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]

Background: Widespread policy reforms in Canada, the United States and elsewhere over the last two decades strengthened team models of primary care by bringing together family physicians and nurse practitioners with a range of mental health and other interdisciplinary providers. Understanding how patients with depression and anxiety experience newer team‐based models of care delivery is essential to explore whether the intended impact of these reforms is achieved, identify gaps that remain and provide direction on strengthening the quality of mental health care. Objective: The main study objective was to understand patients' perspectives on the quality of care that they received for anxiety and depression in primary care teams. Methods: This was a qualitative study, informed by constructivist grounded theory. We conducted focus groups and individual interviews with primary care patients about their experiences with mental health care. Focus groups and individual interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Grounded theory guided an inductive analysis of the data. Results: Forty patients participated in the study: 31 participated in one of four focus groups, and nine completed an individual interview. Participants in our study described their experiences with mental health care across four themes: accessibility, technical care, trusting relationships and meeting diverse needs. Conclusion: Greater attention by policymakers is needed to strengthen integrated collaborative practices in primary care so that patients have similar access to mental health services across different primary care practices, and smoother continuity of care across sectors. The research team is comprised of individuals with lived experience of mental health who have participated in all aspects of the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In 2003, Ontario introduced a patient enrolment system as part of health care reforms, aimed at enhancing primary health care services, but it is unclear whether immigrants have benefited from this health care reform. Therefore, we studied whether this reform changed the extent of immigrants' enrolment in primary care services in Ontario between 2003 and 2012.Methods: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study, in which a closed cohort of 9231840 Ontario residents between 1985 and 2003 was created, using linked health administrative and immigration databases. Levels of enrolment for traditional and more comprehensive capitation-based practice between 2003 and 2012 were compared by immigrant status. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess the odds of enrolment on primary care practices.Results: Overall enrolment in primary care practices increased gradually after 2004, until 2012, when two-thirds of the cohort (67%) were enrolled. The immigrants' enrolment level remained consistently lower than that of long-term residents over the study period. By 2012, enrolment of immigrants in capitation-based models was significantly lower (17.3% versus 25.4%). In particular, enrolment in Family Health Teams, considered the most comprehensive care model, was considerably lower in immigrants compared with long-term residents (5.6% versus 18.0%; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.41).Conclusions: Immigrant enrolment rates in new comprehensive primary care models were consistently lower than among long-term residents. This has implication on equitable primary care access for immigrant populations. [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]

Background: Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery.Methods: A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention.Results: Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively.Conclusions: IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]