Search

Abstract Background Health administrative data is increasingly being used for chronic disease surveillance. This study explored agreement between administrative and survey data for ascertainment of seven key chronic diseases, using individually linked data from a large population of individuals in Ontario, Canada. Methods All adults who completed any one of three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001, 2003 or 2005) and agreed to have their responses linked to provincial health administrative data were included. The sample population included 85,549 persons. Previously validated case definitions for myocardial infarction, asthma, diabetes, chronic lung disease, stroke, hypertension and congestive heart failure based on hospital and physician billing codes were used to identify cases in health administrative data and these were compared with self-report of each disease from the survey. Concordance was measured using the Kappa statistic, percent positive and negative agreement and prevalence estimates. Results Agreement using the Kappa statistic was good or very good (kappa range: 0.66-0.80) for diabetes and hypertension, moderate for myocardial infarction and asthma and poor or fair (kappa range: 0.29-0.36) for stroke, congestive heart failure and COPD. Prevalence was higher in health administrative data for all diseases except stroke and myocardial infarction. Health Utilities Index scores were higher for cases identified by health administrative data compared with self-reported data for some chronic diseases (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure), suggesting that administrative data may pick up less severe cases. Conclusions In the general population, discordance between self-report and administrative data was large for many chronic diseases, particularly disease with low prevalence, and differences were not easily explained by individual and disease characteristics.

Abstract Background Immigrants make up one fifth of the Canadian population and this number continues to grow. Adequate access to primary health care is important for this population but it is not clear if this is being achieved. This study explored patient reported access to primary health care of a population of immigrants in Ontario, Canada who were users of the primary care system and compared this with Canadian-born individuals; and by model of primary care practice. Methods This study uses data from the Comparison of Models of Primary Care Study (COMP-PC), a mixed-methods, practice-based, cross-sectional study that collected information from patients and providers in 137 primary care practices across Ontario, Canada in 2005-2006. The practices were randomly sampled to ensure an equal number of practices in each of the four dominant primary care models at that time: Fee-For-Service, Community Health Centres, and the two main capitation models (Health Service Organization and Family Health Networks). Adult patients of participating practices were identified when they presented for an appointment and completed a survey in the waiting room. Three measures of access were used, all derived from the patient survey: First Contact Access, First Contact Utilization (both based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool) and number of self-reported visits to the practice in the past year. Results Of the 5,269 patients who reported country of birth 1,099 (20.8%) were born outside of Canada. In adjusted analysis, recent immigrants (arrival in Canada within the past five years) and immigrants in Canada for more than 20 years were less likely to report good health compared to Canadian-born (Odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36,0.92 and 0.81, 95% CI 0.67,0.99). Overall, immigrants reported equal access to primary care services compared with Canadian-born. Within immigrant groups recently arrived immigrants had similar access scores to Canadian-born but reported 5.3 more primary care visits after adjusting for health status. Looking across models, recent immigrants in Fee-For-Service practices reported poorer access and fewer primary care visits compared to Canadian-born. Conclusions Overall, immigrants who were users of the primary care system reported a similar level of access as Canadian-born individuals. While recent immigrants are in poorer health compared with Canadian-born they report adequate access to primary care. The differences in access for recently arrived immigrants, across primary care models suggests that organizational features of primary care may lead to inequity in access.

Abstract Background The prevalence of multiple chronic diseases is increasing and is a common problem for primary health care providers. This study sought to determine the patient and health system burden of multiple chronic diseases among adults in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on the ambulatory health care system (outpatient primary health care and specialist services). Methods This population-based study used linked health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Individuals, aged 20 years or older, who had a valid health card, were included. Validated case definitions were used to identify persons with at least one of the following nine chronic diseases: diabetes, congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension, asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, peripheral vascular disease and end stage renal failure. Prevalence estimates for chronic diseases were calculated for April 1, 2009. Ambulatory physician billing records for the two-year period, April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010, were used to identify the number of outpatient ambulatory care visits. Results In 2009, 26.3% of Ontarians had one chronic disease, 10.3% had two diseases, and 5.6% had three or more diseases. Annual mean primary health care use increased significantly with each additional chronic disease. Overall, there were twice as many patient visits to primary health care providers compared to specialists across all chronic disease counts. Among those with multiple diseases, primary health care visits increased with advancing age, while specialist care dropped off. While persons with three or more diseases accounted for a disproportionate share of primary health care visits, the largest number of visits were made by those with no or one chronic disease. Conclusions The burden of care for persons with multiple chronic diseases is considerable and falls largely on the primary health care provider. However persons with no or one chronic disease are responsible for the largest number of ambulatory health care visits overall. Continued investment in primary health care is needed both to care for those with multiple diseases and to prevent the accumulation of chronic diseases with aging.

