Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Analysis

Clinical networks: enablers of health system change

Braden J. Manns and Tracy Wasylak
CMAJ November 25, 2019 191 (47) E1299-E1305; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.190313
Braden J. Manns
Departments of Community Health Sciences (Manns) and Medicine (Manns), Cumming School of Medicine and O’Brien Institute of Public Health and Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta (Manns), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary; Alberta Health Services Strategic Clinical Networks (Manns, Wasylak); Faculty of Nursing (Wasylak), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracy Wasylak
Departments of Community Health Sciences (Manns) and Medicine (Manns), Cumming School of Medicine and O’Brien Institute of Public Health and Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta (Manns), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary; Alberta Health Services Strategic Clinical Networks (Manns, Wasylak); Faculty of Nursing (Wasylak), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
KEY POINTS
  • The federal Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation noted the importance of innovation in health care and that most health care systems lack the ability to scale and spread innovation.

  • Some health systems have created system-wide clinical networks that identify priorities, explore solutions and implement strategies to improve care and outcomes.

  • Early evaluations suggest that clinical networks can improve care processes and enable system-wide change.

  • Successful networks have effective leadership, partnerships and communication; are embedded within the health system; operate with adequate resources; and strategically align projects.

In 2014, the federal Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation highlighted an urgent need for fundamental changes in how health care is organized, financed and delivered across Canada.1 The panel noted examples of innovations affecting health outcomes within specific areas of health in some provinces, but also a general failure to scale up successful pilots provincially.

Variation in care is common across health systems, but gaps in care and issues with access, wait times, equity and efficiency have been highlighted as particularly problematic in Canada.2 Clinical networks, embedded within a supportive health system, have been proposed as a way to address key health system problems as they can identify the reasons for gaps in care, and work collaboratively with clinicians and operational leaders to design, implement and evaluate strategies to increase evidence-based practice.3

England, Scotland and Australia have implemented system-wide formal clinical networks across their health systems, although these networks have varied in composition, target areas, structure and processes. Within Canada, Alberta has established province-wide clinical networks and British Columbia recently implemented such entities to improve care in two distinct clinical domains. We consider evidence of the effect of clinical networks, and discuss potential barriers and enablers of such networks to inform strengthening of health systems in Canada.

What are clinical networks?

Clinical networks have been defined as “networks of clinicians and consumers that aim to improve clinical care and service delivery using a collegial approach to agree on and implement a range of strategies.”4 A systematic review of clinical networks in 2016 identified 22 studies that assessed the impact of clinical networks in 7 countries.3 We used this as a starting point to determine which regions or countries were supporting system-wide clinical networks.

The characteristics of clinical networks in England, Scotland, New South Wales (Australia) and Alberta (Canada) are summarized in tables below. The accuracy of the data therein was confirmed with experts in each jurisdiction.

England and Scotland have seen an evolution in their clinical networks over time. Until 2000, in Scotland, the clinical networks were generally voluntary, but eventually became mandated, at least for certain conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer). Similarly, in England, many managed clinical networks were put in place in the late 1990s, but since 2013, national mandated networks in cardiovascular; maternity and children; cancer; and mental health, dementia and neurologic conditions have been prioritized.5 Given budget constraints and these stated priorities, since 2013, there has been less financial support in England for the other managed clinical networks, although some networks continue to exist in other areas, such as diabetes and end-of-life care.

In all 4 jurisdictions, clinical networks have varied in their content areas and makeup, initially starting as clinically focused networks with variable involvement of policy-makers and patients; all now mandate the involvement of patients and carers across networks. Their leadership and accountability structures have also differed (with most networks having accountability through the health system). Finally, they vary in terms of available resources and processes.

What is the rationale for clinical networks?

Although the stated goals of clinical networks differ, in general they are used as a mechanism to prioritize areas for health system change, identify and help implement strategies to promote evidence-based practice, and improve appropriateness of care and outcomes. Usually such networks are tasked with tackling problems that require complex change among many groups and organizations. Networks have been offered as an alternative to health system change being driven solely from the top down, which can be said to affect clinician engagement and innovation negatively.7 However, an exclusive bottom-up approach might lack strategic planning, and may not lead to alignment and collaboration with operations. Therefore, a combined top-down and bottom-up approach to the design of clinical networks has been suggested.4 Scotland has the longest-established clinical networks, all of which operate according to a set of defined principles, ensuring they meet certain goals.8

What has been the impact of clinical networks internationally?

