Search

Objectives: To determine whether a voluntary referral-based interprofessional team-based primary care programme reached its target population and to assess the representativeness of referring primary care physicians., Design: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative health data., Setting: Ontario, Canada., Intervention: TeamCare provides access to Community Health Centre services for patients of non-team physicians with complex health and social needs., Participants: All adult patients who participated in TeamCare between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017 (n=1148), and as comparators, all non-referred adult patients of the primary care providers who shared patients in TeamCare (n=546 989), and a 1% random sample of the adult Ontario population (n=117 753)., Results: TeamCare patients were more likely to live in lower income neighbourhoods with a higher degree of marginalisation relative to comparison groups. TeamCare patients had a higher mean number of diagnoses, higher prevalence of all chronic conditions and had more frequent encounters with the healthcare system in the year prior to participation., Conclusions: TeamCare reached a target population and fills an important gap in the Ontario primary care landscape, serving a population of patients with complex needs that did not previously have access to interprofessional team-based care., Strengths and Limitations: This study used population-level administrative health data. Data constraints limited the ability to identify patients referred to the programme but did not receive services, and data could not capture all relevant patient characteristics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome., Results: We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes., Interpretation: Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Kamila Premji is a junior clinical research chair in family medicine at the University of Ottawa, a board director with Canadian Women in Medicine, and a committee member with the Ontario Ministry of Health Primary Care Advisory Table and the Ontario Medical Association. She reports consulting fees and honoraria from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association, and travel support from the University of Western Ontario. Tara Kiran reports grants and salary support from University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital Foundation, St. Michael’s Hospital Staff Association, St. Michael’s Hospital Family Medicine Associates, Health Quality Ontario, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ontario Ministry of Health and Gilead Sciences Canada, and honoraria from the Ontario College of Family Physicians, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Ontario Medical Association, Alliance for Healthier Communities, McMaster Program for Faculty Development, Vancouver Physician Staff Association and Osgoode Hall Law School. She reports participation on the data safety monitoring board of the CHOICES study. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Many countries, including Canada, have introduced primary care reforms to improve health system functioning and value. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between receiving care from interprofessional primary care teams and after-hours access to care, patient-reported walk-in clinic visits and emergency department use., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking population-based administrative databases to Ontario's Health Care Experience Survey (HCES) between 2012 and 2018. We adjusted for physician group characteristics as well as individual physician and patient characteristics while assessing the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional teams and the outcomes of interest., Results: As of March 31st, 2015, there were 465 physician groups with HCES respondents of which 177 (38.0%) were interprofessional teams and 288 (62.0%) were non-interprofessional teams in the same blended capitation reimbursement model. In this period, there were 4518 physicians with HCES respondents, of whom 2131 (47.2%) were in interprofessional teams and 2387 (52.8%) were in non-interprofessional teams. There were 10,102 HCES respondents included in this study, of whom 42.4% were in interprofessional teams and 42.3% were in non-interprofessional teams. After adjustment, we found that being in an interprofessional team was associated with an increase in the odds of patients reporting same/next day access to care by 12.0% (OR = 1.12 CI = 1.00 to 1.24 p-value 0.0436) and a decrease in the odds of patients reporting walk-in clinic use by 16% (OR = 0.84 CI = 0.75 to 0.94 p-value 0.0019). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in patient-reported after-hours access to care and emergency department use., Conclusions: Ontario has invested heavily in interprofessional primary care teams. As compared to patients in non-interprofessional teams, patients in interprofessional teams self-reported more timely access to care and less walk-in clinic use but no significant difference in self-reported access to after-hours care or in emergency department use. For jurisdictions aiming to expand physician voluntary participation in interprofessional teams, our study results inform expectations around access to care and health services utilization., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Improving health system value and efficiency are considered major policy priorities internationally. Ontario has undergone a primary care reform that included introduction of interprofessional teams. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional versus non-interprofessional primary care teams and ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations and hospital readmissions., Methods: Population-based administrative databases were linked to form data extractions of interest between the years of 2003-2005 and 2015-2017 in Ontario, Canada. The data sources were available through ICES. The study design was a retrospective longitudinal cohort. We used a "difference-in-differences" approach for evaluating changes in ACSC hospitalizations and hospital readmissions before and after the introduction of interprofessional team-based primary care while adjusting for physician group, physician and patient characteristics., Results: As of March 31st, 2017, there were a total of 778 physician groups, of which 465 were blended capitation Family Health Organization (FHOs); 177 FHOs (22.8%) were also interprofessional teams and 288 (37%) were more conventional group practices ("non-interprofessional teams"). In this period, there were a total of 13,480 primary care physicians in Ontario of whom 4848 (36%) were affiliated with FHOs-2311 (17.1%) practicing in interprofessional teams and 2537 (18.8%) practicing in non-interprofessional teams. During that same period, there were 475,611 and 618,363 multi-morbid patients in interprofessional teams and non-interprofessional teams respectively out of a total of 2,920,990 multi-morbid adult patients in Ontario. There was no difference in change over time in ACSC admissions between interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams between the pre- and post intervention periods. There were no statistically significant changes in all cause hospital readmission s between the post- and pre-intervention periods for interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams., Conclusions: Our study findings indicate that the introduction of interprofessional team-based primary care was not associated with changes in ACSC hospitalization or hospital readmissions. The findings point for the need to couple interprofessional team-based care with other enablers of a strong primary care system to improve health services utilization efficiency.

