Charting the Future Direction of National Microbiological Reference Services in Canada

[Table of Contents]

---

Structure and Linkages

There were many innovative and creative models put forward for Canada's public health microbiology reference services system, and while they varied significantly in their physical structure, their "building blocks" were strikingly consistent. Workgroups built models that would enable the integration of the components, with a structured network that would coordinate provincial, national and international reference activities. They overwhelmingly proposed the integration or linking of microbiologists and epidemiologists into infectious disease teams. Responsive and flexible, the new model would be able to accept and react to greater input from a broad base of stakeholders.

LCDC would remain the hub of a new national, integrated, coordinated system/network.

The majority of workgroups saw LCDC as the hub of the system, both figuratively and physically, with direct links to provincial, hospital, and diagnostics laboratories, as well as other external bureaus. To thrive within the physical structure, participants must be supported by better communication, networks, and information systems. Infrastructure support to the network was seen as an essential function of LCDC.

And, while the need for a political link or reporting relationship was recognized, it was felt that this link should not be the driving force behind the system.

Participants called for:

8. Microbiology and epidemiology link. Microbiology and epidemiology should be tied more closely together. Possibilities included co-location, amalgamation and functional authority relationships. Networking across institutional lines was emphasized.

9. An Advisory Council/Committee. Comprising a broad cross-section of system participants, stakeholders, consumers, etc., the Advisory Council/Committee would take a lead role in strategic planning for Canada's reference services system.

10. Effective communications strategies and tools. An effective, cost-sensitive communications strategy should be developed. Canadian Communicable Diseases Report (CCDR) could be modified to be more visually interesting, and could be distributed free of charge. Electronic media could be better utilized-increase the use of bulletin boards, e-mail, Internet access, databases, etc. LCDC should support the infrastructure of the network.

11. Stronger academic links. Links with academia could be strengthened to support strategic research goals. Periodic "consensus conferences" could be held to collectively review and reach consensus on issues such as areas of research to be pursued, technology transfer opportunities, etc.

12. Stronger voice in public health policy making. LCDC and the Network's role relative to the provincial Ministries of Health should be strengthened, with respect to issues such as priority services and federal public health policy.

[Previous] [Next]