Search

Background: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and introduction of various restrictions resulted in drastic changes to 'traditional' primary healthcare service delivery modalities. Aim: To understand the impact of virtual care on healthcare system performance within the context of Ontario community health centres (CHCs). Design & setting: Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 36 providers and 31 patients. Method: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted in the autumn of 2020. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using the quadruple aim framework. Results: The transition to virtual delivery of services has had both positive and negative impacts on care. Virtual care removed certain barriers to care such as access. However, patients and providers found that phone visits impacted quality of care owing to the inability to read body language and having to rely solely on patient descriptions. Video visits allowed for a similar experience to in-person visits but technical issues constrained this interaction. Depending on the service provided, some providers felt they were not providing the same quality of care. However, providers reported reductions in no-show rates and highlighted the efficiency of virtual appointments. Providers also found they were able to collaborate at a similar level before the pandemic and saw improvements in work--life balance. Overall, patients and providers alike preferred virtual visits with those known to them, and for less complex or transactional aspects of care. Conclusion: The study described positive and negative impacts on patient care, population health, health system costs, and provider experience. These results will be useful for primary care organisations in post-pandemic planning; however, future research is needed for a deeper exploration of the impact on quality of care specifically for more complex health concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a large-scale adoption of virtual delivery of primary care as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: In this descriptive study, an equity lens is used to explore the impact of transitioning to greater use of virtual care in community health centres (CHCs) across Ontario, Canada. Design & setting: A cross-sectional survey was administered and electronic medical record (EMR) data were extracted from 36 CHCs. Method: The survey captured CHCs' experiences with the increased adoption of virtual care. A longitudinal analysis of the EMR data was conducted to evaluate changes in health service delivery. EMR data were extracted monthly for a period of time before the pandemic (April 2019-February 2020) and during (April 2020-February 2021). Results: In comparison with the pre-pandemic period, CHCs experienced a moderate decline in visits made (11%), patients seen (9%), issues addressed (9%), and services provided (15%). During the pandemic period, an average of 54% of visits were conducted virtually, with telephone as the leading virtual modality (96%). Drops in service types ranged from 28%-82%. The distribution of virtual modalities varied according to the provider type. Access to in-person and virtual care did not vary across patient characteristics. Conclusion: The results demonstrate a large shift towards virtual delivery while maintaining in-person care. No meaningful differences were found in virtual versus in-person care related to patient characteristics or rurality of centres. Future studies are needed to explore how to best select the appropriate modality for patients and service types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nurse practitioners (NPs) in Ontario work in a number of settings, including physician-led, interprofessional Family Health Teams (FHTs). However, many aspects of NP practice within the FHTs are unknown. Our study aimed to describe the characteristics of NP practice in FHTs and the relationships between NPs and physicians within this model. This cross-sectional descriptive study analyzed NP service and diagnostic code data collected for every NP patient encounter from 2012 to 2015. Encounter data were linked to health administrative data housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences to allow for comparison with physician service and diagnostic codes. Findings demonstrated that NPs saw patients across all age groups for one to more than five problems per encounter and that NPs handled both acute and episodic care and chronic disease management issues. Patients with chronic conditions had more encounters with physicians than with NPs. In addition, compared to physicians, NPs saw more female than male patients. Our findings provide a snapshot of NP practice in FHTs and may be useful in informing other practice models in Ontario, elsewhere in Canada, and internationally. More evidence is needed, however, to clarify the responsibilities of the NPs in collaborative relationships with physicians and to embed policies that will ensure that NPs work to their full potential. In addition, applying service coding to all health care providers in FHTs could enhance data on interprofessional teams and the individual clinicians that comprise them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the number of patients under a primary care physician's care (panel size) and primary care quality indicators.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, population-based study of fee-for-service and capitated interprofessional and non-interprofessional primary health care practices in Ontario, Canada between April 2008 and March 2010, encompassing 4,195 physicians with panel sizes ≥1,200 serving 8.3 million patients. Data was extracted from multiple linked, health-related administrative databases and covered 16 quality indicators spanning 5 dimensions of care: access, continuity, comprehensiveness, and evidence-based indicators of cancer screening and chronic disease management.Results: The likelihood of being up-to-date on cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer screening showed relative decreases of 7.9% (P <.001), 5.9% (P = .01), and 4.6% (P <.001), respectively, with increasing panel size (from 1,200 to 3,900). Eight chronic care indicators (4 medication-based and 4 screening-based) showed no significant association with panel size. The likelihood of individuals with a new diagnosis of congestive heart failure having an echocardiogram, however, increased by a relative 8.1% (P <.001) with higher panel size. Increasing panel size was also associated with a 10.8% relative increase in hospitalization rates for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (P = .04) and a 10.8% decrease in non-urgent emergency department visits (P = .004). Continuity was highest with medium panel sizes (P <.001), and comprehensiveness had a small decrease (P = .03) with increasing panel size.Conclusions: Increasing panel size was associated with small decreases in cancer screening, continuity, and comprehensiveness, but showed no consistent relationships with chronic disease management or access indicators. We found no panel size threshold above which quality of care suffered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Several new primary care models have been implemented in Ontario, Canada over the past two decades. These practice models differ in team structure, physician remuneration, and group size. Few studies have examined the impact of these models on specialist referrals. We compared specialist referral rates amongst three primary care models: 1) Enhanced Fee-for service, 2) Capitation- Non-Interdisciplinary (CAP-NI), 3) Capitation - Interdisciplinary (CAP-I). