled clinical services across Manitoba. Using guiding principles of public participation processes, we hosted a policy roundtable meeting to engage stakeholders and use their input to refine the policy directions. Here, we report on the use and input of a policy roundtable meeting and its role in contributing to the development of evidence-informed policy.MethodsOur evidence-informed policy directions focused on formal measurement/monitoring of quality, central intake as a preferred model for service delivery, provincial scope, transparent processes/performance indicators, and patient choice of provider. We held a policy roundtable meeting and used outcomes of facilitated discussions to refine these directions. Individuals from our team and six stakeholder groups across Manitoba participated (n = 44), including patients, family physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, surgical office assistants, Winnipeg Central Intake team, and administrators/managers. We developed evaluation forms to assess the meeting process, and collected decision-maker partners’ perspectives on the value of the policy roundtable meeting and use of policy directions to improve access to scheduled clinical services after the meeting, and again 15 months later. We analyzed roundtable and evaluation data using thematic analysis to identify key themes.ResultsFour key findings emerged. First, participants supported all policy directions, with revisions and key implementation considerations identified. Second, participants felt the policy roundtable meeting achieved its purpose (to engage stakeholders, elicit feedback, refine policy directions). Third, our decision-maker partners’ expectations of the policy roundtable meeting were exceeded; they re-affirmed its value and described the refined policy directions as foundational to establishing the vocabulary, vision and framework for improving access to scheduled clinical services in Manitoba. Finally, our adaptation of key design elements was conducive to discussion of issues surrounding access to care.ConclusionsOur policy roundtable process was an effective tool for acquiring broad input from stakeholders, refining policy directions and forming the necessary consensus starting points to move towards evidence-informed policy.

How do patients trade-off surgeon choice and waiting times for total joint replacement: a discrete choice experiment

“…Single-entry models have been suggested by the Canadian Institutes for Health Information and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a promising strategy that brings structural and programmatic improvements to the management of elective procedures 2,9 . Single-entry models typically combine the use of pooled referrals (patients and service providers), centralized intake (single point-of-entry) and triage (screening for urgency/priority) 10 . One example of a single-entry model is where patients are referred to the next available surgeon instead of being referred to a specific surgeon chosen by their doctor or themselves 11 .…”

Developing a new health‐related policy analysis tool: An action research cooperative inquiry approach

“…Therefore, the implementation of a policy should be considered from the outset, as sufficient finances and resources are required to support policy implementation (Odoch, Kabali, Ankunda, Zulu, & Tetui, ). Key elements of the policy implementation process include planning, leadership, stakeholder involvement, clarity of documentation, resources and awareness of the political environment (Damani et al, ; Kennedy, O’ Reilly, O’ Connell, O’ Leary., Fealy G. et al, 2019). The Implementation domain consists of two items unique to the implementation of policy and not captured by the other HrPAT domains, concerning the acceptability and governance of implementation.…”

Shaping Policy on Chronic Diseases through National Policy Dialogs in CHRODIS PLUS

“…The CHRODIS PLUS policy dialog methodology relies on thorough stakeholder and context analyses prior to the dialog, allowing participants to review the latest evidence and come to table with a common understanding of the topic at-hand. This can facilitate more evidence-based and transparent decision-making procedures, with the potential to reduce the “black box” of traditional policymaking [ 23 ]. Our experience of using the CHRODIS PLUS policy dialog format shows that it could be adapted for use in different contexts and at different stages of the policymaking process.…”

“…In CHRODIS PLUS, “deliberative” policy dialogs were used because they are a critical tool to aid the development of responsive, effective, sustainable and evidence-informed policy [ 23 ]. They gave participants a single medium through which they could address multiple influences on the policy process, such as the engagement of key stakeholders, the latest research evidence and existing policy and practice [ 19 ].…”