First Nations Management & Leadership · Arcus research
Community Engagement During Health Transformation
Make community input capable of changing the service design
A health transformation team can complete a thorough engagement program and still approve a service model that participants never had a meaningful opportunity to influence. The difficulty may lie in timing: a procurement specification, funding proposal or staffing model has already narrowed the choices before members are invited to discuss them. Leadership then receives a report on views rather than a decision about what those views should change.
The consequential question is how to connect community experience with the next service-design commitment. Arcus’s central insight is to make that connection explicit before commissioning engagement: identify the choice that remains open, the people who need to inform it, the authority that can act and the evidence that will show whether the approved change works in practice. An engagement calendar alone cannot establish those connections.
This article focuses on designing or changing health-service arrangements with communities. It complements research on health governance decision rights and employee transition. It does not allocate legal powers, determine consent or prescribe clinical decisions. The Nation’s own institutions, protocols and authorized processes govern the work.
What the evidence says about influence and follow-through
The 2024 evaluation of the British Columbia Tripartite Framework Agreement, finalized in 2025, used document and data review, interviews, surveys, focus groups and case studies. It found expanded engagement alongside concerns about repetition, unclear influence and weak translation of input into action. It also identified information reaching decision-makers too late and implementation constrained by competing priorities. The report acknowledges respondent bias, pandemic disruption and limitations in available outcome data.[1] These findings describe a particular governance system; they do not establish a national failure rate or prove that one engagement format is superior.
A 2025 ACCESS Open Minds practice account, co-authored with community partners, describes work with four First Nations and two Inuit communities. After consultation, the network changed its proposed evaluation design because communities needed control over service-start timing and immediate support. The account also describes locally adapted participation and evaluation arrangements.[2] This documents an instance in which input changed the design. It is a reflective account, not a controlled estimate of engagement’s effect on health outcomes, and the participating communities should not be treated as interchangeable.
The First Nations Health Council’s Engagement and Approvals Pathway connects regional engagement to strategic decisions within British Columbia’s health governance arrangements.[3] Its relevance here is the deliberate connection between participation and an authorized decision. A local Nation or regional partnership needs its own appropriate pathway; copying the forum names would not reproduce their mandate.
Taken together, these sources support examining influence, timing and follow-through separately from the number of meetings. They do not remove the need to test local conditions. A well-supported decision may remain contested, and a legitimate request may depend on resources or another institution’s agreement.
Separate the decisions that are being bundled together
Start by stating what will change for people using the service. A proposal described as a governance transfer might also change appointment access, navigation, service location, referral handoffs or how concerns are resolved. Discussing only the institutional structure can leave those practical changes insufficiently examined. Conversely, a discussion about scheduling does not authorize a change in the Nation’s governing arrangements.
Distinguish three decision layers. Direction and authority concern the mandate and the Nation’s authorized choices. Service design concerns how an approved service will be experienced and delivered, including access, coordination and support. Implementation concerns the resources, sequence, training and continuity arrangements needed to operate it. Identify the appropriate decision-maker and required involvement at each layer.
For every invitation, explain which layer is open. If a funding agreement has already been signed, identify the actual flexibility available rather than inviting people to redesign terms that the engagement team cannot change. If an important constraint can be negotiated, identify who must negotiate it and when. A constraint should be evidenced and attributed; “the funder requires it” is not a sufficient explanation without checking the relevant commitment.
Keep service feedback distinct from permission to collect or reuse information. Participation in a planning discussion is not blanket authorization to circulate personal experiences or health records. Establish suitable arrangements with the Nation and relevant information stewards before collecting sensitive material. Use an appropriate service or complaint route when someone needs an individual response.
Diagnose why engagement is not affecting the design
The choice was already closed. Compare the invitation date with approval, contracting and specification dates. If material decisions preceded the discussion, more participation may not restore influence. Leadership must clarify the remaining choices or decide whether an earlier commitment can legitimately be reopened. Do not present communication about a settled decision as co-design.
The evidence did not describe the affected service journey. A broad preference statement may not explain where a proposed process will fail. Trace ordinary situations with affected people: how they first make contact, obtain a response, coordinate travel or support, and resolve a failed handoff. Missing perspectives may include people who no longer use a service, members living away or those unable to attend the usual meeting. Their relevance depends on the actual service and Nation’s direction.
The evidence was clear but lacked a decision owner. Follow a specific finding from the engagement record into the option appraisal, approval brief and implementation plan. If it disappears between documents, the remedy is a named handover and decision date. Repeating the same question will not supply the missing authority.