A systematic review of the impact of clinical networks in 2016 identified 9 quantitative and 13 qualitative studies.3 All quantitative studies were of low to moderate quality and generally reported on measures of health service delivery, with only 2 studies reporting clinical outcomes. Six studies were conducted in England (2 moderate-quality studies), Scotland (1 low-quality and 1 moderate-quality study), and New South Wales, Australia (1 low-quality and 1 moderate-quality study).

England

The systematic review included 1 observational, before-and-after study evaluating the impact of a national reorganization of neonatal services in England into managed clinical neonatal networks to improve access. This led to an increase in the proportion of preterm babies born at hospitals providing the highest volume of specialist care (18% to 49%; p < 0.001).9 The second study (an observational cross-sectional study) evaluated a diabetes managed clinical network and noted statistically significant improvements in multiple process indicators, including glycosylated hemoglobin; blood pressure; and foot, neurologic and retinal screening.10

Information on some of England’s strategic network initiatives is summarized in Table 1. Not all clinical networks have been successful in England, including some early examples of managed networks focused on cancer. Creation of the networks was not felt to be organic, relationships with operational partners were suboptimal, and individual health care organizations retained their own identity, agenda and culture, rather than contributing to a common network identity and purpose.12

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Characteristics of a selection of clinical networks that have existed in England*,5,11

Scotland

The systematic review included 1 quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis evaluating the impact of a cardiac services network on 16 process indicators, noting an improvement in 11 of them. Two indicators, including pain-to-needle time < 90 mins and the proportion of patients receiving β-blockers at 6 months, showed a statistically significant improvement.13 In a low-quality observational before-and-after study evaluating the impact of the establishment of the sarcoma managed clinical network, there were improvements in all primary process outcomes, including a reduction in the time interval from referral to initial assessment by the service (from median 19.5 to 10 days (p = 0.016).6 Further information on Scotland’s strategic networks is summarized in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Characteristics of 33 managed clinical networks in Scotland*

New South Wales, Australia

Since publication of the 2016 systematic review,3 a comprehensive high-quality review was published in 2018, on the impact of 19 networks within New South Wales operating from 2006 to 2008.4 This study assessed the impact of the networks on quality of care (e.g., guideline-recommended care, health system access) and system-wide change (e.g., new service or model of care) across a variety of areas using independent longitudinal health system data. An independent expert panel used a comprehensive 3-phase approach to determine whether the impact was low, moderate or high, including determining if it was a result of the clinical network. Three networks (37%) had moderate impact and 3 networks (16%) had high impact. For facilitating system-wide change, 7 networks (37%) had moderate impact and 7 (37%) had high impact. More details of New South Wales’ strategic networks are summarized in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Characteristics of clinical networks in New South Wales, Australia*,16

Alberta, Canada

Alberta has 16 strategic clinical networks that were modelled on the clinical networks in England and Scotland.20 General information on Alberta’s strategic clinical networks is summarized in Table 4. Three examples of the impact of strategic clinical networks working together with operational leaders and programs within Alberta are highlighted, including improving appropriate antipsychotic use in dementia, enhancing recovery after surgery and the provincial stroke action plan.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Characteristics of 16 clinical networks in Alberta, Canada*,21

Alberta, Canada

Given an adverse safety profile for atypical antipsychotics, improving appropriate use of antipsychotics in patients with dementia living in long-term care facilities was identified as a priority. A clinical pathway in use in Manitoba was modified, piloted and subsequently spread provincially across all 170 Alberta long-term care facilities, resulting in a reduction in antipsychotic use from 26.8% to 17.4% between 2012 and 2017.22

The Enhancing Recovery After Surgery International Society colorectal guideline has been widely studied,23 and shows shorter stays, fewer complications24 and lower costs.25–27 Although originally developed as care bundles for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, it has been expanded to a variety of surgeries, each of which is being implemented and continuously evaluated across Alberta.28 An early evaluation within colorectal cancer surgeries showed length of stay reduced by 1.5 days (p < 0.001), complication risk lowered by 11.7% (p = 0.014) and increased cost savings.28 However, not all evaluations have shown improvements,29 emphasizing the importance of ongoing monitoring across different surgical types and settings.

