Suchergebnisse

The white paper outlining core values & interests has been the most common administrative tool of the Canadian government for defining Canada's role in the world since 1947. However, due to domestic (Canada's strategic culture) & international (anarchy & distribution of capabilities) constraints, Canada's investment in these efforts has been of limited use in the development, execution, & management of foreign policy. White papers are intended to inform the public, incite dialogue, & bring together the cabinet, parliament, & the public, thereby allowing a degree of access to policy information & anticipating problems & solutions. Proximity, control, & legislative capacity are key to a successful relationship between white papers & policy, yet the government is in a much weaker position with respect to these when it comes to foreign policy. Due to the realist strategic culture in foreign policy planning, Canadian foreign policy defined in white papers has not changed substantially over time despite the different domestic & international contexts. Though they may serve to frame a snapshot of Canadian goals within a current context, white papers do not matter as foreign policy management tools. L. Kehl

Practicing physicians, hospital directors, members of the hospital's board of directors and government health care planners can benefit from an accurate description of a hospital catchment area. The sociodemographic and geographic characteristics of the catchment area of Wakefield, PQ.'s 31-bed Gatineau Memorial Hospital (GMH) were studied. A randomized, door-to-door survey was conducted among permanent residents in the catchment area. The response rate was 96.1%. We found language to be an important and complex determinant of hospital utilization patterns. Orientation towards the city also affected the pattern of hospital use; those who lived between Wakefield and Ottawa-Hull were more likely to use a city hospital, as were those who had recently moved to the area, or who commuted to work in the city.

Abstract Background Outreach facilitation has been proven successful in improving the adoption of clinical preventive care guidelines in primary care practice. The net costs and savings of delivering such an intensive intervention need to be understood. We wanted to estimate the proportion of a facilitation intervention cost that is offset and the potential for savings by reducing inappropriate screening tests and increasing appropriate screening tests in 22 intervention primary care practices affecting a population of 90,283 patients. Methods A cost-consequences analysis of one successful outreach facilitation intervention was done, taking into account the estimated cost savings to the health system of reducing five inappropriate tests and increasing seven appropriate tests. Multiple data sources were used to calculate costs and cost savings to the government. The cost of the intervention and costs of performing appropriate testing were calculated. Costs averted were calculated by multiplying the number of tests not performed as a result of the intervention. Further downstream cost savings were determined by calculating the direct costs associated with the number of false positive test follow-ups avoided. Treatment costs averted as a result of increasing appropriate testing were similarly calculated. Results The total cost of the intervention over 12 months was $238,388 and the cost of increasing the delivery of appropriate care was $192,912 for a total cost of $431,300. The savings from reduction in inappropriate testing were $148,568 and from avoiding treatment costs as a result of appropriate testing were $455,464 for a total savings of $604,032. On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 $Can) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%. Conclusion Outreach facilitation is more expensive but more effective than other attempts to modify primary care practice and all of its costs can be offset through the reduction of inappropriate testing and increasing appropriate testing. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher.

Background: Influenza poses concerns about epidemic respiratory infection. Interventions designed to prevent the spread of respiratory infection within family physician (FP) offices could potentially have a significant positive influence on the health of Canadians. The main purpose of this paper is to estimate the explicit costs of such an intervention. Methods A cost analysis of a respiratory infection control was conducted. The costs were estimated from the perspective of provincial government. In addition, a threshold analysis was conducted to estimate a threshold value of the intervention's effectiveness that could generate potential savings in terms of averted health-care costs by the intervention that exceed the explicit costs. The informational requirements for these implicit costs savings are high, however. Some of these elements, such as the cost of hospitalization in the event of contacting influenza, and the number of patients passing through the physicians' office, were readily available. Other pertinent points of information, such as the proportion of infected people who require hospitalization, could be imported from the existing literature. We take an indirect approach to calculate a threshold value for the most uncertain piece of information, namely the reduction in the probability of the infection spreading as a direct result of the intervention, at which the intervention becomes worthwhile. Results The 5-week intervention costs amounted to a total of $52,810.71, or $131,094.73 prorated according to the length of the flu season, or $512,729.30 prorated for the entire calendar year. The variable costs that were incurred for this 5-week project amounted to approximately $923.16 per participating medical practice. The (fixed) training costs per practice were equivalent to $73.27 for the 5-week intervention, or $28.14 for 13-week flu season, or $7.05 for an entire one-year period. Conclusion Based on our conservative estimates for the direct cost savings, there are indications that the outreach facilitation intervention program would be cost effective if it can achieve a reduction in the probability of infection on the order of 0.83 (0.77, 1.05) percentage points. A facilitation intervention initiative tailored to the environment and needs of the family medical practice and walk-in clinics is of promise for improving respiratory infection control in the physicians' offices. ; Other UBC ; Non UBC ; Reviewed ; Faculty