The proposed response was not feasible within the available model. A design may require recurring local staff, interpretation, travel or partner capacity that has not been secured. The next step is to compare feasible alternatives and seek the necessary commitment. Treating this as a communication failure can conceal the affordability decision. Equally, a team should not declare an option unaffordable without stating which resources are missing.
Several explanations can coexist. Ask what evidence would weaken the preferred diagnosis. If engagement findings reached the authorized decision-maker before approval and changed the options, a lack of influence may be a less complete explanation than an unresolved trade-off or weak explanation of the final choice. Record disagreement rather than recasting it as misunderstanding.
Use a Health Service Design Trace
This original Arcus working record connects one material community concern to a reviewable service-design decision. It is an analytical aid, not a validated assessment or an approval mechanism. Use a short record for each consequential issue; combine related issues where this preserves their meaning.
- Experience and coverage. What concern or opportunity was described, by whom and through what process? What important perspectives remain missing? Protect personal information and retain the limits of the evidence.
- Service requirement. Translate the concern into a requirement that can be examined without prematurely selecting a solution. For example, “members can obtain a response without relying on an unreliable online connection” leaves several design options open.
- Options and consequences. Compare workable responses, including the existing arrangement where appropriate. Show who gains convenience, who takes on additional work and which recurring resources or partner commitments each option requires.
- Authorized disposition. Record what changed, what did not, the reason, the accountable decision-maker and any outstanding approval. Distinguish approval to investigate from approval to implement. A meeting’s broad support should not be converted into a commitment it did not authorize.
- Implementation test and return. Name the owner, funded dependencies, evidence of service usability and date or condition for reporting back. State what would trigger correction or further engagement.
The record should change a decision. If a significant requirement has no viable option, the sponsor should narrow the proposal, seek additional resources or return the unresolved choice to the appropriate authority. If a claimed improvement relies on unpaid work by local staff or families, revise the comparison before presenting it as an efficiency gain. If no one can describe how the service will be tested, implementation is not ready merely because a report is complete.
A worked example: central booking can move work rather than remove it
Consider a fictional proposal to centralize appointment booking. Community discussions identify unreliable connectivity and a need for local help when arrangements change. The design requirement is dependable access and follow-up; it is not automatically a demand to retain every existing administrative task locally. The authorized team compares two bounded options.
Central booking with a defined local assistance route: assume 30 requests each week take eight minutes centrally, or four central staff-hours. Assume 12 requests also need ten minutes of local assistance, adding two local hours. Total planned administrative time is six hours, split between roles. The assistance capacity must be available when needed, not merely present somewhere in the weekly staffing total.
Local booking with central coordination: assume the same 30 requests take 12 minutes locally, or six local hours, plus two minutes each for central coordination, or one central hour. Total planned time is seven hours. This arrangement may be preferable where local knowledge or access makes the extra local commitment worthwhile, provided the relevant capability and coverage can be maintained.
Looking only at four central hours versus six local hours would suggest a two-hour reduction. Including the additional work changes the comparison to six versus seven hours: a one-hour difference under these assumptions. These are invented planning figures, not observed service times, a staffing benchmark or an Arcus client result. They exclude training, supervision, failed contact attempts, absences and patient or family time. The arithmetic shows why the full workflow must be costed; it does not select the better service.
Leadership should test whether the assumptions hold through a suitable, authorized operational trial. Check reachability, unresolved requests, repeat contacts and the effort required at both ends. Relevant clinical leaders must determine any safety conditions and escalation requirements. A process that appears administratively quicker but makes access less dependable has not met the original design requirement.
The Design Trace preserves the connection: community experience identified an access condition; the condition changed the options and cost model; the approved option carries a service test and a return date. A short explanation can then show participants how their evidence affected the decision without promising an outcome the trial has not demonstrated.
Choose the engagement method for the unresolved question
Targeted service-journey work is useful when leadership needs to understand a specific access or handoff problem. It can produce detailed evidence quickly, but a small group cannot establish how common an experience is across the population. Seek missing perspectives deliberately and describe coverage honestly.
Community deliberation on feasible options is useful when the decision involves a consequential trade-off, such as local presence versus shared specialist access. Participants need understandable alternatives, costs, service consequences and a clear account of their influence. Preparing those materials and returning an explanation are part of the engagement cost.
