Search

BackgroundAdministrative staff in primary care undertake numerous tasks to support patient care delivery. Although their roles are often overlooked, administrative staff are essential to the coordination and operations of primary care clinics. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional clinical and administrative tasks, including transitioning to virtual appointments and triaging patients for urgency, changing typical workflows. In Canada, existing pandemic plans for primary care did not account for these administrative tasks, nor the support that family physicians would require to continue to provide patient access to primary care. This research seeks to describe and understand the perceptions and experiences of family physicians of their administrative staff roles in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to help inform future pandemic planning.MethodsWe present findings from a qualitative case study across four regions in Canada: Vancouver Coastal health region in British Columbia, Ontario Health West region, the province of Nova Scotia, and the Eastern Health region of Newfoundland and Labrador. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians (n = 68) across the four regions and thematically analysed the data.ResultsWe identified five salient themes in the data, including (1) applying public health guidelines, (2) educating patients on COVID-19 and COVID-19 services, (3) re-organizing patient visits, (4) maintaining adequate staffing, and (5) recognizing administrative staff contributions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians took on numerous additional roles to reduce the risk of transmission of the virus with the support of their administrative staff. Family physicians emphasized the challenges of maintaining adequate staffing, and the importance of administrative staff in enabling the provision of primary care.ConclusionsExisting pandemic plans do not account for increased administrative roles taken on by primary care administrative staff. Pandemic plans must include guidance for the roles taken on by primary care administrative staff, such as clinical tasks, as they will continue to play an important role in pandemic recovery. Supporting administrative staff would enhance primary care providers’ ability to manage care during pandemics, facilitate resilience, and decrease provider and administrative burnout.

Abstract Background Over the past two decades, Canadian provinces and territories have introduced a series of primary care reforms in an attempt to improve access to and quality of primary care services, resulting in diverse organizational structures and practice models. We examine the impact of these reforms on family physicians’ (FPs) ability to adapt their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the provision of routine primary care. Methods As part of a larger case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs in four Canadian regions: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. During the interviews, participants were asked about their personal and practice characteristics, the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles FPs could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was applied to identify recurring themes in the data. Results Sixty-eight FPs completed an interview across the four regions. Participants described five areas of primary care reform that impacted their ability to operate and provide care during the pandemic: funding models, electronic medical records (EMRs), integration with regional entities, interdisciplinary teams, and practice size. FPs in alternate funding models experienced fewer financial constraints than those in fee-for-service practices. EMR access enhanced FPs’ ability to deliver virtual care, integration with regional entities improved access to personal protective equipment and technological support, and team-based models facilitated the implementation of infection prevention and control protocols. Lastly, larger group practices had capacity to ensure adequate staffing and cover additional costs, allowing FPs more time to devote to patient care. Conclusions Recent primary care system reforms implemented in Canada enhanced FPs’ ability to adapt to the uncertain and evolving environment of providing primary care during the pandemic. Our study highlights the importance of ongoing primary care reforms to enhance pandemic preparedness and advocates for further expansion of these reforms.

Abstract Background Family physicians (FPs) fill an essential role in public health emergencies yet have frequently been neglected in pandemic response plans. This exclusion harms FPs in their clinical roles and has unintended consequences in the management of concurrent personal responsibilities, many of which were amplified by the pandemic. The objective of our study was to explore the experiences of FPs during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how they managed their competing professional and personal priorities. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions between October 2020 and June 2021. Employing a maximum variation sampling approach, we recruited participants until we achieved saturation. Interviews explored FPs’ personal and professional roles and responsibilities during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers that they encountered, and any gender-related experiences. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed. Results We interviewed 68 FPs during the pandemic and identified four overarching themes in participants’ discussion of their personal experiences: personal caregiving responsibilities, COVID-19 risk navigation to protect family members, personal health concerns, and available and desired personal supports for FPs to manage their competing responsibilities. While FPs expressed a variety of ways in which their personal experiences made their professional responsibilities more complicated, rarely did that affect the extent to which they participated in the pandemic response. Conclusions For FPs to contribute fully to a pandemic response, they must be factored into pandemic plans. Failure to appreciate their unique role and circumstances often leaves FPs feeling unsupported in both their professional and personal lives. Comprehensive planning in anticipation of future pandemics must consider FPs’ varied responsibilities, health concerns, and necessary precautions. Having adequate personal and practice supports in place will facilitate the essential role of FPs in responding to a pandemic crisis while continuing to support their patients’ primary care needs.

