Search

Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care was used to deliver primary care services. Nurses contributed to primary care teams’ capacity to deliver care virtually. This study explored nurses’ roles in virtual care delivery in primary care and the barriers and facilitators that influenced their contributions. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with nurses representing each regulatory designation (i.e., Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, Licensed/Registered Practical Nurses) working in primary care in four Canadian provinces (i.e., British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador). We performed thematic analysis on data related to the delivery of virtual care. Results We interviewed seventy-six nurses and identified three key themes and various sub-themes related to virtual nursing practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) variable adoption of virtual care among nurses, (2) facilitators and barriers to virtual nursing practice, and (3) impacts of virtual delivery on care provision by nurses. Nurses’ involvement in virtual care varied across designations and nurses recalled various facilitators and impediments that influenced their virtual care experience, such as guidance documents, funding models, and the availability of equipment. Virtual care influenced nurses’ workflow, their ability to deliver patient-centred care, and their ability to bridge the care gap. Conclusions Primary care teams are increasingly relying upon nurses to support virtual care delivery, emphasizing the need to understand nursing roles in virtual care. Primary care funding models should be leveraged to support nurses in virtual care delivery; and standardized learning opportunities and guidance documents focused on virtual care should be available to support primary care nurses and strengthen their contributions in future primary care teams that involve virtual nursing care.

BackgroundThere is a pressing need to understand the implications of the rapid adoption of virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder. Potential impacts, including disruptions to opiate agonist therapies, and the prospect of improved service accessibility remain underexplored. ObjectiveThis scoping review synthesized current literature on virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder with a specific focus on benefits, challenges, and strategies. MethodsWe followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological approach for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting our findings. We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Embase using our developed search strategy with no date restrictions. We incorporated all study types that included the 3 concepts (ie, virtual care, primary care, and people with opioid use disorder). We excluded research on minors, asynchronous virtual modalities, and care not provided in a primary care setting. We used Covidence to screen and extract data, pulling information on study characteristics, health system features, patient outcomes, and challenges and benefits of virtual primary care. We conducted inductive content analysis and calculated descriptive statistics. We appraised the quality of the studies using the Quality Assessment With Diverse Studies tool and categorized the findings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. ResultsOur search identified 1474 studies. We removed 36.36% (536/1474) of these as duplicates, leaving 938 studies for title and abstract screening. After a double review process, we retained 3% (28/938) of the studies for extraction. Only 14% (4/28) of the studies were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most (15/28, 54%) used quantitative methodologies. We summarized objectives and results, finding that most studies (18/28, 64%) described virtual primary care delivered via phone rather than video and that many studies (16/28, 57%) reported changes in appointment modality. Through content analysis, we identified that policies and regulations could either facilitate (11/28, 39%) or impede (7/28, 25%) the provision of care virtually. In addition, clinicians’ perceptions of patient stability (5/28, 18%) and the heightened risks associated with virtual care (10/28, 36%) can serve as a barrier to offering virtual services. For people with opioid use disorder, increased health care accessibility was a noteworthy benefit (13/28, 46%) to the adoption of virtual visits, whereas issues regarding access to technology and digital literacy stood out as the most prominent challenge (12/28, 43%). ConclusionsThe available studies highlight the potential for enhancing accessibility and continuous access to care for people with opioid use disorder using virtual modalities. Future research and policies must focus on bridging gaps to ensure that virtual primary care does not exacerbate or entrench health inequities.