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using health administrative data from primary care practices in Ontario from April 1st, 2008 to March 31st, 2010. The analysis included all family physicians providing comprehensive care in one of the three models, had at least 100 patients, and did not have a prolonged absence (eight consecutive weeks). The primary outcome was referral rate (# of referrals to all medical specialties/1000 patients/year). A multivariable clustered Poisson regression analysis was used to compare referral rates between models while adjusting for provider (sex, years since graduation, foreign trained, time in current model) and patient (age, sex, income, rurality, health status) characteristics. Results Fee-for-service had a significantly lower adjusted referral rate (676, 95% CI: 666-687) than the CAP-NI (719, 95% confidence interval (CI): 705-734) and CAP-I (694, 95% CI: 681- 707) models and the interdisciplinary CAP-I group had a 3.5% lower referral rate than the CAP-NI group (RR = 0.965, 95% CI: 0.943-0.987, p = 0.002). Female and Canadian-trained physicians referred more often, while female, older, sicker and urban patients were more likely to be referred. Conclusions Primary care model is significantly associated with referral rate. On a study population level, these differences equate to 111,059 and 37,391 fewer referrals by fee-for-service versus CAP-NI and CAP-I, respectively - a difference of $22.3 million in initial referral appointment costs. Whether a lower rate of referral is more appropriate or not is not known and requires further investigation. Physician remuneration and team structure likely account for the differences; however, further investigation is also required to better understand whether other organizational factors associated with primary care model also impact referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As health systems evolve, it is essential to evaluate their impact on the delivery of health services to socially disadvantaged populations. We evaluated the delivery of primary health services for different socio-economic groups and assessed the performance of different organizational models in terms of equality of health care delivery in Ontario, Canada. Methods Cross sectional study of 5,361 patients receiving care from primary care practices using Capitation, Salaried or Fee-For-Service remuneration models. We assessed self-reported health status of patients, visit duration, number of visits per year, quality of health service delivery, and quality of health promotion. We used multi-level regressions to study service delivery across socio-economic groups and within each delivery model. Identified disparities were further analysed using a t-test to determine the impact of service delivery model on equity. Results Low income individuals were more likely to be women, unemployed, recent immigrants, and in poorer health. These individuals were over-represented in the Salaried model, reported more visits/year across all models, and tended to report longer visits in the Salaried model. Measures of primary care services generally did not differ significantly between low and higher income/education individuals; when they did, the difference favoured better service delivery for at-risk groups. At-risk patients in the Salaried model were somewhat more likely to report health promotion activities than patients from Capitation and Fee-For-Service models. At-risk patients from Capitation models reported a smaller increase in the number of additional clinic visits/year than Fee-For-Service and Salaried models. At-risk patients reported better first contact accessibility than their non-at-risk counterparts in the Fee-For- Service model only. Conclusions Primary care service measures did not differ significantly across socio-economic status or primary care delivery models. In Ontario, capitation-based remuneration is age and sex adjusted only. Patients of low socio-economic status had fewer additional visits compared to those with high socio-economic status under the Capitation model. This raises the concern that Capitation may not support the provision of additional care for more vulnerable groups. Regions undertaking primary care model reforms need to consider the potential impact of the changes on the more vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuity is a fundamental tenet of primary care, and highly valued by patients; it may also improve patient outcomes and lower cost of health care. It is thus important to investigate factors that predict higher continuity. However, to date, little is known about the factors that contribute to continuity. The purpose of this study was to analyse practice, provider and patient predictors of continuity of care in a large sample of primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. Another goal was to assess whether there was a difference in the continuity of care provided by different models of primary care. Methods: This study is part of the larger a cross-sectional study of 137 primary care practices, their providers and patients. Several performance measures were evaluated; this paper focuses on relational continuity. Four items from the Primary Care Assessment Tool were used to assess relational continuity from the patient's perspective. Results: Multilevel modeling revealed several patient factors that predicted continuity. Older patients and those with chronic disease reported higher continuity, while those who lived in rural areas, had higher education, poorer mental health status, no regular provider, and who were employed reported lower continuity. Providers with more years since graduation had higher patient-reported continuity. Several practice factors predicted lower continuity: number of MDs, nurses, opening on weekends, and having 24 hours a week or less on-call. Analyses that compared continuity across models showed that, in general, Health Service Organizations had better continuity than other models, even when adjusting for patient demographics. Conclusions: Some patients with greater health needs experience greater continuity of care. However, the lower continuity reported by those with mental health issues and those who live in rural areas is concerning. Furthermore, our finding that smaller practices have higher continuity suggests that physicians and policy makers need to consider the fact that 'bigger is not always necessarily better'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]