Stroke care and outcomes varied substantially across Alberta, with delayed access to stroke treatment and worse outcomes in rural areas. A series of activities were undertaken to address these inequities,30 which has resulted in improved door-to-needle times from 70 to 36 minutes provincially, including across urban and rural stroke centres,31,32 which in turn translates to improved outcomes in stroke survivors.

All strategic clinical network projects track return on investment. A comprehensive return on investment analysis was done for the first 15 strategic clinical network projects, including the impact on hospital bed days avoided and other cost savings. It was estimated that more than 143 800 hospital bed days were avoided, with net savings of $62.5 million (including direct cost savings of $16.4 million) (unpublished data).

Based on studies from these 4 jurisdictions, system-wide clinical networks would appear to improve quality of care in the health system and to facilitate system-wide change. However, the 2016 systematic review3 also noted some studies that showed no impact.

What influences the effectiveness of clinical networks?

The qualitative studies noted within the 2016 systematic review sought to explain how and why networks worked, or did not work, and what factors led to their success.3 Findings indicated that successful networks were those that had adequate resources, credible leadership and efficient management, coupled with effective communication strategies and collaborative, trusting relationships. The importance of well-designed and strategically aligned projects, and effective partnerships with operational partners (i.e., front-line health services delivery teams) and professional organizations was also emphasized.3,33

A comprehensive qualitative review of clinical networks in England and Scotland8,11 also noted the importance of being inclusive and having strong, credible and influential leaders, skilled in negotiation, facilitation and influence with clinicians and National Health Service health boards. Successful networks were those able to encourage system integration, maintain strong 2-way communication, and align network vision and priorities with the wider organizational environment.

Among the Australian networks,4 those with higher ratings of impact on quality of care also had better-perceived strategic and operational network management. Higher ratings of impact on system-wide change were associated with better-perceived leadership of the network manager and strategic and operational network management.

There have been differing views on the advantages of voluntary versus mandated networks. Voluntary networks are felt to enable bottom-up development of priorities and encourage grassroots participants, whereas mandated networks are felt to increase legitimacy and links to operational and policy partners within the health system.8 Having a set of core principles by which networks operate appears to enable network performance,18 even in mandated clinical networks, and experience suggests that networks lacking close partnerships with operational leaders and managers are unlikely to be successful.20

Some early learnings on barriers, and facilitators to network success within a Canadian setting, are available from recent stakeholder consultations on Alberta’s strategic clinical networks.20 Many themes emerged, including the critical importance of engagement with patient and family advisers (including codesign of interventions) and health system partners. Because clinical networks do not provide care, participants emphasized the importance of working closely with operational programs to be successful, and although challenging, this was noted to be easier within a provincial integrated system. The importance of 2-way communication was emphasized across all network partners to ensure alignment of activities across networks, with operational leaders, and with academic institutions, whose researchers lead or contribute to network projects.

Clinical networks were noted to have limited ability to influence some system-wide barriers; for instance, physician payment models, physician independence and challenges integrating with primary care. In 2017, Alberta established a primary care clinical network to address this challenge, and a new primary care governance framework is helping to improve communication and alignment. Interviews also noted the importance of ensuring that projects have resources and address operational needs. Finally, interviews noted the importance of role clarity, and coordination to improve efficiency, reduce fragmentation and create opportunities to address interdisciplinary issues.

What are the implications for health systems considering clinical networks in Canada?

With respect to other Canadian provinces, formal provincial clinical networks now exist in British Columbia, with networks launched in rural and remote services, and emergency medicine.34 Other provinces have discussed initiating province-wide clinical networks, but to our knowledge, no provinces other than Alberta and BC have launched them.

System-wide clinical networks have been in existence for nearly 20 years across several countries. They have been implemented to address variation in care, to prioritize areas for activity, implement strategies to increase the use of evidence-based care, and improve outcomes. Networks have evolved substantially over time, incorporating robust inclusion of patients as well as clinicians and policy-makers. Although early results are encouraging, there remains substantial variation in how clinical networks have been implemented, and randomized trials are not available.

Qualitative analyses emphasize the importance of strong leadership, adequate resources, efficient management, well-designed and strategically aligned projects (including robust measurement plans), effective partnership with operational partners, and the critical importance of communication.