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

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

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

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

Introduction The growth and complexity of diabetes are exceeding the capacity of family physicians, resulting in the demand for community-based, interprofessional, primary care-led transition clinics. The Primary Care Diabetes Support Programme (PCDSP) in London, Ontario, is an innovative approach to diabetes care for high-risk populations, such as medically or socially complex and unattached patients. In this study, we will employ a quadruple-aim approach to evaluate the health system impacts of the PCDSP.Methods and analysis We will use multiple methods through a convergent parallel design in this project across five unique studies: a case study, a patient study, a provider study, a complications study and a cost-effectiveness study. The project will be conducted in a dedicated stand-alone clinic specialising in chronic disease management, specifically focusing on diabetes care. Participants will include clinic staff, administrators, family physicians, specialists and patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who received care at the clinic between 2011 and 2023. The project design will define the intervention, support replication at other sites or for other chronic diseases and address each of the quadruple aims and equity. Following the execution of the five individual studies, we will build a business case by integrating the results. Data will be analysed using both qualitative (content analysis and thematic analysis) and quantitative techniques (descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression).Ethics and dissemination We received approval from the research ethics boards at Western University (reference ID: 2023–1 21 766; 2023–1 22 326) and Lawson Health Research Institute (reference ID: R-23–202). A privacy review was completed by St. Joseph’s Healthcare Corporation. The findings will be shared among PCDSP staff and patients, stakeholders, academic researchers and the public through stakeholder sessions, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, infographics, posters, media interviews, social media and online discussions. For the patient and provider study, all participants will be asked to provide consent and are free to withdraw from the study, without penalty, until the data are combined. Participants will not be identified in any report or presentation except in the case study, for which, given the number of PCDSP providers, we will seek explicit consent to identify them.

Abstract Background British Columbia 8–1-1 callers who are advised by a nurse to seek urgent medical care can be referred to virtual physicians (VPs) for supplemental assessment and advice. Prior research indicates callers’ subsequent health service use may diverge from VP advice. We sought to 1) estimate concordance between VP advice and subsequent health service use, and 2) identify factors associated with concordance to understand potential drivers of discordant cases. Methods We linked relevant provincial administrative databases to obtain inpatient, outpatient, and emergency service use by callers. We developed operational definitions of concordance collaboratively with researcher, patient, VP, and management perspectives. We used Kaplan–Meier curves to describe health service use post-VP consultation and Cox regression to estimate the association of caller factors (rurality, demography, attachment to primary care) and call factors (reason, triage level, time of day) with concordance as hazard ratios. Results We analyzed 17,188 calls from November 16, 2020 to April 30, 2021. Callers advised to attend an emergency department (ED) immediately were the most concordant (73%) while concordance was lowest for those advised to seek Family Physician (FP) care either immediately (41%) or within 7 days (47%). Callers unattached to FPs were less likely to schedule an FP visit (hazard ratio = 0.76 [95%CI: 0.68–0.85]). Rural callers were less likely to attend an ED within 48 h when advised to go immediately (0.53 [95%CI:0.46–0.61]) compared to urban callers. Rural callers advised to see an FP, either immediately (1.28 [95%CI:1.01–1.62]) or within 7 days (1.23 [95%CI: 1.11–1.37]), were more likely to do so than urban callers. Interpretation Concordance between VP advice and subsequent caller health service use varies substantially by category of advice and caller rurality. Concordance with advice to “Go to ED” is high overall but to access primary care is below 50%, suggesting potential issues with timely access to FP care. Future research from a patient/caller centered perspective may reveal additional barriers and facilitators to concordance.

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.

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

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

BackgroundFunding changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic supported the growth of direct-to-consumer virtual walk-in clinics in several countries. Little is known about patients who attend virtual walk-in clinics or how these clinics contribute to care continuity and subsequent health care use. ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to describe the characteristics and measure the health care use of patients who attended virtual walk-in clinics compared to the general population and a subset that received any virtual family physician visit. MethodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Ontario, Canada. Patients who had received a family physician visit at 1 of 13 selected virtual walk-in clinics from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were compared to Ontario residents who had any virtual family physician visit. The main outcome was postvisit health care use. ResultsVirtual walk-in patients (n=132,168) had fewer comorbidities and lower previous health care use than Ontarians with any virtual family physician visit. Virtual walk-in patients were also less likely to have a subsequent in-person visit with the same physician (309/132,168, 0.2% vs 704,759/6,412,304, 11%; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48), more likely to have a subsequent virtual visit (40,030/132,168, 30.3% vs 1,403,778/6,412,304, 21.9%; SMD 0.19), and twice as likely to have an emergency department visit within 30 days (11,003/132,168, 8.3% vs 262,509/6,412,304, 4.1%; SMD 0.18), an effect that persisted after adjustment and across urban/rural resident groups. ConclusionsCompared to Ontarians attending any family physician virtual visit, virtual walk-in patients were less likely to have a subsequent in-person physician visit and were more likely to visit the emergency department. These findings will inform policy makers aiming to ensure the integration of virtual visits with longitudinal primary care.