Purpose: Countries throughout the world have been experimenting with new models to deliver primary care. We investigated physician group, physician and patient characteristics associated with voluntarily joining team-based primary care in Ontario., Methods: This cross-sectional study linked provincial administrative datasets to form data extractions of interest over time with the earliest in 2005 and the latest in 2013. We generated mixed, generalized chi-square and multivariate models to compare the characteristics of teams and non-teams, both with blended capitation reimbursement, and to examine characteristics associated with joining a team., Results: Having more physicians per group, being a female physician, having more years under the blended capitation model, having more patients in the lowest income quintile and more patients residing in rural areas were positively associated with joining a team. Being a female physician and having more patients who are males, recent immigrants and living in rural areas were positively associated with the outcome of joining teams in the late phase., Conclusions: Our study findings indicate that there are differences in physician group, physician and patient characteristics when comparing teams to non-teams. Other jurisdictions aiming to expand physician participation in interprofessional care should note those factors. Researchers looking to understand the impact of team-based care should be aware of pre-existing differences and the need to address selection bias associated with participation in team-based care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest As authors of this paper, we declare that there are no financial or other relationships that might lead to a conflict, or perceived conflict, of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to: (1) explore whether the quality of overall care for older people with diabetes is differentially affected by types and number of comorbid conditions and (2) examine the association between process of care measures and the likelihood of all-cause hospitalisations., Design: A population-based, retrospective cohort study., Setting: The province of Ontario, Canada., Participants: We identified 673 197 Ontarians aged 65 years and older who had diabetes comorbid with hypertension, chronic ischaemic heart disease, osteoarthritis or depression on 1 April 2010., Main Outcome Measures: The study outcome was the likelihood of having at least one hospital admission in each year, during the study period, from 1 April 2010 to 3 March 2014. Process of care measures specific to older adults with diabetes and these comorbidities, developed by means of a Delphi panel, were used to assess the quality of care. A generalised estimating equations approach was used to examine associations between the process of care measures and the likelihood of hospitalisations., Results: The study findings suggest that patients are at risk of suboptimal care with each additional comorbid condition, while the incidence of hospitalisations and number of prescribed drugs markedly increased in patients with 2 versus 1 selected comorbid condition, especially in those with discordant comorbidities. The median continuity of care score was higher among patients with diabetes-concordant conditions compared with those with diabetes-discordant conditions, and it declined with additional comorbid conditions in both groups. Greater continuity of care was associated with lower hospital utilisation for older diabetes patients with both concordant and discordant conditions., Conclusions: There is a need for focusing on improving continuity of care and prioritising treatment in older adults with diabetes with any multiple conditions but especially in those with diabetes-discordant conditions (eg, depression)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify contextual factors such as policy that impacted the implementation of community-based primary health care (CBPHC) innovations among 12 Canadian research teams and (2) describe strategies used by the teams to address contextual factors influencing implementation of CBPHC innovations. In primary care settings, consideration of contextual factors when implementing change has been recognized as critically important to success. However, contextual factors are rarely recorded, analyzed or considered when implementing change. The lack of consideration of contextual factors has negative implications not only for successfully implementing primary health care (PHC) innovations, but also for their sustainability and scalability. For this evaluation, data collection was conducted using self-administered questionnaires and follow-up telephone interviews with team representatives. We used a combination of directed and conventional content analysis approaches to analyze the questionnaire and interview data. Representatives from all 12 teams completed the questionnaire and 11 teams participated in the interviews; 40 individuals participated in this evaluation. Four themes representing contextual factors that impacted the implementation of CBPHC innovations were identified: (I) diversity of jurisdictions (II) complexity of interactions and collaborations (III) policy, and (IV) the multifaceted nature of PHC. The teams used six strategies to address these contextual factors including: (1) conduct an environmental scan at the beginning (2) maintaining engagement among partners and stakeholders by encouraging open and inclusive communication; (3) contextualizing the innovation for different settings; (4) anticipating and addressing changes, delays, and the need for additional resources; (5) fostering a culture of research and innovation among partners and stakeholders; and (6) ensuring information about the innovation is widely available. Implementing CBPHC innovations across jurisdictions is complex and involves navigating through multiple contextual factors. Awareness of the dynamic nature of context should be considered when implementing innovations.