Introduction: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care nurses were often redeployed to areas outside of primary care to mitigate staffing shortages. Despite this, there is a scarcity of literature describing their perceptions of and experiences with redeployment during the pandemic. Objectives: This paper aims to: 1) describe the perspectives of primary care nurses with respect to redeployment, 2) discuss the opportunities/challenges associated with redeployment of primary care nurses, and 3) examine the nature (e.g., settings, activities) of redeployment by primary care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care nurses (i.e., Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, and Licensed/Registered Practical Nurses), from four regions in Canada. These include the Interior, Island, and Vancouver Coastal Health regions in British Columbia; Ontario Health West region in Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Data related to redeployment were analyzed thematically. Results: Three overarching themes related to redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified: (1) Call to redeployment, (2) Redeployment as an opportunity/challenge, and (3) Scope of practice during redeployment. Primary care nurses across all regulatory designations reported variation in the process of redeployment within their jurisdiction (e.g., communication, policies/legislation), different opportunities and challenges that resulted from redeployment (e.g., scheduling flexibility, workload implications), and scope of practice implications (e.g., perceived threat to nursing license). The majority of nurses discussed experiences with redeployment being voluntary in nature, rather than mandated. Conclusions: Redeployment is a useful workforce strategy during public health emergencies; however, it requires a structured process and a decision-making approach that explicitly involves healthcare providers affected by redeployment. Primary care nurses ought only to be redeployed after other options are considered and arrangements made for the care of patients in their original practice area.

IntroductionEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach.ResultsWe interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward.ConclusionsThe move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Abstract Age-associated B cells (ABC) accumulate with age and in individuals with different immunological disorders, including cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade and those with inborn errors of immunity. Here, we investigate whether ABCs from different conditions are similar and how they impact the longitudinal level of the COVID-19 vaccine response. Single-cell RNA sequencing indicates that ABCs with distinct aetiologies have common transcriptional profiles and can be categorised according to their expression of immune genes, such as the autoimmune regulator (AIRE). Furthermore, higher baseline ABC frequency correlates with decreased levels of antigen-specific memory B cells and reduced neutralising capacity against SARS-CoV-2. ABCs express high levels of the inhibitory FcγRIIB receptor and are distinctive in their ability to bind immune complexes, which could contribute to diminish vaccine responses either directly, or indirectly via enhanced clearance of immune complexed-antigen. Expansion of ABCs may, therefore, serve as a biomarker identifying individuals at risk of suboptimal responses to vaccination.

Abstract Background Prior to the pandemic, Canada lagged behind other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the uptake of virtual care. The onset of COVID-19, however, resulted in a near-universal shift to virtual primary care to minimise exposure risks. As jurisdictions enter a pandemic recovery phase, the balance between virtual and in-person visits is reverting, though it is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians’ perspectives on the rapid move to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both future pandemic planning for primary care and the optimal integration of virtual care into the broader primary care context beyond the pandemic. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 68 family physicians from four regions in Canada between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, continuing recruitment in each region until we reached saturation. Interviews with family physicians explored their roles and experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support their patients through the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed for recurrent themes. Results We identified three prominent themes throughout participants’ reflections on implementing virtual care: implementation and evolution of virtual modalities during the pandemic; facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual care; and virtual care in the future. While some family physicians had prior experience conducting remote assessments, most had to implement and adapt to virtual care abruptly as provinces limited in-person visits to essential and urgent care. As the pandemic progressed, initial forays into video-based consultations were frequently replaced by phone-based visits, while physicians also rebalanced the ratio of virtual to in-person visits. Medical record systems with integrated capacity for virtual visits, billing codes, supportive clinic teams, and longitudinal relationships with patients were facilitators in this rapid transition for family physicians, while the absence of these factors often posed barriers. Conclusion Despite varied experiences and preferences related to virtual primary care, physicians felt that virtual visits should continue to be available beyond the pandemic but require clearer regulation and guidelines for its appropriate future use.

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada had longer wait-times for specialist appointments compared to other Commonwealth countries. During the pandemic, many specialist services were postponed or suspended, impacting access. The purpose of this study was to explore family physicians’ perspectives on specialist care availability during the pandemic and implications for family physician workload and patient management. These experiences can inform future pandemic plans. Methods: Using semi-structured interviews, we explored family physicians’ experiences during COVID-19 across regions within four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador). Thematic and framework analyses were used to identify themes from the interviews. Results: We interviewed 68 family physicians between October 2020 and June 2021. Of these 68 participants, 27 discussed their interactions with specialists during the pandemic. We identified themes around access to, and collaboration with, specialists. At times, specialists were less available for patient care and family physician consultations, and communications were uncoordinated across the system. Family physicians took on additional work to address the lack of access and identified pandemic planning challenges. Participants offered recommendations for improving collaboration and access post-pandemic. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges in the Canadian healthcare system pertaining to specialist access. Pandemic plans should reflect the importance of specialist consultations. Decision-makers should consider innovations to facilitate collaboration between family physicians and specialists.

IntroductionProviding family physicians (FPs) with the information they need is crucial for their participation in a coordinated pandemic or health emergency response, and to allow them to effectively run their practices. Most pandemic planning documents do not address communication plans specific to FPs. This study describes FPs' experiences and challenges with information management during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs across four Canadian regions and asked about their roles during different pandemic stages, as well as facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles. We transcribed the interviews, used a thematic analysis approach to develop a unified coding template across the four regions, and identified recurring themes.ResultsWe interviewed 68 FPs and identified two key themes specifically related to communication. The first is FPs' experiences obtaining and managing information during the COVID-19 pandemic. FPs were overwhelmed by the volume of information and had difficulty applying the information to their practices. The second is the specific attributes FPs need from the information sent to them. Participants wanted summarized and consistent information from credible sources that are relevant to primary care.DiscussionProviding clear, collated, and relevant information to FPs is essential during pandemics and other health emergencies. Future pandemic plans should integrate strategies to deliver information to FPs that is tailored to primary care. Findings highlight the need for a coordinated communication strategy to effectively inform FPs in health emergencies.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionally affected long-term care (LTC) homes and other community-based congregate residential care settings. Although family physicians (FPs) play important roles in the care of residents in LTC homes, provincial pandemic plans make few references to their specific roles in LTC. Objective: To examine the experiences of FPs providing care in LTC homes and other congregate care settings in Canada during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021). Methods: As part of a multiple case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs across four Canadian regions. Interviews were transcribed, and a thematic analysis approach was employed. Findings: Twenty-one of the 68 FPs interviewed discussed providing care in congregate residential settings, including LTC. We identified three major themes: 1) the roles of FPs in community-based congregate residential care settings during a pandemic, 2) modification of the delivery of routine care, and 3) special workforce considerations in pandemic response for community-based congregate residential care settings. Limitations: We interviewed FPs in four Canadian jurisdictions between October 2020 and June 2021; findings may not be generalisable to later pandemic stages or to other provinces. Our recruitment strategy did not specifically target FPs who worked in different types of congregate residential care facilities; further research is needed to examine these settings in greater depth. Implications: FPs have a unique understanding of the populations they serve and are well suited to plan and implement community-adaptive procedures. Future pandemic plans should implement LTC-related FP roles during the pre-pandemic stage of a pandemic response.

Abstract Background Despite well-documented increased demands and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during previous disease outbreaks, health systems in Canada were poorly prepared to meet the need for PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary care sector, PPE shortages impacted the delivery of health services and contributed to increased workload, fear, and anxiety among primary care providers. This study examines family physicians’ (FPs) response to PPE shortages during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future pandemic planning. Methods As part of a multiple case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs across four regions in Canada. During the interviews, FPs were asked to describe the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles they could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was employed to identify recurring themes. For the current study, we examined themes related to PPE. Results A total of 68 FPs were interviewed across the four regions. Four overarching themes were identified: 1) factors associated with good PPE access, 2) managing PPE shortages, 3) impact of PPE shortages on practice and providers, and 4) symbolism of PPE in primary care. There was a wide discrepancy in access to PPE both within and across regions, and integration with hospital or regional health authorities often resulted in better access than community-based practices. When PPE was limited, FPs described rationing and reusing these resources in an effort to conserve, which often resulted in anxiety and personal safety concerns. Many FPs expressed that PPE shortages had come to symbolize neglect and a lack of concern for the primary care sector in the pandemic response. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic response, hospital-centric plans and a lack of prioritization for primary care led to shortages of PPE for family physicians. This study highlights the need to consider primary care in PPE conservation and allocation strategies and to examine the influence of the underlying organization of primary care on PPE distribution during the pandemic.

Abstract Background Family practice registered nurses co-managing patient care as healthcare professionals in interdisciplinary primary care teams have been shown to improve access, continuity of care, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes for patients with chronic diseases while being cost-effective. Currently, however, it is unclear how different funding models support or hinder the integration of family practice nurses into existing primary health care systems and interdisciplinary practices. This has resulted in the underutilisation of family practice nurses in contributing to high-quality patient care. Methods This mixed-methods project is comprised of three studies: (1) a funding model analysis; (2) case studies; and (3) an online survey with family practice nurses. The funding model analysis will employ policy scans to identify, describe, and compare the various funding models used in Canada to integrate family practice nurses in primary care. Case studies involving qualitative interviews with clinic teams (family practice nurses, physicians, and administrators) and family practice nurse activity logs will explore the variation of nursing professional practice, training, skill set, and team functioning in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. Interview transcripts will be analysed thematically and comparisons will be made across funding models. Activity log responses will be analysed to represent nurses’ time spent on independent, dependent, interdependent, or non-nursing work in each funding model. Finally, a cross-sectional online survey of family practice nurses in Canada will examine the relationships between funding models, nursing professional practice, training, skill set, team functioning, and patient care co-management in primary care. We will employ bivariate tests and multivariable regression to examine these relationships in the survey results. Discussion This project aims to address a gap in the literature on funding models for family practice nurses. In particular, findings will support provincial and territorial governments in structuring funding models that optimise the roles of family practice nurses while establishing evidence about the benefits of interdisciplinary team-based care. Overall, the findings may contribute to the integration and optimisation of family practice nursing within primary health care, to the benefit of patients, primary healthcare providers, and health care systems nationally.

Introduction Privatisation through the expansion of private payment and investor-owned corporate healthcare delivery in Canada raises potential conflicts with equity principles on which Medicare (Canadian public health insurance) is founded. Some cases of privatisation are widely recognised, while others are evolving and more hidden, and their extent differs across provinces and territories likely due in part to variability in policies governing private payment (out-of-pocket payments and private insurance) and delivery.Methods and analysis This pan-Canadian knowledge mobilisation project will collect, classify, analyse and interpret data about investor-owned privatisation of healthcare financing and delivery systems in Canada. Learnings from the project will be used to develop, test and refine a new conceptual framework that will describe public-private interfaces operating within Canada’s healthcare system. In Phase I, we will conduct an environmental scan to: (1) document core policies that underpin public-private interfaces; and (2) describe new or emerging forms of investor-owned privatisation (‘cases’). We will analyse data from the scan and use inductive content analysis with a pragmatic approach. In Phase II, we will convene a virtual policy workshop with subject matter experts to refine the findings from the environmental scan and, using an adapted James Lind Alliance Delphi process, prioritise health system sectors and/or services in need of in-depth research on the impacts of private financing and investor-owned delivery.Ethics and dissemination We have obtained approval from the research ethics boards at Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia and University of Victoria through Research Ethics British Columbia (H23-00612). Participants will provide written informed consent. In addition to traditional academic publications, study results will be summarised in a policy report and a series of targeted policy briefs distributed to workshop participants and decision/policymaking organisations across Canada. The prioritised list of cases will form the basis for future research projects that will investigate the impacts of investor-owned privatisation.

IntroductionWhile complement is a contributor to disease severity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, all three complement pathways might be activated by the virus. Lectin pathway activation occurs through different pattern recognition molecules, including mannan binding lectin (MBL), a protein shown to interact with SARS-CoV-2 proteins. However, the exact role of lectin pathway activation and its key pattern recognition molecule MBL in COVID-19 is still not fully understood.MethodsWe therefore investigated activation of the lectin pathway in two independent cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, while also analysing MBL protein levels and potential effects of the six major single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found in the MBL2 gene on COVID-19 severity and outcome.ResultsWe show that the lectin pathway is activated in acute COVID-19, indicated by the correlation between complement activation product levels of the MASP-1/C1-INH complex (p=0.0011) and C4d (p

The COVID-19 response required family physicians (FPs) to adapt their practice to minimise transmission risks. Policy guidance to facilitate enacting public health measures has been generic and difficult to apply, particularly for FPs working with communities that experience marginalisation. Our objective was to explore the experiences of FPs serving communities experiencing marginalisation during COVID-19, and the impact the pandemic and pandemic response have had on physicians' ability to provide care. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions, October 2020 through June 2021. We employed maximum variation sampling and continued recruitment until we reached saturation. Interviews explored participants’ roles/experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support communities experiencing marginalisation throughout. We used a thematic approach to analyse the data. FPs working with communities experiencing marginalisation expressed the need to continue providing in-person care throughout the pandemic, often requiring them to devise innovative adaptations to their clinical settings and practice. Physicians noted the health implications for their patients, particularly where services were limited or deferred, and that pandemic response policies frequently ignored the unique needs of their patient populations. Pandemic-related precautionary measures that sought to minimise viral transmission and prevent overwhelming acute care settings may have undermined pre-existing services and superseded the ongoing harms that are disproportionately experienced by communities experiencing marginalisation. FPs are well placed to support the development of pandemic response plans that appreciate competing risks amongst their communities and must be included in pandemic planning in the future.