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.

Introduction Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care has gained increased attention, particularly in primary care for the ongoing delivery of routine services. Nurses have had an increased presence in virtual care and have contributed meaningfully to the delivery of team-based care in primary care; however, their exact contributions in virtual models of primary care remain unclear. The Nursing Role Effectiveness Model, applied in a virtual care and primary care context, outlines the association between structural variables, nursing roles and patient outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and synthesise the international literature surrounding nurse contributions to virtual models of primary care.Methods and analysis The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will guide this review. We performed preliminary searches in April 2022 and will use CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and APA PsycInfo for the collection of sources for this review. We will also consider grey literature, such as dissertations/theses and organisational reports, for inclusion. Studies will include nurses across all designations (ie, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, practical nurses). To ensure studies capture roles, nurses should be actively involved in healthcare delivery. Sources require a virtual care and primary care context; studies involving the use of digital technology without patient–provider interaction will be excluded. Following a pilot test, trained reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for inclusion and extract relevant data. Data will be organised using the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model, outlining the virtual care and primary care context (structure component) and the nursing role concept (process component).Ethics and dissemination This review will involve the collection and analysis of secondary sources that have been published and/or are publicly available. Therefore, ethics approval is not required. Scoping review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, targeting international primary care stakeholders.

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

Abstract Background Visa trainees (international medical graduates [IMG] who train in Canada under a student or employment visa) are expected to return home after completing their training. We examine the retention patterns of visa trainee residents funded by Canadian (regular ministry and other), foreign, or mixed sources. Methods We linked data from the Canadian Post-MD Medical Education Registry with Scott’s Medical Database for a retrospective cohort study. Eligible trainees were IMG visa trainees as of their first year of training, started their residency program no earlier than 2000, and exited training between 2006 and 2016. We used Cox regression to compare the retention of visa trainees by funding source. Results Of 1,913 visa trainees, 431(22.5%), 1353 (70.7%) and 129 (6.8%) had Canadian, foreign, or mixed funding, respectively. The proportion of trainees remaining in Canada decreased over time, with 35.5% (679/1913); 17.7% (186/1052); 10.8% (11/102) in Canada one, five, and ten years, respectively after their exit from PGME training. Trainees who remained on visas (HR: 1.91; [95% CI 1.59, 2.30]), were funded exclusively by foreign sources (HR: 1.46; [95% CI 1.25, 1.69]), and who had graduated from ‘Western’ countries (HR: 1.39; [95% CI 1.06, 1.84]) were more likely to leave Canada compared to trainees who became citizens/permanent residents, were funded by Canadian sources, or were visa graduates of Canadian medical schools, respectively. Conclusions Most visa trainees leave Canada following their training. Trainees with Canadian connections (funding and/or change in legal status) were more likely to remain in Canada.

Abstract Background The retirement of a family physician can represent a challenge in accessibility and continuity of care for patients. In this population-based, longitudinal cohort study, we assess whether and how long it takes for patients to find a new majority source of primary care (MSOC) when theirs retires, and we investigate the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on this process. Methods We used provincial health insurance records to identify the complete cohort of patients whose majority source of care left clinical practice in either 2007/2008 or 2008/2009 and then calculated the number of days between their last visit with their original MSOC and their first visit with their new one. We compared the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients who did and did not find a new MSOC in the three years following their original physician’s retirement using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. We also used Cox proportional hazards models to determine the adjusted association between patient age, sex, socioeconomic status, location and morbidity level (measured using Johns Hopkins’ Aggregated Diagnostic Groupings), and time to finding a new primary care physician. We produce survival curves stratified by patient age, sex, income and morbidity. Results Fifty-four percent of patients found a new MSOC within the first 12 months following their physician’s retirement. Six percent of patients still had not found a new physician after 36 months. Patients who were older and had higher levels of morbidity were more likely to find a new MSOC and found one faster than younger, healthier patients. Patients located in more urban regional health authorities also took longer to find a new MSOC compared to those in rural areas. Conclusions Primary care physician retirements represent a potential threat to accessibility; patients followed in this study took more than a year on average to find a new MSOC after their physician retired. Providing programmatic support to retiring physicians and their patients, as well as addressing shortages of longitudinal primary care more broadly could help to ensure smoother retirement transitions.