AimTo describe the process by which the 12 community-based primary health care (CBPHC) research teams worked together and fostered cross-jurisdictional collaboration, including collection of common indicators with the goal of using the same measures and data sources. BACKGROUND: A pan-Canadian mechanism for common measurement of the impact of primary care innovations across Canada is lacking. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research and its partners funded 12 teams to conduct research and collaborate on development of a set of commonly collected indicators. METHODS: A working group representing the 12 teams was established. They undertook an iterative process to consider existing primary care indicators identified from the literature and by stakeholders. Indicators were agreed upon with the intention of addressing three objectives across the 12 teams: (1) describing the impact of improving access to CBPHC; (2) examining the impact of alternative models of chronic disease prevention and management in CBPHC; and (3) describing the structures and context that influence the implementation, delivery, cost, and potential for scale-up of CBPHC innovations.FindingsNineteen common indicators within the core dimensions of primary care were identified: access, comprehensiveness, coordination, effectiveness, and equity. We also agreed to collect data on health care costs and utilization within each team. Data sources include surveys, health administrative data, interviews, focus groups, and case studies. Collaboration across these teams sets the foundation for a unique opportunity for new knowledge generation, over and above any knowledge developed by any one team. Keys to success are each team's willingness to engage and commitment to working across teams, funding to support this collaboration, and distributed leadership across the working group. Reaching consensus on collection of common indicators is challenging but achievable.

Background: Information communication technology (ICT) is a critical enabler of integrated models of community-based primary health care; however, little is known about how existing technologies have been used to support new models of integrated care. To address this gap, we draw on data from an international study of integrated models, exploring how ICT is used to support activities of integrated care and the organizational and environmental barriers and enablers to its adoption., Methods: We take an embedded comparative multiple-case study approach using data from a study of implementation of nine models of integrated community-based primary health care, the Implementing Integrated Care for Older Adults with Complex Health Needs (iCOACH) study. Six cases from Canada, three each in Ontario and Quebec, and three in New Zealand, were studied. As part of the case studies, interviews were conducted with managers and front-line health care providers from February 2015 to March 2017. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to code data from 137 interviews and generate word tables to guide analysis., Results: Despite different models and contexts, we found strikingly similar accounts of the types of activities supported through ICT systems in each of the cases. ICT systems were used most frequently to support activities like care coordination by inter-professional teams through information sharing. However, providers were limited in their ability to efficiently share patient data due to data access issues across organizational and professional boundaries and due to system functionality limitations, such as a lack of interoperability., Conclusions: Even in innovative models of care, managers and providers in our cases mainly use technology to enable traditional ways of working. Technology limitations prevent more innovative uses of technology that could support disruption necessary to improve care delivery. We argue the barriers to more innovative use of technology are linked to three factors: (1) information access barriers, (2) limited functionality of available technology, and (3) organizational and provider inertia.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings., Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings., Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework., Results: The search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content., Conclusions: The process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.

