Evidence of meeting #67 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was patients.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Julio Montaner  Director, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Eric Bohm  Associate Professor, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, University of Manitoba
Ray Racette  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian College of Health Leaders
Christopher Fotti  Pritchard Farm Health Centre, As an Individual
Thomas Kerr  Director, Urban Health Research Initiative, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Michel Tétreault  President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Boniface Hospital

November 29th, 2012 / 11:45 a.m.

Dr. Michel Tétreault President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Boniface Hospital

Good morning, Madam Chair and members.

I want to thank the members who are here today.

It's a privilege to be here, so I want to thank you for that.

I got a bit worried when I saw the title of this session. It said “Technological Innovation”. What I want to talk about isn't rockets; it's delivery of health care. I guess the technology we're employing tends to be forgotten a bit, and that's the human mind, the human brain, and the human heart. That's the technology we're trying to harness at St. Boniface Hospital.

I will talk about four years of efforts into improving our care and getting results at a cost that we as taxpayers can all afford.

You do have a PowerPoint. I'm not going to show it to you; I would rather speak with you.

We do have four overarching objectives. We call them true north directions. They are, in order: to satisfy patients; to engage the staff; to reduce harm or do no harm; and to manage our resources. Our belief—and the more we do, the more we believe this—is that to satisfy patients we must engage staff. If we do that, we will reduce harm. In fact, by managing the resources—I will talk about the results in a few minutes—it will kind of fall out of that. That has been our experience over the last four years.

Some people think it's presumptuous to say we're on the road to perfect care. I think we will be close in about three or four CEOs—and I have no intention of retiring any time soon. However, if you think of what is acceptable, it is zero preventable harm, and it is only perfect care that will cut it. We want to make sure we don't forget that.

I will try to be very brief on the story of the Grey Nuns who founded St. Boniface Hospital more than 140 years ago. They came to Winnipeg, then called the new colony, from Montreal, because it was an order in Montreal, by canoe. It took 56 days. They landed about 150 metres from where our hospital is today. They were women of courage and determination, but they were also the fifth congregation to be asked by the bishop to come to the new colony. The four preceding them had not found a way to say yes. We believe the Grey Nuns actually showed a spirit of innovation in going where others didn't necessarily dare to go.

I do have the privilege—this is one of the things we found out by asking our people to improve the work, and to work with us on taking their knowledge and competence and applying it to improvement. I know how privileged I am to work with 4,000 extraordinarily competent, committed, caring, and compassionate people.

Why did we do this? Frankly, it was out of frustration. We have been a leading organization in quality improvement for many years in the country, or we are seen as that. When we are honest and look at the hard facts...we weren't really getting anywhere. Our CMO calls it “patchy improvement”, so once in a while we get a world-class improvement. We went without very serious infections from central lines in our ICUs—not one—for about 15 months. That's world-class. In the same ICU, we got nowhere on infections due to ventilators. It was kind of hit and miss. Even when we hit, more often than not, if you looked back a year later, we were back to where we started. We were frustrated with that. We were lucky to have some excellent examples of how Lean transformation can improve quality and reduce costs.

In Winnipeg, there's a shop called StandardAero that has been doing this for 25 years. They went from a very ordinary aero—not even standard—to world leaders in what they do, which is to fix aircraft engines. We also saw a place called ThedaCare in Appleton, Wisconsin, of all places, that is a world leader at Lean transformation. I visited one of their units that had implemented 752 significant improvements in the last year. Their target for this year, on that one unit, is 1,000. To give you a bit of a comparison, our target for this year at this hospital is 1,000 improvements, and we will be very happy if we get there.

How did we do this? The first thing is we went to our board of directors and said we were tired of having 15 priorities. Eight years ago, we had 15 in our strategic plan; four years ago we had nine. We proposed that there would be one priority at St. Boniface Hospital, and that would be quality. We were brave enough to say, We actually think we know how to attempt this, and that is through Lean transformation.” They said, “Thou shalt do this and never stop.”

So it's not a project and it's not a trial; it's something we are fully committed to. If you want to be part of St. Boniface Hospital's executive or leadership team, you have to fully commit to this.

