First Nations Management & Leadership · Arcus perspective
Designing the Operating Model for First Nations-Controlled Healthcare
Start with the service pathway
An operating model explains how a health organization turns its mandate and resources into dependable service. It connects the service offer, delivery locations, roles, decision authority, information, infrastructure and partner arrangements. The organization chart is one representation of that model, but it cannot show every dependency that determines whether a person receives care.
Arcus’s design proposition is to work from a small number of priority service pathways outward. Begin with what people need to be able to access and follow the work across the organization and its partners. Then decide which capabilities belong locally, which can be shared and which must be secured through another provider.
This approach makes trade-offs visible early. A local service can reduce travel for patients but require reliable specialist support. A regional team can concentrate expertise but introduce scheduling and continuity challenges. Virtual delivery can support access while depending on connectivity, private space and a workable in-person route. No single configuration is inherently best for all communities or services.
Evidence informs the design questions
FNHA describes its First Nations-led primary care centres as Nation-driven services using teams that include traditional and western care providers, with in-person and virtual approaches shaped by client needs. This is a concrete example of a service model that combines governance, relationships and delivery choices. The public description is not a comparative evaluation proving that the same configuration will work in another location.1
WHO’s public overview of its primary health care operational framework emphasizes translating commitments into practical system actions, including quality improvement. It supports examining the enabling conditions around service delivery. The overview does not provide a locally validated staffing or facility specification for First Nations-controlled healthcare.2
The implications below are management synthesis. The Nation’s own priorities and protocols, local clinical requirements and the actual capabilities of partners must determine the detailed design. A model borrowed from another setting should be treated as a hypothesis to test, not a ready-made operating instruction.
Define the service offer before designing the team
For each priority pathway, describe the people served, access points, service boundaries, referral routes and intended experience. Include how people obtain help when they do not fit a standard route. Avoid promising an integrated service without identifying the organizations responsible for each part.
Use community direction and available service evidence to distinguish unmet need from recorded demand. Low use may reflect limited awareness, travel barriers, mistrust or restrictive access. High demand may include repeated contacts caused by unresolved issues. A workload forecast based only on current appointment counts can reproduce existing barriers or overstate the value of additional transactions.
Define what the organization will deliver, commission, coordinate or influence. These are different responsibilities. A team that helps people navigate a provincial service does not control that service’s capacity. Its operating commitment should describe what it can reliably do and how unresolved external barriers will be escalated.
Clinical leaders and relevant professionals should define clinical pathways and scope requirements. Management design should then provide the staffing, scheduling, information and agreements needed to make those requirements workable. This article addresses organization design rather than clinical decisions.
Compare configurations using the same service promise
A predominantly local team can strengthen continuity and relationships and reduce some travel burdens. It requires sufficient workload and sustainable staffing for the roles placed locally. Specialist backup, relief and professional development remain necessary even where the day-to-day service is close to home.
A regional hub with local delivery points can support specialist expertise and common infrastructure across several communities. Its performance depends on travel reliability, local preparation, information exchange and responsibility for follow-up. A hub that optimizes its own utilization can still produce long waits or repeated travel for a community.
A distributed partner network can combine existing providers under clear service and referral agreements. It may avoid duplicating capabilities, but management must actively maintain the agreements and resolve handoff failures. A network with no authorized coordinator can leave patients and local staff to perform the integration themselves.
Virtual support can complement each configuration. Evaluate it by service suitability, accessibility, privacy, workforce readiness and the route to in-person care when needed. Do not count a virtual appointment as equivalent to completed access without considering whether it resolved the intended need.
Compare the options against identical service assumptions, including availability, continuity and community-specific access conditions. If one option offers a broader service, show that difference openly rather than attributing all additional cost to inefficiency.
Make handoffs an explicit design object
At each boundary, identify the sending role, receiving role, required information, acceptance signal and escalation route. A referral sent is not necessarily a referral accepted. A visit completed is not necessarily a follow-up plan owned. These distinctions should be visible in the workflow and the management review.
Consider a hypothetical visiting specialist service. The regional team schedules the visit, local staff prepare the space and patients, an external provider makes clinical decisions and another team arranges follow-up. If the visit is cancelled, someone must own rescheduling and communication. If the clinical plan requires an external service, someone must confirm the next step. These are operational dependencies, not incidental administrative tasks.
Build the information arrangements around these responsibilities, using the appropriate Nation-approved controls and applicable professional and privacy requirements. A common system may help, but technology cannot substitute for authority to share information or agreement about who must act on it.
Keep exception handling proportionate. The operating model should identify which matters a local manager may resolve, which require professional judgment and which must go to a partner or governing body. Sending every exception to the chief executive creates a fragile dependency and slows ordinary work.
