Disrupting Standard Mode: A big picture story of family inclusion in substance use services

 

We hear a lot about patient-centred care in substance use services, but what about family-centred care? Family members are important sources of support for those accessing substance use services. However, family inclusion is not always regular or customary practice within substance use systems and services. In the midst of an unprecedented public health overdose emergency, families are vital first responders who can provide life-saving first aid and are key resources and facilitators in accessing and using substance use services.

With this in mind, Island Health and CARBC partnered to explore family involvement in out-patient substance use treatment services across youth, adult and senior’s programs. The purpose of this research project was to understand, from the perspective of Island Health service providers, the current landscape of family inclusion and what might be possibilities for increasing practitioner and organizational capacity to facilitate responsive family inclusion in substance use treatment services.

What do we mean by family and why is family inclusion important? We found that providers had a broad definition of family. Family was considered to be anyone in a person’s circle of care who contributed love, connection and closeness. Examples of family members were many and included biological relations and chosen relations such as friends, partners, neighbours, and in some cases pets. Family inclusion was described as being a necessary means of reducing consequences of substance use throughout generations, while fostering wellness for the individual accessing services and the broader family system. Families were recognized as being integral sources of support and safety for people involved with substances and vital resources beyond immediate, time-limited formal interventions.

What gets in the way of family inclusion? While we heard service providers emphasizing the importance of family inclusion, in reality working within the health care system meant operating in ‘standard mode.’ Standard mode included dominant structural values privileging individualized and predominantly biomedical service philosophies that often left families out of the picture. In spite of this, service providers described ways of disrupting standard mode and working towards family inclusion. They talked about trying to make time to support families and increasing availability by way of telephone and/or in-person connection. Providers emphasized the importance of offering compassion and presence while maintaining openness to the potentials of expanding the scope of services to involved family members.

How might family inclusion become a regular and customary practice? In order to understand how to change standard mode, we asked research participants to describe their “preferred story.”  They expressed the importance of sparking a broad societal, organization and programmatic culture shift towards family inclusion. Such a shift would include emphasizing the effects of substance use on families and the importance of mitigating ongoing intergenerational ripples of substance use impacts in families affected by substance use. An overarching culture shift would require openness and access to relational, strengths-based and capacity-focused ways of knowing and understanding substance use and working with families affected by substance use.

Read the full report to learn more about recommendations and future directions for increasing family involvement in substance use service.

For further information on this project contact Stephanie McCune at stephanie.mccune@viha.ca or Bernadette Pauly at bpauly@carbc.ca


Stephanie McCune, Manager, Practice Support Program, Island Health

Bernie Pauly, Scientist, Centre for Addictions Research of BC

**Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC.

Systems planning – like grocery shopping

a photo of a fruit stand

When I entered the substance-use field as an outpatient counsellor many years ago, I thought my biggest challenge was to concentrate on what the client was trying to communicate to me as being their main issue. It turns out I was only partially correct in this assumption. In actuality, the biggest challenge was to make some sense of how funding and resource decisions were being made to support the development or growth of different services for the people we serve at the larger systems level.

It turns out I wasn’t alone in my belief of the apparent complexities in understanding how “funders” (for example, various government ministries) chose to fund the “providers,” such as day treatment, detox, or outpatient support. It seemed to me the process might be comparable to entering a large supermarket and randomly going down the aisle picking up products based on their packaging — colourful, enticing, or currently popular — which are some of the least essential things to consider when grocery shopping. It’s far more important to consider things like value, need, listed ingredients, quality, and budget.

Haphazard shopping might be the best descriptor for the majority of British Columbia’s treatment systems planning and funding over the past many years. Influences like strong advocates and lobbying by certain groups to get funding for their service; quick fixes being advertised for “emerging” drug issues; political decisions not necessarily based on evidence; changes in government; and perhaps even some measure of favouritism have all come in to play when selecting what to fund, who to fund and where that resource should go.

However, despite this seemingly disorganized landscape, hope recently emerged with the implementation of the Drug Treatment Funding Strategy put forth by Dr. Brian Rush and his associates at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. Their team put together a National Advisory Committee of representatives from every province and territory, developing a Needs Based Planning (NBP) model for substance use services. Based on a population health foundation, and utilizing a Delphi process (where subject matter experts assign percentages to each type of service category and then build consensus to settle on the final numbers), formulas were developed which allowed systems planners to plug in their utilization rates to identify gaps across residential, withdrawal management and community services.

Imagine being able to utilize a more scientific based process to determine gaps, needs and resource allocations for substance use treatment services in BC! Thanks to this team, each province now has a model that examines the gaps, considers available resources, and includes community and population characteristics to make better decisions on the development, implementation and placement of various substance use treatment services and supports. Work is already underway to apply this model to our substance use treatment services in BC so we can start being strategic and doing some “needs based” shopping!

A photo of Sherry Mumford

Author: Sherry Mumford, Director, Substance Use services, Mental Health and Substance Use program, Fraser Health

**Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC.