Search

Abstract Background Canadians continue to report challenges accessing primary care. Practice choices made by primary care providers shape services available to Canadians. Although there is literature observing family medicine practice trends, there is less clarity on the reasoning underlying primary care providers’ practice intentions. Advice offered by residents and early-career family physicians may reveal challenges they have experienced, how they have adapted to them, and strategies for new residents. In this paper, we examine advice family medicine residents and early-career family physicians would give to new family medicine residents. Methods Sixty early-career family physicians and thirty residents were interviewed as part of a mixed-methods study of practice patterns of family medicine providers in Canada. During qualitative interviews, participants were asked, “what advice would you give [a new family medicine resident] about planning their career as a family physician?” We inductively analyzed responses to this question. Results Advice consisted of understanding the current climate of family medicine (need for specialization, business management burden, physician burnout) and revealed reasons behind said challenges (lack of support for comprehensive clinic care, practical limitations of different practice models, and how payment models influence work-life balance). Subtheme analyses showed early-career family physicians being more vocal on understanding practical aspects of the field including practice logistics and achieving job security. Conclusion Most advice mirrored current changes and challenges as well as revealing strategies on how primary care providers are handling the realities of practicing family medicine. Multi-modal systemic interventions may be needed to support family physicians throughout the changing reality of family medicine and ensure family medicine is an appealing specialty.

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 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.

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.

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.

Introduction Many Canadians struggle to access the primary care they need while at the same time primary care providers report record levels of stress and overwork. There is an urgent need to understand factors contributing to the gap between a growing per-capita supply of primary care providers and declines in the availability of primary care services. The assumption of responsibility by primary care teams for services previously delivered on an in-patient basis, along with a rise in administrative responsibilities may be factors influencing reduced access to care.Methods and analysis In this mixed-methods study, our first objective is to determine how the volume of services requiring primary care coordination has changed over time in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We will collect quantitative administrative data to investigate how services have shifted in ways that may impact administrative workload in primary care. Our second objective is to use qualitative interviews with family physicians, nurse practitioners and administrative team members providing primary care to understand how administrative workload has changed over time. We will then identify priority issues and practical response strategies using two deliberative dialogue events convened with primary care providers, clinical and system leaders, and policy-makers.We will analyse changes in service use data between 2001/2002 and 2021/2022 using annual total counts, rates per capita, rates per primary care provider and per primary care service. We will conduct reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes and to compare and contrast participant responses reflecting differences across disciplines, payment and practice models, and practice settings. Areas of concern and potential solutions raised during interviews will inform deliberative dialogue events.Ethics and dissemination We received research ethics approval from Nova Scotia Health (#1028815). Knowledge translation will occur through dialogue events, academic papers and presentations at national and international conferences.

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.

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 Many family medicine residency graduates indicate a desire to provide obstetric care, but a low proportion of family physicians (FPs) provide obstetric care within their practice. This suggests personal preference alone may not account for the low proportion of FPs who ultimately provide full obstetric care. If decisionmakers plan to augment the number of FPs providing obstetric care, barriers to the provision of such care must first be identified. Within this paper, we explore the perspectives of both family practice residents and early-career FPs on the factors that shaped their decision to provide obstetric care. Methods In this qualitative study, we analyzed a subset of interview data from three Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia (n = 18 family practice residents; n = 39 early-career FPs). We used thematic analysis to analyze data relevant to obstetric care practice, applying the socio-ecological model and comparing themes across participant types, gender, and province. Results Participants described influences affecting their decision about providing obstetric care. Key influencing factors aligned with the levels of the socio-ecological model of public policy (i.e., liability), community (i.e., community needs), organizational (e.g., obstetric care trade-offs, working in teams, sufficient exposure in training), interpersonal practice preferences (i.e., impact on family life, negative interactions with other healthcare professionals), and individual factors (i.e., defining comprehensive care as “everything but obstetrics”). Many participants were interested in providing obstetric care within their practice but did not provide such care. Participants’ decision-making around providing or not providing obstetric care included considerations of personal preferences and outside influences. Conclusions Individual-level factors alone do not account for the decrease in the type and amount of obstetric care offered by FPs. Instead, FPs’ choice to provide or not provide obstetric care is influenced by factors at higher levels of the socio-ecological model. Policymakers who want to encourage obstetric practice by FPs should implement interventions at the public policy, community, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels.

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.

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.