Calculate capacity at the service level
Estimate the time required for direct work, preparation, documentation, coordination, travel, supervision and coverage. A professional’s paid hours are not all available appointment hours. A model that assumes otherwise may appear affordable while depending on overtime or unfinished work.
Use ranges for uncertain demand and distinguish predictable schedules from variable requests. Determine what happens when capacity is exceeded: additional sessions, another provider, a prioritized queue or a revised service offer. The choice requires appropriate clinical and leadership input, and should not be left to informal improvisation.
Assess local support capacity as well as the specialist team. An expanded visiting service may require more scheduling, interpretation, transport coordination or room preparation locally. If those tasks are unfunded, the model transfers work to the community without acknowledging the cost.
Test the model under a vacancy, transport disruption and partner delay. A system that works only when every resource is available has little operating resilience. Identify the minimum service that can continue, the escalation trigger and the resources needed to recover.
Compare full pathway costs and distributional effects
Cost the complete arrangement: personnel, facilities, technology, travel, local support, professional oversight, partner contracts and coordination. Show establishment and transition separately from recurring delivery. Include costs borne by different organizations where information is available, and identify material unknowns.
Also consider the burden on patients and families, such as travel time, repeated appointments or arranging escorts. These may not appear in the organization’s budget but can determine whether the service is usable. Keep financial costs and non-financial burdens distinct rather than assigning unsupported monetary values.
A hypothetical hub option could cost less in professional travel while requiring more patient travel and local coordination. A local option could cost more but improve continuity. The decision should state which outcome matters, who carries the extra cost and whether the funding arrangement supports the preferred choice.
Assess effects by community rather than relying only on a regional average. A configuration that works well for a large accessible centre may be weak for a small remote Nation. Use explicit access requirements and negotiated allocation principles to judge these differences.
Use a working prototype to expose design defects
Before a full launch, walk through representative service episodes with the people responsible for each step. Check ordinary cases and exceptions, including a person who needs support to access the service. Use appropriate test information and professional safeguards.
Classify failures before choosing remedies. A delayed handoff might result from missing information, unclear ownership, unavailable capacity or an external policy. Each requires a different response. Adding a coordinator or software feature without identifying the cause can increase cost while preserving the problem.
Pilot a bounded pathway and review completed service, rework, unresolved handoffs, local workload and actual cost. Explain how the pilot setting differs from other communities before expanding. A successful demonstration supported by exceptional project resources is not yet evidence that the routine model is sustainable.
Revise the service offer and supporting arrangements together. Changing a schedule without adjusting staffing or local support can simply move the bottleneck. The final operating design should describe the whole pathway well enough that managers can understand the consequences of a proposed change.
The Service Pathway Operating Model Test
This original Arcus decision framework is a management aid for local adaptation. It is not a validated assessment instrument or a substitute for the Nation’s authority and relevant professional requirements.
Promise
Question: What service experience is the organization committing to?
Decision evidence: Defined population, access routes, boundaries and community priorities.
Configuration
Question: Where should capabilities sit?
Decision evidence: Comparable local, regional and partner options with practical dependencies.
Connection
Question: Who owns the work between services?
Decision evidence: Accepted handoffs, information arrangements and exception routes.
Capacity and cost
Question: Can the full pathway be sustained?
Decision evidence: Workload ranges, retained local work, recurring costs and resilience tests.
Evidence
Question: Does the model work outside the design meeting?
Decision evidence: Representative walkthroughs, pilot results and explicit limits on transferability.
Turn the design into an operating commitment
Begin with a small number of priority service pathways selected through the appropriate Nation processes. Map current demand, access barriers and responsibilities, then compare realistic delivery configurations using a consistent service promise.
Develop the preferred option into a practical operating specification covering roles, schedules, information, agreements, costs and fallback arrangements. Rehearse and test the critical dependencies before making larger staffing, facility or technology commitments.
Arcus can support service-model option appraisal, workload and cost analysis, organization design and implementation planning. The resulting model should allow leaders to see how a person receives the service, who is responsible at each step and what resources make the promise dependable.
Sources and limits of the evidence
- FNHA, First Nations-led primary care centres. Public service-model description, reviewed October 2026; not a comparative outcomes evaluation.
- WHO, Operational framework for primary health care, public overview. Overview of the 2020 framework used for system-design context. No detailed staffing or clinical specifications inferred.
Research reviewed October 18, 2026. Decision frameworks, options and hypothetical illustrations are Arcus management synthesis. No client outcomes or universal staffing, savings or impact benchmarks are claimed.
Health Transformation collection · Shared clinical and administrative services · Organization design services · Arcus consultant directory