An ongoing community reference arrangement can help a program that will make repeated design choices over time. It needs an agreed mandate, appropriate selection, support, renewal and routes to hear beyond its own membership. It must not silently replace the Nation’s decision-making institutions or be described as speaking for everyone.
Combine methods when they answer different questions. An open session may identify a concern, focused journey work may explain it, and a later discussion may examine alternatives. Repetition is justified when the question or design has materially changed; otherwise reuse valid earlier contributions with appropriate permission and explain what remains unresolved.
Fund the participation and the resulting operating model
Separate three resource requirements: preparing and conducting engagement; converting findings into an authorized design; and operating the service that follows. The second is easily missed. Analysis, options development, finance review, partner negotiation and decision materials take skilled time after the last meeting.
Plan participant supports and appropriate compensation with the Nation. Include accessible formats, language, travel, facilitation and the capacity needed to protect and interpret information. Release time and backfill may be necessary for local staff who are already delivering services. Existing salaries do not make their time unlimited.
Show transition costs separately from recurring costs: training, setup and temporary parallel arrangements differ from ongoing local navigation, administration, interpretation or supervision. Identify who funds each recurring commitment and the conditions attached. Where funding is temporary, explain the decision required before the service can continue. Engagement support should not create an expectation of a permanent service for which no sustainable operating arrangement exists.
Compare options using capability and timing as well as total hours. A remote administrative function cannot necessarily substitute for a local relationship or an available responder. Conversely, retaining every task locally can consume capacity that the community would prefer to use elsewhere. Those are explicit management choices to evaluate with the people affected.
Implement through five decision gates
Frame: the accountable sponsor confirms the open choice, authority, constraints and timing before invitations are issued. The engagement lead and the Nation’s appropriate advisers agree participation and information arrangements.
Interpret: the engagement lead works with participants and service owners to check the meaning of findings, preserve disagreement and identify missing evidence. Distinguish a concern that needs immediate individual follow-up from a pattern relevant to the service design.
Appraise: operations, finance, workforce and relevant professional leads compare feasible responses, including transition and recurring requirements. Name dependencies on partners. Present unresolved assumptions rather than treating them as secured commitments.
Authorize: the appropriate body receives the Design Trace alongside the proposal. It can approve, revise, request evidence or defer a defined part. Report the disposition through agreed channels, with reasons and realistic next steps.
Test and return: the implementation owner checks the agreed service requirements under representative conditions and reports back. Useful indicators include whether material findings received a reasoned disposition, whether required dependencies were funded, whether people could use the changed route and whether promised follow-up occurred. These are management indicators, not a validated engagement score.
Do not wait for a full redesign to correct an urgent service defect through an authorized route. Equally, urgency should not become a permanent reason to bypass meaningful community involvement. Record interim decisions, their limits and the condition for revisiting them.
Arcus Advisory
Connect community priorities to an implementable health-service decision
An Arcus engagement can help diagnose where input is losing influence, evaluate engagement and service-design alternatives, clarify the decision route, and develop a costed implementation sequence. Concrete outputs can include a service-journey evidence map, Health Service Design Traces, a comparison of operating options, a dependency register and a practical test-and-reporting plan.
Leadership can use these deliverables to decide what to authorize, what must change and what needs partner agreement. Scope, access to information and responsibilities should be agreed with the Nation. Arcus’s management role supports the Nation’s authority and the work of relevant clinical, legal and information-governance specialists.
Related research and consulting
First Nations Health Governance: Who Should Make Which Decisions?
How to Report Progress Back to Members
Community Engagement research · Health Transformation research · First Nations Knowledge Centre · Indigenous consulting services
Sources and limits
- Qatalyst Research Group. Evaluation of the BC Tripartite Framework Agreement, 2018/19–2023/24. Finalized April 2025. Methods and limitations, printed pages 4–7; engagement findings, pages 38–40. Commissioned evaluation; respondent bias and contextual limits are acknowledged.
- Melro and colleagues. ACCESS Open Minds engagement and health-service transformation account. Research Involvement and Engagement, 2025;11:47, published May 13. Co-authored reflective practice account; not a controlled outcome evaluation.
- First Nations Health Council. Our approach. Undated institutional webpage, reviewed October 20, 2026. Describes the BC Engagement and Approvals Pathway; not evidence that its structure applies elsewhere.
The Health Service Design Trace, diagnostic questions, decision gates and fictional booking comparison are Arcus analytical synthesis. They are not original empirical findings, clinical guidance or a validated benchmark. No guaranteed engagement, cost or health outcome is claimed.
Contact Arcus about an engagement and implementation review →