For jurisdictions considering clinical networks, a strong leadership commitment and a financial investment is required, both to support the core infrastructure and to fund projects that align with organizational priorities. Canadian provinces developing clinical networks should consider the opportunities and barriers unique to each province, including the ability to partner effectively with components of the health system provincially. It can take several years for networks to establish priorities, design strategies or interventions to improve care, implement and test in a pilot setting, and then spread and scale innovations provincially. Networks should be established in the context of a robust evaluation plan, both for network projects (which must show improved outcomes and value for money), and to enable improved network structure and processes over time.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Braden Manns is the associate chief medical officer of the Alberta Health Services Strategic Clinical Networks, and an employee of the Academic Medicine and Health Services Program (funded by the University of Calgary, Alberta Health Services, and Alberta Health). Braden Manns and Tracy Wasylak are employees of Alberta Health Services.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Both authors contributed to the conception and design of the work, drafted the manuscript, revised it critically for important intellectual content, gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Funding: This study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Grant to Braden Manns. Dr Manns is supported by the Svare Chair in Health Economics.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Naylor D,
    2. Fraser N,
    3. Girard F,
    4. et al
    . Unleashing innovation: excellent healthcare for Canada: report of the Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation: executive summary. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2015. Available: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/unleashing-innovation-excellent-healthcare-canada-executive-summary.html (accessed 2018 Oct. 1).
  2. ↵
    1. Davis K,
    2. Stremikis K,
    3. Squires D,
    4. et al
    . Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: how the US health care system compares internationally. Washington (DC): The Commonwealth Fund; 2014.
  3. ↵
    1. Brown BB,
    2. Patel C,
    3. McInnes E,
    4. et al
    . The effectiveness of clinical networks in improving quality of care and patient outcomes: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Haines MM,
    2. Brown B,
    3. D’Este CA,
    4. et al
    . Improving the quality of healthcare: a cross-sectional study of the features of successful clinical networks. Public Health Res Pract 2018;28. pii: 28011803.
  5. ↵
    Strategic clinical networks. London (UK): National Health Services. Available: www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/scn/ (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  6. ↵
    1. McCullough AL,
    2. Scotland T,
    3. Dundas S,
    4. et al
    . The impact of a managed clinical network on referral patterns of sarcoma patients in Grampian. Scott Med J 2014;59:108–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ahgren B,
    2. Axelsson R
    . Determinants of integrated health care development: chains of care in Sweden. Int J Health Plann Manage 2007;22:145–57.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Guthrie B,
    2. Davies H,
    3. Greig G,
    4. et al
    . Delivering health care through managed clinical networks (MCNs): lessons from the North. Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme. London (UK): Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO; 2010. Available: www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1518-103_V01.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  9. ↵
    1. Gale C,
    2. Santhakumaran S,
    3. Nagarajan S,
    4. et al
    . Impact of managed clinical networks on NHS specialist neonatal services in England: population-based study. BMJ 2012;344:e2105.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Greene A,
    2. Pagliari C,
    3. Cunningham S,
    4. et al
    . Do managed clinical networks improve quality of diabetes care? Evidence from a retrospective mixed methods evaluation. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18:456–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Ferlie E,
    2. Fitzgerald L,
    3. Dopson S,
    4. et al
    . Networks in health care: a comparative study of their management, impact and performance. National Institutes of Health Research; 2010. Available: www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1518-102_V01.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  12. ↵
    1. Addicott R,
    2. McGivern G,
    3. Ferlie E
    . Networks, organizational learning and knowledge management: NHS cancer networks. Public Money Manag 2006;26:87–94.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Hamilton KE,
    2. Sullivan FM,
    3. Donnan PT,
    4. et al
    . A managed clinical network for cardiac services: set-up, operation and impact on patient care. Int J Integr Care 2005 Jul–Sep; 5:e10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. Guidance for designation as a national managed clinical or diagnostic network. Edinburgh: Scottish National Health Service — National Specialist Services Committee; 2016. Available: www.mcns.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015-16-Guidance-on-designation-of-NMCNs.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan. 7)
  15. National Network Management Service. Edinburgh: Scottish National Health Service. Available: www.mcns.scot.nhs.uk/ (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  16. ↵
    Clinical networks. New South Wales: New South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovations. Available: www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/networks (accessed 2019 Jan. 7)
    1. Tideman PA,
    2. Tirimacco R,
    3. Senior DP,
    4. et al