Summary: Background: The assessment of clinical competence is critical in medical education. Understanding the effect of general experience on a physician's self‐assessment would help design more effective curricula and evaluations of procedural skills in postgraduate training and continuing professional development (CPD). In this observational study, we assessed the effect of general experience on the correlation between confidence and competence amongst experienced clinicians (ECs) and postgraduate trainees (PGTs) when learning an office‐based procedure in pessary care. Methods: We recruited 19 first‐year family medicine residents and 18 family medicine faculty members in two outpatient academic clinics. All participants attended a simulation‐based workshop for a routine gynaecological office procedure. We used a confidence survey as a measure of the participants' self‐assessed competence and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate participants' competence before and after the workshop. The assessment of clinical competence is critical in medical education Results: We found no significant correlation between confidence and competence at baseline for either group (EC, r = 0.25, p = 0.35; PGT, r = 0.15, p = 0.60). After the workshop, we observed a statistically significant correlation between confidence and competence for ECs (r = 0.60, p = 0.01), but not for PGTs. The change in this correlation was not statistically significant for either group, however. Discussion: Our findings suggest that ECs are not any more accurate in the assessment of their competence compared with PGTs. All procedural skills curricula can benefit from OSCE‐format evaluation to better evaluate the improvement in performance of participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Problem Addressed: A key priority in primary health care research is determining how to ensure the advancement of new family physician clinician investigators (FP-CIs). However, there is little consensus on what expectations should be implemented for new investigators to ensure the successful and timely acquisition of independent salary support., Objective of Program: Support new FP-CIs to maximize early career research success., Program Description: This program description aims to summarize the administrative and financial support provided by the C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre in Ottawa, Ont, to early career FP-CIs; delineate career expectations; and describe the results in terms of research productivity on the part of new FP-CIs., Conclusion: Family physician CI's achieved a high level of research productivity during their first 5 years, but most did not secure external salary support. It might be unrealistic to expect new FP-CIs to be self-financing by the end of 5 years. This is a career-development program, and supporting new career FP-CIs requires a long-term investment. This understanding is critical to fostering and strengthening sustainable primary care research programs.

Objective: To describe patient-reported access to primary health care across 4 organizational models of primary care in Ontario, and to explore how access is associated with patient, provider, and practice characteristics., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: One hundred thirty-seven randomly selected primary care practices in Ontario using 1 of 4 delivery models (fee for service, established capitation, reformed capitation, and community health centres)., Participants: Patients included were at least 18 years of age, were not severely ill or cognitively impaired, were not known to the survey administrator, had consenting providers at 1 of the participating primary care practices, and were able to communicate in English or French either directly or through a translator., Main Outcome Measures: Patient-reported access was measured by a 4-item scale derived from the previously validated adult version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool. Questions were asked about physician availability during and outside of regular office hours and access to health information via telephone. Responses to the scale were normalized, with higher scores reflecting greater patient-reported access. Linear regressions were used to identify characteristics independently associated with access to care., Results: Established capitation model practices had the highest patient-reported access, although the difference in scores between models was small. Our multilevel regression model identified several patient factors that were significantly (P = .05) associated with higher patient-reported access, including older age, female sex, good-to-excellent self-reported health, less mental health disability, and not working. Provider experience (measured as years since graduation) was the only provider or practice characteristic independently associated with improved patient-reported access., Conclusion: This study adds to what is known about access to primary care. The study found that established capitation models outperformed all the other organizational models, including reformed capitation models, independent of provider and practice variables save provider experience. This suggests that the capitation models might provide better access to care and that it might take time to realize the benefits of organizational reforms.