I am a physician. We also had to spend money we did not have. That was a risk. I will talk to you about how that has paid off for us. The return on investment is great. We did have some very fortunate occurrences with business partners. Bob Hamaberg, the CEO of StandardAero, was my executive coach, pro bono, when they started this 25 years ago. He does this for two reasons. One is that he believes in the inherent moral value, but he is also a very successful businessman. He believes that high-quality care at an affordable cost is a marked competitive advantage compared to his competitors south of the border.

What do we do? Every month we do multiple improvement events. We have done over 100 of these events. You take front-line staff and managers and you give them time to think. We agree on what a problem is, and we give them time to thoroughly analyze it to look at what we do, how it could be made better, what we want to accomplish, and how in that week they are going to experiment with change. What are they going to try to make it better? Then they say, over the next three months this is what we're going to do and this is the expected result. We measure that constantly. We obviously also do projects. Some things are just good ideas that as leaders we have to learn to support and say we're just going to do it. We call them “just do its”. Our goal is to develop 4,000 problem-solvers at St. Boniface Hospital—4,000 improvement agents.

Results? Satisfied patients. We have been measuring patient satisfaction. Not many hospitals do this. We do it continuously and report on it every month. Twice in the last year we hit our highest-ever patient satisfaction scores. Nearly 87% of our patients said the care at St. Boniface Hospital was either very good or excellent. We don't count “good” as satisfied. On “engaged staff”, we measure staff engagement. We use a firm called Aon Hewitt, which does an international survey. We haven't hit our goal. Our goal was to be in the top 10% of employers in the country in terms of staff engagement. We have gone more than halfway between where we started, which was that 41% of our staff were fully engaged, which is in the remedial zone, by the way. This year's result was that 58% of our staff are fully engaged. To be in the top 10%, we have to get to 65%. We believe the more we engage our staff in improving what they do, the more they will be engaged.

On the reduction of harm, a measure is put out by the Canadian Institute for Health Information called the hospital standardized mortality ratio. When we started doing that measure, we were exactly average in Canada for teaching hospitals. The average was one; we were at one. We have reduced that. Our target was a 10% reduction year over year. We have reduced that by 30% in three years. We're now at 0.7 on our most recent result. I believe our patients are doing better. We have managed to reduce the time that patients are in hospital by 18%. That's equivalent to a 30-bed hospital unit in our place. We didn't have to build it. We didn't have to staff it. We already had the buildings and the staff. That represents 4% more patients by volume. Those patients were 4% sicker. That doesn't look like a lot—4%—correct? It allowed us to treat 1,150 more patients with the same budget as the preceding year. That is worth $4.6 million.

Finally, on the financial side, our target is to improve our financial performance by 1% year over year every year—1% in the first year, 2% in the second, and 3% in the third. Two years ago, we hit 1%, which was $3 million worth of financial improvement. Last year, we hit $6.2 million. This year, our target is $9.6 million, and I think we might just hit it. In two years, it will be $15 million. It's a $200 billion health industry. If everyone managed that, that's $2 billion per year, and $4 billion next year.

Finally, we are here to propose something we believe in, which is a learning centre for Lean in health care in Canada. We do have partners in the Asper School Of Business at the University of Manitoba and a École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, and they want to do this with us. Rather than my flying around the country, we believe that by bringing people to see us, to see what can be done, and how it can be attempted—we're not perfect; we can't tell people what to do, but they can at least look—we can collectively make a dent in improving quality and decreasing cost.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you. This has been an absolutely awesome morning, listening to all these wonderful ideas. Each and every presenter has made a major contribution this morning.

What we are going to do is go into the seven-minute Q and A round. I will be watching the time.

From the NDP, we will begin with Ms. Davies.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today, especially from Vancouver. We know you had to get up early in the morning to be ready to go at 8 a.m. Thank you for doing that.

This has been a really interesting study. We've had great presentations, and today's is no exception. I am fascinated to hear you say, Mr. Racette, that we lack a national health agenda for a $200 billion industry. Your information about what's going on in Sweden is an eye-opener. If there's any particular document that you think we should look at, I'd love to see it, as I'm sure other members of the committee would, just to see what they are doing there, especially around the question of jurisdiction. We've heard that incredible things are taking place.

I'm reminded that one witness told us that Canada is a country of pilot projects, which makes your comment, Mr. Racette, even more compelling. We have great things going on, but they're very scattered. It strikes me as a very difficult situation, because if you're a Canadian, you're a Canadian no matter where you live, and you should be able to expect the same high quality of care and access no matter where you are in this country. So thank you for everything you've told us today.