Abstract Background COVID-19 catalyzed a rapid and substantial reorganization of primary care, accelerating the spread of existing strategies and fostering a proliferation of innovations. Access to primary care is an essential component of a healthcare system, particularly during a pandemic. We describe organizational innovations aiming to improve access to primary care and related contextual changes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Methods We conducted a multiple case study based on 63 semi-structured interviews (n = 33 in Quebec, n = 30 in Nova Scotia) conducted between October 2020 and May 2021 and 71 documents from both jurisdictions. We recruited a diverse range of provincial and regional stakeholders (e.g., policy-makers, decision-makers, family physicians, nurses) involved in reorganizing primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic using purposeful sampling (e.g., based on role, region). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted in NVivo12. Emerging results were discussed by team members to identify salient themes and organized into logic models. Results We identified and analyzed six organizational innovations. Four of these – centralized public online booking systems, centralized access centers for unattached patients, interim primary care clinics for unattached patients, and a community connector to health and social services for older adults – pre-dated COVID-19 but were accelerated by the pandemic context. The remaining two innovations were created to specifically address pandemic-related needs: COVID-19 hotlines and COVID-dedicated primary healthcare clinics. Innovation spread and proliferation was influenced by several factors, such as a strengthened sense of community amongst providers, decreased patient demand at the beginning of the first wave, renewed policy and provider interest in population-wide access (versus attachment of patients only), suspended performance targets (e.g., continuity ≥80%) in Quebec, modality of care delivery, modified fee codes, and greater regional flexibility to implement tailored innovations. Conclusion COVID-19 accelerated the uptake and creation of organizational innovations to potentially improve access to primary healthcare, removing, at least temporarily, certain longstanding barriers. Many stakeholders believed this reorganization would have positive impacts on access to primary care after the pandemic. Further studies should analyze the effectiveness and sustainability of innovations adapted, developed, and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Objectives Primary care attachment improves access, chronic disease prevention and management. Growing proportions of Canadians are unattached and registering with provincial primary care waitlists for family doctors or nurse practitioners. We compare emergency department utilization and hospitalization by waitlist registration status both before and during the first two waves of COVID-19. Approach This study is the first to link a provincial primary care waitlist with routinely collected administrative billing data. Access and linking required collaboration and processes to establish permissions and rigour. A descriptive cohort design estimates quarterly population-based rates of emergency department utilization and ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations among persons on and off the waitlist between Jan/01/2017-Dec/24/2020. Emergency department utilization and ACSC hospitalization rates by current waitlist status were quantified from physician claims and hospitalization data. Relative differences during COVID-19 first (Q2 2020; April-June 2020) and second waves (Q4 2020; October-December 2020) were compared with the previous year. Results Centralized waitlist and administrative billing data were successfully linked. During the study period, 100,867 primary care-eligible Nova Scotians (10.1% of the population) were on the waitlist. Those on the waitlist had higher emergency department utilization each quarter, and more ACSC hospitalizations for most quarters, than those not on the waitlist. Emergency department utilization was higher for individuals ≥65 years and females; lowest during the first two COVID-19 waves; and differed more by waitlist status for those

Abstract Aim This study explores the contributions of family practice nurses in primary care across Newfoundland and Labrador funded by fee‐for‐service and alternate payment plans to examine the influence of funding arrangements on nursing roles/activities. Design A qualitative descriptive design was employed. Methods Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted between March‐July 2018 with physicians and Registered Nurses working in primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a content analysis approach was used to identify recurring themes. Results Clinic funding was instrumental in the integration of family practice nurses into primary care settings and influenced roles/activities. In fee‐for‐service practices, nurses work with physicians and focus on one‐on‐one patient care in office‐based settings, whereas nurses in alternate payment plans practices work more independently, in a wider range of settings and with emphasis on both individual and group‐based encounters. Compared with alternate payment plans practices, fee‐for‐service practices tend to be more restrictive due to physician billing requirements.

Background Family practice nurses are Registered Nurses who work collaboratively in primary care and deliver a range of services. Professional competency statements have been developed to describe the skills and knowledge of family practice nurses as a distinct field. Purpose We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data to examine how family practice nurse roles/activities relate to recently developed professional competencies. Methods Family physicians and family practice nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) participated in semi-structured interviews, during which they discussed roles/activities and scope of practice surrounding family practice nursing. For this secondary analysis, we used competency statements to inform thematic coding of the transcribed interviews. Results For the initial study, a total of 8 participants (5 family practice nurses; 3 family physicians) were interviewed from diverse practices. All transcripts from the original study (n = 8) were included in the secondary analysis and analysed across 47 competencies encompassing 6 domains (Professionalism; Clinical Practice; Communication; Collaboration and Partnership; Quality Assurance, Evaluation and Research; Leadership). Roles/activities reported by participants were reflective of the competencies, but with substantial variation in expression. Conclusions Family practice nursing competency statements reflect the actual activities of family practice nurses in NL. The professional competencies can serve as a framework to examine contributions of family practice nurses and identify areas warranting further training. The use of competencies to explore family practice nurses’ roles and activities can assist with optimizing scope of practice.

Introduction Given the recurrent risk of respiratory illness-based pandemics, and the important roles family physicians play during public health emergencies, the development of pandemic plans for primary care is imperative. Existing pandemic plans in Canada, however, do not adequately incorporate family physicians’ roles and perspectives. This policy and planning oversight has become increasingly evident with the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic. This study is designed to inform the development of pandemic plans for primary care through evidence from four provinces in Canada: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario.Methods and analysis We will employ a multiple-case study of regions in four provinces. Each case consists of a mixed methods design which comprises: (1) a chronology of family physician roles in the COVID-19 pandemic response; (2) a provincial policy analysis; and (3) qualitative interviews with family physicians. Relevant policy and guidance documents will be identified through targeted, snowball and general search strategies. Additionally, these policy documents will be analysed to identify gaps and/or emphases in existing policies and policy responses. Interviews will explore family physicians’ proposed, actual and potential roles during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they have encountered throughout and the influence of gender on their professional roles. Data will be thematically analysed using a content analysis framework, first at the regional level and then through cross-case analyses.Ethics and dissemination Approval for this study has been granted by the Research Ethics of British Columbia, the Health Research Ethics Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board and the Western University Research Ethics Board. Findings will be disseminated via conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Evidence and lessons learnt will be used to develop tools for government ministries, public health units and family physicians for improved pandemic response plans for primary care.