The most commonly used markers to assess complement activation are split products that are produced through activation of all three pathways and are located downstream of C3. In contrast, C4d derives from the cleavage of C4 and indicates either classical (CP) or lectin pathway (LP) activation. Although C4d is perfectly able to distinguish between CP/LP and alternative pathway (AP) activation, no well-established markers are available to differentiate between early CP and LP activation. Active enzymes of both pathways (C1s/C1r for the CP, MASP-1/MASP-2 for the LP) are regulated by C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) through the formation of covalent complexes. Aim of this study was to develop validated immunoassays detecting C1s/C1-INH and MASP-1/C1-INH complex levels. Measurement of the complexes reveals information about the involvement of the respective pathways in complement-mediated diseases. Two sandwich ELISAs detecting C1s/C1-INH and MASP-1/C1-INH complex were developed and tested thoroughly, and it was investigated whether C1s/C1-INH and MASP-1/C1-INH complexes could serve as markers for either early CP or LP activation. In addition, a reference range for these complexes in healthy adults was defined, and the assays were clinically validated utilizing samples of 414 COVID-19 patients and 96 healthy controls. The immunoassays can reliably measure C1s/C1-INH and MASP-1/C1-INH complex concentrations in EDTA plasma from healthy and diseased individuals. Both complex levels are increased in serum when activated with zymosan, making them suitable markers for early classical and early lectin pathway activation. Furthermore, measurements of C1-INH complexes in 96 healthy adults showed normally distributed C1s/C1-INH complex levels with a physiological concentration of 1846 ± 1060 ng/mL (mean ± 2SD) and right-skewed distribution of MASP-1/C1-INH complex levels with a median concentration of 36.9 (13.18 - 87.89) ng/mL (2.5-97.5 percentile range), while levels of both complexes were increased in COVID-19 patients (p

The SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide from COVID-19. One of the major challenges of patient management is the broad range of symptoms observed. While the majority of individuals experience relatively mild disease, a significant minority of patients require hospitalisation, with COVID-19 still proving fatal for some. As such, there remains a desperate need to better understand what drives this severe disease, both in terms of the underlying biology, but also to potentially predict at diagnosis which patients are likely to require further interventions, thus enabling better outcomes for both patients and healthcare systems. Several lines of evidence have pointed to dysregulation of the complement cascade as a major factor in severe COVID-19 outcomes. How this is underpinned mechanistically is not known. Here, we have focussed on the role of the soluble complement regulators Complement Factor H (FH), its splice variant Factor H-like 1 (FHL-1) and five Factor H-Related proteins (FHR1-5). Using a targeted mass spectrometry approach, we quantified these proteins in a cohort of 188 plasma samples from controls and SARS-CoV-2 patients taken at diagnosis. This analysis revealed significant elevations in all FHR proteins, but not FH, in patients with more severe disease, particularly FHR2 and FHR5 (FHR2: 1.97-fold, p

Introduction The emergence of COVID-19 introduced a dual public health emergency in British Columbia, which was already in the fourth year of its opioid-related overdose crisis. The public health response to COVID-19 must explicitly consider the unique needs of, and impacts on, communities experiencing marginalisation including people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD). The broad move to virtual forms of primary care, for example, may result in changes to healthcare access, delivery of opioid agonist therapies or fluctuations in co-occurring health problems that are prevalent in this population. The goal of this mixed-methods study is to characterise changes to primary care access and patient outcomes following the rapid introduction of virtual care for PWOUD.Methods and analysis We will use a fully integrated mixed-methods design comprised of three components: (a) qualitative interviews with family physicians and PWOUD to document experiences with delivering and accessing virtual visits, respectively; (b) quantitative analysis of linked, population-based administrative data to describe the uptake of virtual care, its impact on access to services and downstream outcomes for PWOUD; and (c) facilitated deliberative dialogues to co-create educational resources for family physicians, PWOUD and policymakers that promote equitable access to high-quality virtual primary care for this population.Ethics and dissemination Approval for this study has been granted by Research Ethics British Columbia. We will convene PWOUD and family physicians for deliberative dialogues to co-create educational materials and policy recommendations based on our findings. We will also disseminate findings via traditional academic outputs such as conferences and peer-reviewed publications.