Objective: To gain a more comprehensive understanding of patients' perceptions of access to their primary care practice and how these relate to patient characteristics., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Ontario., Participants: Adult primary care patients in Ontario (N = 1698) completing the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) Patient Experiences Survey., Main Outcome Measures: Responses to 11 access-related survey items, analyzed both individually and as a Composite Access Score (CAS)., Results: The mean (SD) CAS was 1.78 (0.16) (the highest possible CAS was 2 and the lowest was 1). Most patients (68%) waited more than 1 day for their appointment. By far most (96%) stated that it was easy to obtain their appointment and that they obtained that appointment as soon as they wanted to (87%). There were no statistically significant relationships between CAS and sex, language fluency, income, education, frequency of emergency department use, or chronic disease status. A higher CAS was associated with being older and being born in Canada, better self-reported health, and increased frequency of visits to a doctor., Conclusion: Despite criticisms of access to primary care, this study found that Ontario patients belonging to primary care practices have favourable impressions of their access. There were few statistically significant relationships between patient characteristics and access, and these relationships appeared to be weak., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Background: It is not known whether equity-oriented primary care investment that seeks to scale up the delivery of effective care in disadvantaged communities can reduce health inequality within high-income settings that have pre-existing universal primary care systems. We provide some non-randomised controlled evidence by comparing health inequality trends between two similar jurisdictions-one of which implemented equity-oriented primary care investment in the mid-to-late 2000s as part of a cross-government strategy for reducing health inequality (England), and one which invested in primary care without any explicit equity objective (Ontario, Canada)., Methods: We analysed whole-population data on 32,482 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 1,500 people) in England, and 18,961 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 700 people) in Ontario. We examined trends in mortality amenable to healthcare by decile groups of neighbourhood deprivation within each jurisdiction. We used linear models to estimate absolute and relative gaps in amenable mortality between most and least deprived groups, considering the gradient between these extremes, and evaluated difference-in-difference comparisons between the two jurisdictions., Results: Inequality trends were comparable in both jurisdictions from 2004-6 but diverged from 2007-11. Compared with Ontario, the absolute gap in amenable mortality in England fell between 2004-6 and 2007-11 by 19.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI: 4.8 to 34.9); and the relative gap in amenable mortality fell by 10 percentage points (95% CI: 1 to 19). The biggest divergence occurred in the most deprived decile group of neighbourhoods., Discussion: In comparison to Ontario, England succeeded in reducing absolute socioeconomic gaps in mortality amenable to healthcare from 2007 to 2011, and preventing them from growing in relative terms. Equity-oriented primary care reform in England in the mid-to-late 2000s may have helped to reduce socioeconomic inequality in health, though other explanations for this divergence are possible and further research is needed on the specific causal mechanisms.

Background: The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between newly introduced primary care models in Ontario, Canada, and patients' primary care and total health care costs. A specific focus is on the payment mechanisms for primary care physicians, i.e. fee-for-service (FFS), enhanced-FFS, and blended capitation, and whether providers practiced as part of a multidisciplinary team., Methods: Utilization data for a one year period was measured using administrative databases for a 10% sample selected at random from the Ontario adult population. Primary care and total health care costs were calculated at the individual level and included costs from physician services, hospital visits and admissions, long term care, drugs, home care, lab tests, and visits to non-medical health care providers. Generalized linear model regressions were conducted to assess the differences in costs between primary care models., Results: Patients not enrolled with a primary care physicians were younger, more likely to be males and of lower socio-economic status. Patients in blended capitation models were healthier and wealthier than FFS and enhanced-FFS patients. Primary care and total health care costs were significantly different across Ontario primary care models. Using the traditional FFS as the reference, we found that patients in the enhanced-FFS models had the lowest total health care costs, and also the lowest primary care costs. Patients in the blended capitation models had higher primary care costs but lower total health care costs. Patients that were in multidisciplinary teams (FHT), where physicians are also paid on a blended capitation basis, had higher total health care costs than non-FHT patients but still lower than the FFS reference group. Primary care and total health care costs increased with patients' age, morbidity, and lower income quintile across all primary care payment types., Conclusions: The new primary care models were associated with lower total health care costs for patients compared to the traditional FFS model, despite higher primary care costs in some models.

