Search

Background: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drove a rapid and widespread shift to virtual care, followed by a gradual return to in-person visits. Virtual visits may offer more convenient access to care for some, but others may experience challenges accessing care virtually, and some medical needs must be met in-person. Experiences of the shift to virtual care and benefits of in-person care may vary by immigration experience (immigration status and duration), official language level, and age. We examined use of virtual care and return to in-person visits in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC), comparing patterns by age and across immigration groups, including length of time in Canada and language level (official languages English and French) at time of arrival. Methods: We used linked administrative health and immigration data to examine total primary care visits (virtual or in-person) and return to in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic (2019/20–2021/2) in BC. We examined the proportion of people with any primary care visits and with any in-person visits within each year as measures of access to primary care. We estimated the odds of any primary care visits and any in-person visits by immigration group and official language level assessed prior to arrival: non-immigrants, long-term immigrants, recent immigrants (< 5 years) with high assessed official language level and recent immigrants (< 5 years) with low assessed official language level (assessed prior to arrival), stratified by age. Results: In general, changes in access to primary care (odds of any visits and odds of any in-person visits) were similar across immigration groups over the study period. However, we observed substantial disparities in access to primary care by immigration group among people aged 60 + , particularly in recent immigrants with low official language level (0.42, 0.40–0.45). These disparities grew wider over the course of the pandemic. Conclusion: Though among younger adults changes in access to primary care between 2019–2021 were similar across immigration groups, we observed significant and growing inequities among older adults, with particularly limited access among adults who immigrated recently and with low assessed official language level. Targeted interventions to ensure acceptable, accessible care for older immigrants are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process which enables patients to communicate wishes, values, fears, and preferences for future medical care. Despite patient interest in ACP, the frequency of discussions remains low. Barriers to ACP may be mitigated by involving non-physician clinic staff, preparing patients ahead of visits, and using tools to structure visits. An ACP care pathway incorporating these principles was implemented in longitudinal generalist outpatient care, including primary care/family medicine and general internal medicine, in two Canadian provinces. This study aims to understand clinician experiences implementing the pathway. Methods: The pathway was implemented in one family practice in Alberta, two family practices in British Columbia (BC), and one BC internal medicine outpatient clinic. Physicians and allied health professionals delivered structured pathway visits based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Twelve physicians and one social worker participated in interviews or focus groups at the end of the study period. Qualitative data were coded inductively using an iterative approach, with regular meetings between coders. Results: Clinicians described experiences with the ACP care pathway, impact at the clinician level, and impact at the patient level. Within each domain, clinicians described barriers and facilitators experienced during implementation. Clinicians also reflected candidly about potential for future implementation and the sustainability of the pathway. Conclusions: While the pathway was implemented slightly differently between provinces, core experiences were that implementation of the pathway, and integration with current practice, were feasible. Across settings, similar themes recurred regarding usefulness of the pathway structure and its tools, impact on clinician confidence and interactions with patients, teamwork and task delegation, compatibility with existing workflow, and patient preparation and readiness. Clinicians were supportive of ACP and of the pathway. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03508557). Registered April 25, 2018. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03508557. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]