Abstract The Human Papillomavirus FOr CervicAL cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial is a large randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of primary HPV testing to cytology among women in the population‐based Cervix Screening Program in British Columbia, Canada. We conducted a cost‐effectiveness analysis based on the HPV FOCAL trial to estimate the incremental cost per detected high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse lesions (CIN2+). A total of 19,009 women aged 25 to 65 were randomized to one of two study groups. Women in the intervention group received primary HPV testing with reflex liquid‐based cytology (LBC) upon a positive finding with a screening interval of 48 months. Women in the control group received primary LBC testing, and those negative returned at 24 months for LBC and again at 48 months for exit screening. Both groups received HPV and LBC co‐testing at the 48‐month exit. Incremental costs during the course of the trial were comparable between the intervention and control groups. The intervention group had lower overall costs and detected a larger number of CIN2+ lesions, resulting in a lower mean cost per CIN2+ detected ($7551) than the control group ($8325), a difference of ‐$773 [all costs in 2018 USD]. Cost per detected lesion was sensitive to the costs of sample collection, HPV testing, and LBC testing. The HPV FOCAL Trial results suggest that primary HPV testing every 4 years produces similar outcomes to LBC‐based testing every 2 years for cervical cancer screening at a lower cost.

BackgroundSome Canadians have limited access to longitudinal primary care, despite its known advantages for population health. Current initiatives to transform primary care aim to increase access to team-based primary care clinics. However, many regions lack a reliable method to enumerate clinics, limiting estimates of clinical capacity and ongoing access gaps. A region-based complete clinic list is needed to effectively describe clinic characteristics and to compare primary care outcomes at the clinic level. ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to show how publicly available data sources, including the provincial physician license registry, can be used to generate a verifiable, region-wide list of primary care clinics in British Columbia, Canada, using a process named the Clinic List Algorithm (CLA). MethodsThe CLA has 10 steps: (1) collect data sets, (2) develop clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) process data sets, (4) consolidate data sets, (5) transform from list of physicians to initial list of clinics, (6) add additional metadata, (7) create working lists, (8) verify working lists, (9) consolidate working lists, and (10) adjust processing steps based on learnings. ResultsThe College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Registry contained 13,726 physicians, at 2915 unique addresses, 6942 (50.58%) of whom were family physicians (FPs) licensed to practice in British Columbia. The CLA identified 1239 addresses where primary care was delivered by 4262 (61.39%) FPs. Of the included addresses, 84.50% (n=1047) were in urban locations, and there was a median of 2 (IQR 2-4, range 1-23) FPs at each unique address. ConclusionsThe CLA provides a region-wide description of primary care clinics that improves on simple counts of primary care providers or self-report lists. It identifies the number and location of primary care clinics and excludes primary care providers who are likely not providing community-based primary care. Such information may be useful for estimates of capacity of primary care, as well as for policy planning and research in regions engaged in primary care evaluation or transformation.