Background: Despite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings., Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework., Results: The search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients., Conclusions: The identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

Purpose: The patient medical home (PMH) model aims to improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes in Canada, but since its introduction in 2009, there has been no evaluation of the extent to which primary care conforms with PMH attributes. Our objective was to compare current primary care across Canada with the 10 goals of the PMH model., Methods: A cross-sectional survey of primary care organization and delivery was conducted in Canadian provinces to evaluate the PMH-based attributes of primary care practices. Family physician and patient responses were mapped to the 10 goals of the PMH model. We used regression models to describe the provinces' success in meeting the goals, taking specific practice characteristics into account. We created a PMH composite score by weighting each goal equally for each practice and aggregating these by province. The PMH score is the sum of the values for each goal, which were scored from 0 to 1; a score of 10 indicates that all 10 goals of the PMH model were achieved., Results: Seven hundred seventy-two primary care practices and 7,172 patients participated in the survey. The average national PMH score was 5.36 (range 4.75-6.23) of 10. Ontario was the only province to score significantly higher than Canada as a whole, whereas Québec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island scored below the national average. There was little variation, however, among provinces in achieving the 10 PMH goals., Conclusions: Provincial PMH scores indicate considerable room for improvement if the PMH goals are to be fully implemented in Canada., (© 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objective: To examine the use of computers in primary care practices., Design: The international Quality and Cost of Primary Care study was conducted in Canada in 2013 and 2014 using a descriptive cross-sectional survey method to collect data from practices across Canada. Participating practices filled out several surveys, one of them being the Family Physician Survey, from which this study collected its data., Setting: All 10 Canadian provinces., Participants: A total of 788 family physicians., Main Outcome Measures: A computer use scale measured the extent to which family physicians integrated computers into their practices, with higher scores indicating a greater integration of computer use in practice. Analyses included t tests and 2 tests comparing new and traditional models of primary care on measures of computer use and electronic health record (EHR) use, as well as descriptive statistics., Results: Nearly all (97.5%) physicians reported using a computer in their practices, with moderately high computer use scale scores (mean [SD] score of 5.97 [2.96] out of 9), and many (65.7%) reported using EHRs. Physicians with practices operating under new models of primary care reported incorporating computers into their practices to a greater extent (mean [SD] score of 6.55 [2.64]) than physicians operating under traditional models did (mean [SD] score of 5.33 [3.15]; t 726.60 = 5.84; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI 0.808 to 1.627) and were more likely to report using EHRs (73.8% vs 56.7%; [Formula: see text]; P < .001; odds ratio = 2.15). Overall, there was a statistically significant variability in computer use across provinces., Conclusion: Most family physicians in Canada have incorporated computers into their practices for administrative and scholarly activities; however, EHRs have not been adopted consistently across the country. Physicians with practices operating under the new, more collaborative models of primary care use computers more comprehensively and are more likely to use EHRs than those in practices operating under traditional models of primary care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

