Skip to main content

Why is government sitting on patient transfer recommendations?


EMS






The provincial Ombudsman has followed up on his damning report on the privatized, non-ambulance patient transfer industry.  

The Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government privatized the patient transfer industry at the turn of the century, moving the work over from Emergency Medical Services (ambulance services).   

Two years ago, however, the Ombudsman and the CBC reported major problems in this newly privatized industry, including threats to patient safety and working conditions.  

Ontario residents would be better off taking a taxi to a hospital than one of the privately owned vehicles used to transfer hundreds of thousands of non-critical patients each year, provincial Ombudsman Andre Marin concluded.

On July 16, 2013, the Ombudsman followed up on his earlier report, stating that “Two years after promising to regulate the non-emergency medical transfer industry to protect the hundreds of thousands of patients transported annually in these ambulance-like vehicles, it (the provincial government) has yet to do so.”

In a special section on patient transfer the Ombudsman noted:

"In 2011,the Ombudsman completed an investigation into whether the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care were adequately protecting the public who use non-emergency medical transportation....The investigation found significant problems, including poorly trained staff, inadequate equipment and lack of infection control. The Ombudsman shared a working draft of his findings with the two ministries in May 2011. In June 2011, the then Ministers of Transportation and Health and Long-Term Care jointly announced that legislation would be introduced to regulate the industry.  Unfortunately, there has been considerable delay in introducing legislation, in part due to the calling of a provincial election just prior to the ministers’ announcement in June 2011, and the prorogation of the subsequent session of the Legislature in 2012.  The Ombudsman pursued this issue with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, which was to lead the process of regulating the industry. The Ministry began consultations with stakeholders, with a commitment from the Minister that regulation would follow. In late 2012, the Minister received a report and recommendations arising from consultation. That report remains under review by the Minister. SORT (Special Ombudsman Response Team) continues to monitor this issue and pursues regular updates from the Ministry. The Ombudsman also discussed it with the present Minister of Transportation in May 2013." (My emphasis.)

It remains unclear what sort of 'consultations' the Ministry was involved in over regulation of the private patient transfer industry.  Or who they consulted. 

Moreover, the report and recommendations to the Ministry (revealed by the Ombudsman above) on patient transfer regulation remain secret.   There's no word on when, or if, they will be revealed.  

According to the Toronto Star, the Minister of Health and LTC responded to the new Ombudsman report by promising, again, to regulate the patient transfer industry by this time next year.  (Notably, two years ago the government promised to legislate “at the earliest opportunity”.)

Just shortly before the public release of the Ombudsman's new report, the Minister of Health and LTC strongly endorsed the restructuring of the private patient transfer industry in the South West LHIN.    The restructuring would designate a sole patient transfer provider for the LHIN.  

Photo: extranoise, Berlin ambulance.

Comments

  1. Speaking as a paramedic - I fully support public healthcare, but there is a role for these non-paramedic patient transfer services. Taking a fully equipped emergency ambulance off the road, staffed with highly trained paramedics, to take a patient home (or commonly to a nursing home) after they've been discharged is a waste of resources. It affects emergency coverage and availability of resources. While they often are returning to a place where they need/have some assistance like a long term care facility, by definition they stable and do not require ongoing medical attention during transport.
    There is also the category of interfacility transfers, which is case dependent: while the ST elevation MI needs ongoing treatment and lights and sirens transfer, many non-acute transfers could normally be accomplished by the patients' own means, but in some cases require non-emergency transfer due to pre-existing disability, dementia etc.
    The point being, there is a role for these services, but hopefully in the framework of government regulation. And it would be nice if they could be clearly differentiated in the public's mind from trained emergency paramedic services... but that's probably just a pipe dream.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting points Josh. I agree there is definitely a role, but I am not sure the current system is working.

    Speaking only personally, I would consider integration with the EMS System. I think that would be the most likely route to an appropriate division of labour between ambulances and non urgent transfer, adequate regulation of non urgent patient transfer, and fair pay for non urgent patient transfer staff. Presumably such an arrangement would also allow patient transfer employees who have the appropriate training and credentials the opportunity for promotion to paramedic work, status, and pay when positions become available.

    In any case it is apparent that the next step from the government is not going to be that. We will see if it is a significant step forward to better health care and reasonable working conditions in the patient transfer industry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi,
    Well said Allan, I totally agree with you that government will have to do something for improving the medical transportation but I want to share something is that government have some rules and regulations for Non emergency medical transportation industry which government can inspect all the companies who involved in this industries time to time and makes a report and government can cancel their license or can not extend their contact if they are fail to provide better services according to the rules and regulations. I personally have some experience with Scottsdale, the USA based company who runs under “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and they put comfort and security at their first preference.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Public sector employment in Ontario is far below the rest of Canada

The suggestion that Ontario has a deficit because its public sector is too large does not bear scrutiny. Consider the following. 

Public sector employment has fallen in the last three quarters in Ontario.  Since 2011, public sector employment has been pretty flat, with employment up less than 4 tenths of one percent in the first half of 2015 compared with the first half of 2011.


This contrasts with public sector employment outside of Ontario which has gone up pretty consistently and is now 4.7% higher than it was in the first half of 2011.



Private sector employment has also gone up consistently over that period. In Ontario, it has increased 4.3% since the first half of 2011, while in Canada as a whole it has increased 4.9%.







As a result, public sector employment in Ontario is now shrinking as a percentage of the private sector workforce.  In contrast, in the rest of Canada, it is increasing. Moreover, public sector employment is muchhigher in the rest of Canada than in Ontario.  Indeed as…

The long series of failures of private clinics in Ontario

For many years, OCHU/CUPE has been concerned the Ontario government would transfer public hospital surgeries, procedures and diagnostic tests to private clinics. CUPE began campaigning in earnest against this possibility in the spring of 2007 with a tour of the province by former British Health Secretary, Frank Dobson, who talked about the disastrous British experience with private surgical clinics.

The door opened years ago with the introduction of fee-for-service hospital funding (sometimes called Quality Based Funding). Then in the fall of 2013 the government announced regulatory changes to facilitate this privatization. The government announced Request for Proposals for the summer of 2014 to expand the role of "Independent Health Facilities" (IHFs). 

With mass campaigns to stop the private clinic expansion by the Ontario Health Coalition the process slowed.  

But it seems the provincial Liberal government continues to push the idea.  Following a recent second OCHU tour wi…

Hospital worker sick leave: too much or too little?

Ontario hospital workers are muchless absent due to illness or disability than hospital workers Canada-wide.  In 2014, Ontario hospital workers were absent 10.2 days due to illness or disability, 2.9 days less than the Canada wide average – i.e. 22% less.  In fact, Ontario hospital workers have had consistently fewer sick days for years.

This is also true if absences due to family or personal responsibilities are included.
Statistics Canada data for the last fifteen years for Canada and Ontario are reported in the chart below, showing Ontario hospital workers are consistently off work less.
Assuming, Ontario accounts for about 38% of the Canada-wide hospital workforce, these figures suggest that the days lost due to illness of injury in Canada excluding Ontario are about 13.6 days per year ([13.6 x 0.68] + [10.2 x 0.38] = 13.1).

In other words, hospital workers in the rest of Canada are absent from work due to illness or disability 1/3 more than Ontario hospital workers. 

In fact, Canad…