Abstract Background There are ongoing accessibility challenges in primary care in British Columbia, Canada, with 17% of the population not having a regular source of care. Anecdotal evidence suggests that physicians are moving away from a community-based comprehensive practice model, which could contribute to shortages. Thus, we aimed to identify and describe how family physicians are currently organizing their primary care practices in a large health region in British Columbia and to examine differences between newer graduates and more established physicians. Methods Data for this cross-sectional study were drawn from an annual physician privileging survey. N = 1017 physicians were invited to participate. We categorized practice style into five distinct groupings and compared features across respondent groups, including personal and practice location characteristics, hospital and teaching work, payment and appointment characteristics, and scope of practice. We discuss the implications of styles of practice and associated characteristics on health workforce policy and planning. Results We received responses from 525 (51.6%) physicians. Of these, 355 (67.6%) reported doing at least some community-based primary care. However, only 112 (21.3%) provided this care full time. Most respondents supplemented community-based work with part-time hours in focused practice, hospitals, or inpatient facilities. We found diversity in the scope and style of practice across practice models. Compared to established physicians, new graduates (in practice less than 10 years) work more weekly hours (more patient care, and paperwork in particular). However, we found no difference between new and established physicians in the odds of providing any or full-time community-based primary care. Conclusions Despite a lack of formalized structural reform in British Columbia’s primary care system, most physicians are finding alternative ways to model their practice and shifting away from work at single-location, community-based clinics. This shift challenges assumptions that are relied on for workplace planning that is intended to ensure adequate access to longitudinal, community-based family medicine.

Abstract Background Nutrition is important for prostate cancer (PC) survivorship care to help achieve a healthy weight, reduce treatment side effects and reduce the risk of developing other chronic diseases. We aimed to advance the understanding of the nutritional needs of men with PC and services that could be potentially implemented to address them. Methods We conducted a needs assessment of nutrition services for men with PC drawing on four perspectives; 1) patient evaluation of a nutrition education session in British Columbia (BC), 2) survey of BC health professionals, 3) an environmental scan of existing nutrition services across Canada and 4) a scoping literature review. Results Patients expressed a need for more nutrition information and a desire for additional nutrition services. More than 60% of health professionals believed there is a need for more nutrition services for men with PC, and reported the focus should be on weight management or management of PC progression. The environmental scan revealed few existing services for men with PC across Canada, most were inclusive of multiple cancers and not tailored for men with PC. Eighteen completed studies were identified in the scoping literature review. The majority provided combined diet and exercise programs with various formats of delivery such as individual, group and home-based. Overall, 78% of studies reported improvements in one or more of the following measures: dietary intake/ diet quality, body composition, self-efficacy, quality of life, fatigue, practicing health behavior goals and physical function/ exercise. Four studies assessed feasibility, adherence or satisfaction with all reporting positive findings. Conclusion Despite the high prevalence of PC in Canada, and the perceived need for more support by patients and health professionals, there are limited nutrition services for men with PC. Evidence from the literature suggests nutrition services are effective and well-accepted by men with PC. Our findings define a need for standardized nutrition services for men with PC that assess and meet long term nutritional needs. Our findings also provide insight into the type and delivery of nutrition services that may help close the gap in care for men with PC.

Abstract Background Family medicine (FM) residents choose among a range of options as they enter practice, including practice model, clinical domains, settings, and populations. The choices they make have implications for primary care workforce planning and may differ between FM residents who are parents and those who are not, as well as between male and female FM residents. We investigate whether parenthood shapes intentions among FM residents entering practice and whether the effect of parenthood differs between male and female FM residents. Methods We conducted cross-sectional analysis of national survey data collected from FM residents in Canadian residency programs by the College of Family Physicians of Canada between 2014 and 2017. The survey captures information on intentions for comprehensive or focused practice, practice model, clinical domains, practice setting, and populations. We used chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate the relationships between parenthood, gender, and practice intentions, adjusting for other physician personal characteristics. Results Almost a quarter of FM residents were parents or became parents during residency. Intentions for the provision comprehensive care were higher among parents, and intentions for clinically focused practice were lower. Differences in intentions for practice models, domains, and settings/population were primarily by gender, though in several cases the effects of parenthood differed between female and male FM residents. Even during residency, the effects of parenthood differ between male and female residents: while three quarters of male parents finish residency in two years, fewer than half of female parents do. Conclusions Both parenthood and gender independently shape practice intentions, but the effect of parenthood differs for male and female FM residents. Supporting FM residents who are parents may positively impact the quality and availability of primary care services, especially since parents are more likely to report intentions to provide comprehensive care soon after entering 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.