I want to focus some questions to Dr. Montaner and Dr. Kerr.

I'm familiar with your work, Dr. Montaner. You have an international reputation for the incredible work you've done out of the B.C. Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS.

Dr. Kerr, your work with a very high-risk urban population has been quite incredible, and I am very familiar with it.

To be quite crass about it, I'd love you to talk a little about the numbers. We're talking about innovation in health care. What you're doing is preventing infections, and the statistics you give us are quite incredible. Can you translate this into costs and describe how, if we change the focus of what we're doing by looking at the social determinants of health, in working on harm reduction, we are actually saving a huge amount of money? I know this, but I don't have all the info at my fingertips and I'd love you to put it forward.

Secondly, I read something a couple of days ago from you, Dr. Montaner, and I heard you speak about the “seek and treat” program. But I believe you are also suggesting that, based on the success in B.C., we should have a national program of free treatment—“treatment is prevention”—for AIDS medications. Could you also tell us why you are now saying that? What has compelled you to bring this forward?

Thank you. If you'd like to answer those questions....

Noon

Director, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

Dr. Julio Montaner

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for your remarks.

Briefly, there are 3,300 new infections in this country per year. We argued that if we were to embrace a “test and treat” approach—the “seek and treat” approach that we're talking about—we could reduce that number in a matter of two to three years by more than 60%, with concurrent decreases in morbidity and mortality.

A case of HIV costs, in terms of treatment, roughly $15,000 per year. Over a lifetime, that translates into anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000, and that is clearly an average. If we are able to prevent one infection, not only are we preventing morbidity and mortality, but we are also preventing the downstream chain of transmission that the individual could generate.

For that reason, our data, now independently verified by the World Health Organization, shows that investing a little more upfront on testing and engaging in treatment in a supportive fashion, including the harm reduction practice that you are asking for, would be cost-saving. The mathematical model suggests that whatever more you invest today, you recoup in a matter of five years, and after that it is all savings.

I am going to let Dr. Kerr comment on the harm reduction piece.

Noon

Director, Urban Health Research Initiative, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

Dr. Thomas Kerr

Really, what happened in Vancouver is that we had a public health emergency declared because of the epidemics of HIV infection and overdose occurring in that community.

To give you a quick perspective, during the height of this emergency we were experiencing anywhere up to 400 infections. That has now declined to fewer than 40. At that time, the lifetime medical costs associated with those new infections would be in the order of $180 million. Now they are down to something more like $16 million.

Likewise we have seen massive declines in overdose stats and ambulance call-outs for those events. As a result of some innovative approaches, which have also been rigorously evaluated and verified in the scientific literature—such as Vancouver's Insite supervised injection site—overdose deaths have declined substantially. In fact they have declined by over 35% just in the area around that facility.

Clearly what we're saying is we need to take an evidence-based approach to this. If we do, and we're careful, and we evaluate, and scale up those pilots that do work, we can not only prevent a great deal of suffering, but we can also save a lot of money and reduce the burden on our hospitals where currently people who use drugs occupy a great number of acute beds and spend a lot of time in our emergency rooms.

Noon

Director, British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

Dr. Julio Montaner

Let me conclude by saying that if this virus was not HIV, and it was called H1N1, SARS, or something else, we would have a national strategy. We're neglecting it because we're discriminating against HIV.

Noon

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much.

Do I have any more time?

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Your time's up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Strahl.

Noon

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

My questions are for Dr. Bohm. I was very interested in your presentation. When you sought to start up the Lean program, were additional funds required? Did you need to seek additional funds, or were you able to reprofile or find savings internally in order to set that up?

Noon

Associate Professor, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, University of Manitoba

Dr. Eric Bohm

I gave a couple of examples of a broad application of Lean theory. Dr. Tétreault has more experience in this than I do and maybe can speak a bit more about it.

We didn't find you needed a lot of new resources or money. This was really almost a management philosophy, applying new thought processes to a current problem and how you address it.

I think the important part I keep stressing is coming back to the data piece. I think we were lucky in several ways because we were able to tack on that data capture piece to existing databases. We had a wait list database for hip and knee arthroplasty. We added onto that the outcomes data from our joint registry. It was a matter of adding a few fields and a bit more time from the analyst.

I think what happens is once you demonstrate the value of the data, it's much easier to find those resources to create new data structures.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I remember your PowerPoint where it talked about, I think, a five-day reduction in hospital stays. Have you calculated the savings to the system? I know Dr. Tétreault mentioned it in his centre. Have you calculated what perhaps the annual savings or per patient savings are because you have implemented this Lean system?

12:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, University of Manitoba

Dr. Eric Bohm

No. I haven't run those numbers.

I think when you show these big changes in length of stay, in mortality, the value of it is obvious to people, and it's easier to obtain those resources for the data structure.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Given the success and the ability for you to show the success through the data, is there resistance to adopting this in other centres? If so, why, given that it appears, certainly from the data you have presented, it's a no-brainer?

12:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, University of Manitoba

Dr. Eric Bohm

I think the challenge we've already mentioned is that we almost have 13 health care systems in Canada, and we have many multiple pilot projects going on.

I've been involved with a couple of groups. One is the Arthritis Alliance of Canada. It's made up of a lot of member organizations—the Canadian Orthopaedic Association, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, the Arthritis Society, physiotherapists, and so forth—and they have advanced a model of care framework.

The other group I've been active with is Bone and Joint Decade Canada. That's a purely pan-Canadian group of MSK providers. We've done a lot of work around a tool kit for hip and knee replacement access quality outcomes, and a lot of work on hip fracture care as well.

A lot of things I've presented today are components of those tool kits we've developed. Part of that work involves rolling out the components of those tool kits across Canada, so this work is ongoing across Canada. If you look at what we do, there are components of that across Canada.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

You also mentioned that intellectual property policies and medical centres need to be updated. I'm wondering what particular changes you're referring to. What policies need to be updated, and are those federal or provincial regulations?

12:05 p.m.

Associate Professor, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, University of Manitoba

Dr. Eric Bohm

This is a very new area for us. I mentioned the Orthopaedic Device Innovation Centre, and we're just now going through the machinations of sorting out intellectual property rights to deal with this in our university.

Obviously, if you have investors that come in and want to assist with device development, there are a lot of issues around intellectual property and who owns it and how you divvy it up. We're working with our university and making a lot of progress on this point. I'm speaking mostly about the university and my local experience.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Dr. Racette, you mentioned the Swedish model, and I have some interest in that country. My question is whether they have a federal system where provinces or states are responsible for the delivery of health care services, or whether they have a national central government responsible for delivering health care throughout the country.

12:05 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian College of Health Leaders

Ray Racette

I should say that I'm not a physician.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I'll call you “doctor” anyway.

12:05 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian College of Health Leaders

Ray Racette

In Sweden, they don't have a federation like Canada or Australia. But they have a complex system. They have 20 councils, and their role is to look after hospital care, physician care, academic health science centres, and pharmacare. All those things are under one council that has its own taxing powers. They have about 300 municipal councils. They look after all the things that we would say are determinants of health. They have housing, social services, care for the elderly, home care, and care for the disabled. That council has its own taxing powers. In fact, they have two different councils with distinct taxing powers. One council doesn't need to take from acute care to get the resources—they can tax separately for that.

The mandate of the federal government is really to set national priorities, which they do jointly when negotiating with the councils and agreeing on what the national priorities are. The federal funding going in is quite small, less than 10%. Most of the funding comes through the county councils and municipal councils, but it is a complex structure. They still need to negotiate how to maintain a standard approach to health care throughout those councils, all of which have governance structures over them, to deliver a consistent level of care regardless of where you are in Sweden.

They work very hard on getting consensus and establishing priorities. They manage it very carefully and they do a lot of measurement. They can measure care right down to the physician, the hospital, and the county. They have several years of data available, so they can see how their performance changes over time.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you very much.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

You have a little time, but that's okay.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I'm done, thank you.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Okay, thank you so much.

We'll now go to Dr. Fry.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to congratulate everyone on some really innovative thinking that I heard today.

Dr. Bohm, I think you've done remarkable things by measuring. You're absolutely right: if you don't measure it, you shouldn't be bothered to even start doing innovation or making changes.

Mr. Racette, I wanted to comment on some of the things you talked about. You talked about the lack of a national health care strategy. You talked about health human resource shortages, which stops Canada from innovating the way Sweden has done. They are taking care of chronic and elderly patients in a community care or home care setting, and they're holding up 25% of the beds in the acute care setting at massive cost.

What is the cost per patient per day for acute care? Is it somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 per patient per day?