The study analyzes the relationship between the risk of a hospitalization for an ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC), and the primary care payment and the organizational model used by the patient (fee-for-service, enhanced fee-for-service, blended capitation, blended capitation with interdisciplinary teams). The study used linked patient-level health administrative databases and census data housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario. Since the province provides universal health care, the data capture all patients in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, with about 13 million inhabitants. All Ontario patients diagnosed with an ACSC prior to April 1, 2012, who had at least one visit with a physician between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013, were included in the study (n = 1,710,310). Each patient was assigned to the primary care model of his/her physician. The different models were categorized as Fee-for-Service (FFS), enhanced-FFS, blended capitation, and interdisciplinary team. A logistic regression was used to model the risk of having an ACSC hospitalization during the one-year observation period. Adjustments were made for patient characteristics (age, sex, health status, and socio-economic status) and for the geographic location of the practice. Using patients belonging to FFS models as the reference group, the risk of an ACSC hospitalization was higher for patients belonging to the blended-capitation model using interdisciplinary teams (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.12) and lower for enhanced-FFS (AOR = 0.78, CI = 0.74-0.82) and blended capitation patients (AOR = 0.91, CI = 0.86-0.96). Using patients with hypertension as the reference group, the odds of an ACSC hospitalization were much higher for patients with any other ACSC and increased with patients' morbidity. The risk was lower for patients of higher socio-economic status (AOR = 0.63, CI = 0.60-0.67) in the highest neighborhood income quintile., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Primary care services form the foundation of modern healthcare systems, yet the breadth and complexity of services and diversity of patient populations may present challenges for creating comprehensive primary care information systems. Our objective is to develop regional-level information on the performance of primary care in Canada., Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify existing initiatives in primary care performance measurement and reporting across 11 countries. The results of this review were used by our international team of primary care researchers and clinicians to propose an approach for regional-level primary care reporting., Results: We found a gap between conceptual primary care performance measurement frameworks in the peer-reviewed literature and real-world primary care performance measurement and reporting activities. We did not find a conceptual framework or analytic approach that could readily form the foundation of a regional-level primary care information system. Therefore, we propose an approach to reporting comprehensive and actionable performance information according to widely accepted core domains of primary care as well as different patient population groups., Conclusions: An approach that bridges the gap between conceptual frameworks and real-world performance measurement and reporting initiatives could address some of the potential pitfalls of existing ways of presenting performance information (i.e., by single diseases or by age). This approach could produce meaningful and actionable information on the quality of primary care services., (Copyright © 2016 Longwoods Publishing.)

Objective: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access., Design: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey., Setting: All 10 Canadian provinces., Participants: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients., Main Outcome Measures: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care., Results: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did., Conclusion: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.

Background: Performance reporting in primary health care in Canada is challenging because of the dearth of concise and synthesized information. The paucity of information occurs, in part, because the majority of primary health care in Canada is delivered through a multitude of privately owned small businesses with no mechanism or incentives to provide information about their performance. The purpose of this paper is to report the methods used to recruit family physicians and their patients across 10 provinces to provide self-reported information about primary care and how this information could be used in recruitment and data collection for future large scale pan-Canadian and other cross-country studies., Methods: Canada participated in an international large scale study-the QUALICO-PC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) study. A set of four surveys, designed to collect in-depth information regarding primary care activities was collected from: practices, providers, and patients (experiences and values). Invitations (telephone, electronic or mailed) were sent to family physicians. Eligible participants were sent a package of surveys. Provincial teams kept records on the number of: invitation emails/letters sent, physicians who registered, practices that were sent surveys, and practices returning completed surveys. Response and cooperation rates were calculated., Results: Invitations to participate were sent to approximately 23,000 family physicians across Canada. A total of 792 physicians and 8,332 patients from 772 primary care practices completed the surveys, including 1,160 participants completing a Patient Values survey and 7,172 participants completing a Patient Experience survey. Overall, the response rate was very low ranging from 2% (British Columbia) to 21% (Nova Scotia). However, the participation rate was high, ranging from 72% (Ontario) to 100% (New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland & Labrador)., Conclusions: The difficulties obtaining acceptable response rates by family physicians for survey participation is a universal challenge. This response rate for the QUALICO-PC arm in Canada was similar to rates found in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Even though most family physicians operate as self-employed small businesses, they could be supported to routinely submit data through a collective effort and provincial mandate. The groundwork in setting up pan-Canadian collaboration in primary care has been established through this study.

Background: International and national bodies promote interdisciplinary care in the management of people with chronic conditions. We examine one facilitative factor in this team-based approach - the co-location of non-physician disciplines within the primary care practice., Methods: We used survey data from 330 General Practices in Ontario, Canada and New Zealand, as a part of a multinational study using The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) surveys. Logistic and linear multivariable regression models were employed to examine the association between the number of disciplines working within the practice, and the capacity of the practice to offer specialized and preventive care for patients with chronic conditions., Results: We found that as the number of non-physicians increased, so did the availability of special sessions/clinics for patients with diabetes (odds ratio 1.43, 1.25-1.65), hypertension (1.20, 1.03-1.39), and the elderly (1.22, 1.05-1.42). Co-location was also associated with the provision of disease management programs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and asthma; the equipment available in the centre; and the extent of nursing services., Conclusions: The care of people with chronic disease is the 'challenge of the century'. Co-location of practitioners may improve access to services and equipment that aid chronic disease management.