    . Impact of a regionalised clinical cardiac support network on mortality among rural patients with myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 2014;200:157–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Cadilhac DA,
    2. Pearce DC,
    3. Levi CR,
    4. et al
    . Improvements in the quality of care and health outcomes with new stroke care units following implementation of a clinician-led, health system redesign programme in New South Wales, Australia. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:329–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Haines M,
    2. Brown B,
    3. Craig J,
    4. et al
    . Determinants of successful clinical networks: the conceptual framework and study protocol. Implement Sci 2012;7:16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Manns BJ,
    2. Strilchuk A,
    3. Mork M,
    4. et al
    . Alberta’s Strategic Clinical Networks: a roadmap for the future. Healthcare Manage Forum 2019;32:313–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Strategic clinical networks. Edmonton: Alberta Health Services. Available: www.albertahealthservices.ca/scns/scn.aspx (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  20. ↵
    Alberta long-term care quality indicators 2016–2017. Edmonton: Alberta Health Services; 2018. Available: www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/data/ahs-data-rai-qis-2016-17.pdf (accessed 2019 Jan. 7).
  21. ↵
    1. Greco M,
    2. Capretti G,
    3. Beretta L,
    4. et al
    . Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 2014;38: 1531–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Varadhan KK,
    2. Neal KR,
    3. Dejong CH,
    4. et al
    . The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 2010;29:434–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Adamina M,
    2. Kehlet H,
    3. Tomlinson GA,
    4. et al
    . Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery. Surgery 2011;149:830–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Roulin D,
    2. Donadini A,
    3. Gander S,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2013;100: 1108–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Lee L,
    2. Mata J,
    3. Ghitulescu GA,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery versus conventional perioperative management for colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 2015;262:1026–33.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Nelson G,
    2. Kiyang LN,
    3. Crumley ET,
    4. et al
    . Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) across a provincial healthcare system: the ERAS Alberta colorectal surgery experience. World J Surg 2016;40:1092–103.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. AlBalawi Z,
    2. Gramlich L,
    3. Nelson G,
    4. et al
    . The Impact of the Implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program in an entire health system: a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada. World J Surg 2018; 42: 2691–700.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Kamal N,
    2. Jeerakathil T,
    3. Mrklas K,
    4. et al
    . Improving door-to-needle times in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke across a Canadian province: methodology. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2019;18:51–6.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Kamal N,
    2. Jeerakathil T,
    3. Smith E,
    4. et al
    . MP28: Reducing door-to-needle times across Alberta to 36 minutes. CJEM 2018;20:S50–51.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Kamal N,
    2. Shand E,
    3. Swanson R,
    4. et al
    . Reducing door-to-needle times for ischaemic stroke to a median of 30 minutes at a community hospital. Can J Neurol Sci 2019;46:51–6.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. McInnes E,
    2. Haines M,
    3. Dominello A,
    4. et al
    . What are the reasons for clinical network success? A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:497.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    What we do. Vancouver: British Columbia Academic Health Science Network. Available: https://bcahsn.ca/what-we-do/ (accessed 2019 July 2).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (47)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 47
25 Nov 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical networks: enablers of health system change
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinical networks: enablers of health system change
Braden J. Manns, Tracy Wasylak
CMAJ Nov 2019, 191 (47) E1299-E1305; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190313

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Clinical networks: enablers of health system change
Braden J. Manns, Tracy Wasylak
CMAJ Nov 2019, 191 (47) E1299-E1305; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190313
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • What are clinical networks?
    • What is the rationale for clinical networks?
    • What has been the impact of clinical networks internationally?
    • What influences the effectiveness of clinical networks?
    • What are the implications for health systems considering clinical networks in Canada?
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The ecology of medical care for adults in Alberta, 2002/03 to 2016/17: a retrospective cohort study
  • Albertas Strategic Clinical Networks: Enabling health system innovation and improvement
  • Strategic Clinical Networks: From pilot to practice change to planning for the future
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Questioning physicians about health conditions at medical licensure registration: How should policy evolve in Canada?
  • Physician workforce planning in Canada: the importance of accounting for population aging and changing physician hours of work
  • Assessing the need for Black mentorship within residency training in Canada
Show more Analysis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Health policy
    • Health services

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire