Search

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to understand virtual care use (e.g. telephone and video visits) during the COVID-19 pandemic across three hospital-based ambulatory clinics (i.e. mental health, renal and respiratory care) and to describe associated patient and provider experiences.Design/methodology/approachA mixed-methods convergent study was conducted including quantitative electronic medical records data on virtual care use, electronic surveys assessing domains of experience (e.g. satisfaction, acceptance and technology use) among patient and providers and semi-structured interviews exploring the associated barriers and facilitators of virtual care adoption.FindingsVirtual care adoption rates and relative modality use (telephone vs video) varied across specialty clinics. Mental health clinics) showed the greatest use of virtual care and greater use of video over telephone, as compared to renal and respiratory care, where telephone was used almost exclusively. Patients and providers reported an overall good satisfaction and acceptance of virtual care (60–72%) across clinics, but commonly observed barriers (technical problems, behavioral adaptations needed and inequity) persisted. Good value propositions, tech support and the presence of early adopters who can support others in workflow re-design and highlight value propositions of virtual care were listed as adoption facilitators.Originality/valueThe study provides a unique opportunity to compare the rate of virtual care adoption before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across distinct specialties that operate within the same organizational and political setting. This study showed that the nature of the condition (e.g. mental health conditions) and the characteristics of the users (e.g. younger patients) may drive models of care with higher rate of video use. Focusing on removing common barriers, like providing tech support and ensuring equitable access to patients, continues to be important even in the context of high virtual care adoption rates during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of virtual visits on primary care physician (PCP) work flows. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING: Primary care practices within 5 regions in southern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians representing primary care practices of various sizes and remuneration models (eg, capitation and fee-for-service models). METHODS: Interviews were conducted with PCPs involved in a large-scale pilot project implementing virtual visits (via a Web-based application) into clinical practices. Convenience and purposive sampling were used to recruit PCPs between January 2018 and March 2019. To obtain a representative sample, participants were sought from a variety of practice types and geographic regions. High and low users of virtual visits were included. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify prominent themes and subthemes. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty-six physicians were interviewed (n=15 using convenience sampling and n=11 through purposive sampling). Four themes were identified: PCPs employ diverse approaches to integrate virtual care into their work flow; PCPs recognize that implementing virtual visits requires upfront time and effort but have variable perceptions regarding long-term impact of virtual care on processes; asynchronous messaging is preferable to synchronous audio or video visits; and strategies were identified to improve the integration of virtual visits. CONCLUSION: The potential of virtual care to improve work flow is dependent on the way these visits are implemented and used. Dedicated time for implementation, emphasis on using asynchronous secure messaging, and access to clinical champions and structured change management support were associated with more seamless integration of virtual visits.

OBJECTIVES To quantify the extent of patient-level agreement among 3 published measures of low-value imaging for acute low back pain (LBP). STUDY DESIGN In this retrospective cohort study using commercial insurance claims from MarketScan, we assessed 3 published measures of low-value imaging for agreement in identifying LBP diagnoses (denominator), red-flag diagnoses (denominator exclusions), and imaging procedures (numerator). METHODS Using a cohort of patients, aged 18 to 64 years, with a diagnosis of LBP in 2014, we assessed agreement surrounding both the overuse event (imaging procedures) and inclusion in the reference population (LBP definition and exclusion diagnoses) using percent agreement and Fleiss κ among 3 overuse measures. RESULTS In our cohort of 1,835,620 patients with acute LBP, the 3 measures agreed 100% on the presence of acute LBP and also had excellent agreement (99%; κ = 0.98) in identifying imaging for LBP. However, there was substantial disagreement on whom to exclude for red-flag diagnoses, leading to lower agreement (75%; κ = 0.61) on whom to include in the reference population of acute LBP without red flags, among whom imaging for LBP is considered of low value. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate the need for further consensus surrounding how to translate guideline recommendations to administrative measures that assess overuse of imaging for acute LBP, particularly with respect to defining which patients should be excluded from the measures. This finding is also important for other overuse measures that rely on exclusions.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) allows providers to monitor COVID-19-positive patients with variable trajectories while reducing the risk of transmission to others and ensuring health care capacity in acute care facilities. The objective of this descriptive analysis was to assess the initial adoption, feasibility and safety of a family medicine-led remote monitoring program, COVIDCare@Home, to manage the care of patients with COVID-19 in the community. METHODS: COVIDCare@Home is a multifaceted, interprofessional team-based remote monitoring program developed at an ambulatory academic centre, the Women's College Hospital in Toronto. A descriptive analysis of the first cohort of patients admitted from Apr. 8 to May 11, 2020, was conducted. Lessons from the implementation of the program are described, focusing on measure of adoption (number of visits per patient total, with a physician or with a nurse; length of follow-up), feasibility (received an oximeter or thermometer; consultation with general internal medicine, social work or mental health, pharmacy or acute ambulatory care unit) and safety (hospitalizations, mortality and emergency department visits). RESULTS: The COVIDCare@Home program cared for a first cohort of 97 patients (median age 41 yr, 67% female) with 415 recorded virtual visits. Patients had a median time from positive testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to first appointment of 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) days, with a median virtual follow-up time of 8 (IQR 5-10) days. A total of 4 (4%) had an emergency department visit, with no patients requiring hospitalization and no deaths; 16 (16%) of patients required support with mental and social health needs. INTERPRETATION: A family medicine-led, team-based remote monitoring program can safely manage the care of outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. Virtual care approaches, particularly those that support patients with more complex health and social needs, may be an important part of ongoing health system efforts to manage subsequent waves of COVID-19 and other diseases.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is thought to have increased use of virtual care, but population-based studies are lacking. We aimed to assess the uptake of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic using comprehensive population-based data from Ontario. Methods This was a repeated cross-sectional study design. We used administrative data to evaluate changes in in-person and virtual visits among all residents of Ontario before (2012-2019) and during (January-August 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. We included all patients who had an ambulatory care visit in Ontario. We excluded claims for patients who were not Ontario residents or had an invalid or missing health card number. We compared monthly or quarterly virtual care use across age groups, neighbourhood income quintiles and chronic disease subgroups. We also examined physician characteristics that may have been associated with virtual care use. Results Among all residents of Ontario (population 14.6 million), virtual care increased from 1.6% of total ambulatory visits in the second quarter of 2019 to 70.6% in the second quarter of 2020. The proportion of physicians who provided 1 or more virtual visits per year increased from 7.0% in the second quarter of 2019 to 85.9% in the second quarter of 2020. The proportion of Ontarians who had a virtual visit increased from 1.3% in 2019 to 29.2% in 2020. Older patients were the highest users of virtual care. The proportion of total virtual visits that were provided to patients residing in rural areas (v. urban areas) declined significantly between 2012 and 2020, reflecting a shift in virtual care to a service increasingly used in urban centres. The rates of virtual care use increased similarly across all conditions and across all income quintiles. Interpretation Our findings show that Ontario's approach to virtual care led to broad adoption across all provider groups, patient age, types of chronic diseases and neighborhood income. These findings have policy implications, including use of virtual care billing codes, for the ongoing use of virtual care during the second wave of the pandemic and beyond.

Background: There are limited data on the association of material deprivation with clinical care and outcomes after atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis in jurisdictions with universal health care. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study of individuals ≥66 years of age with first diagnosis of AF between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, in the Canadian province of Ontario, which provides public funding and prohibits private payment for medically necessary physician and hospital services. Prescription medications are subsidized for residents >65 years of age. The primary exposure was neighborhood material deprivation, a metric derived from Canadian census data to estimate inability to attain basic material needs. Neighborhoods were categorized by quintile from Q1 (least deprived) to Q5 (most deprived). Cause-specific hazards regression was used to study the association of material deprivation quintile with time to AF-related adverse events (death or hospitalization for stroke, heart failure, or bleeding), clinical services (physician visits, cardiac diagnostics), and interventions (anticoagulation, cardioversion, ablation) while adjusting for individual characteristics and regional cardiologist supply. Results: Among 347 632 individuals with AF (median age 79 years, 48.9% female), individuals in the most deprived neighborhoods (Q5) had higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, risk factors, and noncardiovascular comorbidity relative to residents of the least deprived neighborhoods (Q1). After adjustment, Q5 residents had higher hazards of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13–1.20]) and hospitalization for stroke (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.07–1.27]), heart failure (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.11–1.18]), or bleeding (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.07–1.25]) relative to Q1. There were small differences across quintiles in primary care physician visits (HR, Q5 versus Q1, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.89–0.92]), echocardiography (HR, Q5 versus Q1, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96–0.99]), and dispensation of anticoagulation (HR, Q5 versus Q1, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95–0.98]). There were more prominent disparities for Q5 versus Q1 in cardiologist visits (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.82–0.86]), cardioversion (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.76–0.84]), and ablation (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.30–0.67]). Conclusions: Despite universal health care and prescription medication coverage, residents of more deprived neighborhoods were less likely to visit cardiologists or receive rhythm control interventions after AF diagnosis, even though they exhibited higher cardiovascular disease burden and higher risk of adverse outcomes.

It is unknown whether the annual number of primary care physician (PCP) unique outpatient assessments, hereto termed clinical volume, translates into better cardiovascular preventive care. We examined the relationship between PCP outpatient clinical volumes and cholesterol testing and major adverse cardiovascular event rates among guideline recommended eligible patients.This was a retrospective cohort study conducted as part of the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team (CANHEART) cohort, a population-based cohort of almost all adult residents of Ontario, Canada, followed between 2008 and 2012. For each clinical volume quintile, we compared cholesterol testing and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as time to first event of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke.The 10,037 PCPs evaluated had an annualized median volume of 2303 clinical encounters (IQR, 1292-3680). Among 4,740,380 patients, 84% underwent guideline-concordant cholesterol testing at least once over 5 years, ranging from 73% among the lowest clinical volume quintile physicians to 86% among the highest. After multivariable adjustment, there was a 10.5% relative increase in the probability of cholesterol testing for every doubling of clinical volumes (95% CI, 9.7-11.4, P0.001). Patients treated by the lowest volume physicians had the highest rate of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with the highest quintile volume physicians (adjusted HR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21; P0.001).Patients of physicians with the lowest clinical volumes received less frequent cholesterol testing and had the highest rate of incident cardiovascular events. Further research investigating the drivers of this relationship is warranted.

Overcoming barriers to health system innovation is an ongoing challenge in Canada. A total of 51 participants attended a digital health symposium in October 2017 to discuss the role of an academic medical centre (AMC) in advancing innovation. The conversation centred around (i) the current state of innovation in healthcare; (ii) the need for an innovation catalyst; and (iii) the roadmap for an AMC to drive change. AMCs can address the barriers to digital health innovation in Canada by providing a centralized network and infrastructure that supports innovation throughout its journey from “bench to bedside” as well as supporting educational reform.

There are limited data on the yield of routine cardiac imaging for trastuzumab-treated patients with breast cancer.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab between 2007 and 2012 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada). We classified imaging tests as clinically prompted or routinely ordered and determined whether each test led to changes in patient care. A generalized estimating equation model was used to determine if patient characteristics predicted routine studies more likely to change care. We analysed routine tests that were exclusively preceded by consecutive tests that did not change care to determine if their yield differed by time since trastuzumab start and the number of prior tests that did not change care.We identified 448 patients who received 1735 cardiac imaging studies after trastuzumab initiation. Of 1555 routine tests, 44 led to changes in care (2.8%) for 43 patients, whereas 50 of 180 clinically prompted tests (27.8%) altered care in 29 patients (P-value0.001). Earlier stage cancer, diabetes, prior anthracyclines, and prior cardiovascular disease were associated with a higher likelihood of changes in care following routine tests (P-value0.05). Among routine tests that were exclusively preceded by consecutive tests that did not change care, tests ordered outside months 3-9 and those that followed ≥ 3 tests were even less likely to change care.Routine cardiac imaging tests rarely changed care for trastuzumab-treated patients with breast cancer, particularly among lower risk anthracycline-naïve women who had multiple prior tests that did not change care.

During the last decade healthcare leaders, along with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, have called for major efforts to curb the high cost of healthcare by reducing unnecessary care and eliminating waste.1 2 While these efforts have enjoyed substantial success in terms of raising awareness of unnecessary care among selected physician groups, there has been limited uptake among the majority of patients and providers. Members of the public have continued to worry more about underuse than overuse.3 Healthcare providers continue to deliver low-value care because of the lack of sufficient incentive to behave otherwise.4–6 The COVID-19 pandemic may lead to fundamental behaviour change. Now patients and healthcare providers will need to do a new kind of calculus of weighing the benefits of care against the ‘cost of contact’. For patients and providers, the risk of acquiring COVID-19 from any physical interaction with the healthcare system now constitutes a palpable cost of contact. Acutely aware of the potential risks of physical contact with the health system, many patients are deferring medical care they do not regard as essential,7 8 out of fear of contracting COVID-19. One recent analysis in the USA indicates that, while 30% of ambulatory care visits now occur virtually, the combined volume of in-person and virtual visits has decreased by 40% from prepandemic levels.9 10 Sitting in a crowded waiting room for a routine medical appointment or screening test no longer seems worth the risk. Providers also view the cost of contact with fresh eyes and a more palpable sense of risk, including the risks associated with contracting COVID and consequent transmission to other personnel, as well as consuming scarce materials, like personal protective equipment (PPE). Patients and providers will share the goal of limiting interactions with the healthcare system to medically necessary …

BACKGROUND Vision loss from diabetic retinopathy (DR) is preventable through regular screening. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to test different patient engagement approaches to expand a teleophthalmology program at a primary care clinic in the city of Toronto, Canada. METHODS A teleophthalmology program was set up in a large urban academic team-based primary care practice. Patients over 18 years of age, with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of four engagement strategies: a phone call, a letter, a letter plus phone call, or usual care. Outreach was conducted by administrative staff within the clinic. The primary outcome was booking an appointment RESULTS Twenty three patients in the phone, 28 in the mail, 32 in the mail and phone, and 27 in the control (usual care) were included in the analysis. After the intervention, 88% of patients in the phone, 11% in the mail, and 100% in the mail and phone group booked an appointment with the teleophthalmology program compared to 0% in the control group. Phoning patients positively predicted patients booking a teleophthalmology appointment (p< .0001), while sending a letter had no effect. CONCLUSIONS Patient engagement to book DR screening via teleophthalmology in an urban academic team-based primary care practice using telephone calls was much more effective than letters or usual care. Practices that have access to a local DR screening programs and have resources for such engagement strategies should consider using them as a means in improving their DR screening rates.

BACKGROUND Telemedicine use has become widespread due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but how this has impacted patient outcomes remain unclear. OBJECTIVE We sought to investigate the effect of telemedicine use on changes in healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with congestive heart failure. METHODS We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients were included if they had at least one ambulatory visit between March 14, 2020 and September 30, 2020 and a heart failure diagnosis anytime prior to March 14, 2020. Telemedicine users were propensity score-matched with unexposed users based on several baseline characteristics. Monthly use of various healthcare services was compared between the two groups during 12 months before to 3 months after their index in-person or virtual ambulatory visit after March 14, 2020 using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS A total of 11,131 pairs of telemedicine and unexposed patients were identified after matching (49% male, mean(SD) age 78.9(12.0) years). All patients showed significant reductions in health service use from pre- to post-index visit. There was a greater decline across time in the unexposed group compared to the telemedicine group for CHF admissions (ratio of slopes for high vs low user (95% CI), 1.02 (1.02-1.03)), cardiovascular admissions (1.03 (1.02-1.04)), any-cause admissions (1.03 (1.02-1.04)), any-cause ED visits (1.03 (1.03-1.04)), visits with any cardiologist (1.01 (1.01-1.02)), lab tests (1.02 (1.02-1.03)), diagnostic tests (1.04 (1.03-1.05)), and new prescriptions (1.02 (1.01-1.03)). However, the decline in primary care visit rates was steeper among telemedicine patients than unexposed patients (ratio of slopes (95% CI), 0.99 (0.99-1.00)). CONCLUSIONS Overall healthcare utilization over time appeared higher among telemedicine users than low or non-users, suggesting that telemedicine was used among patients with the greatest need, or that it allowed patients to have better access and/or continuity of care among those who received it.

Background Telemedicine adoption has grown significantly due to the coronavirus of 2019 pandemic; however, it remains unclear what the impact of widespread telemedicine use is on healthcare utilization among individuals with psychosis. Objectives To investigate the impact of telemedicine use on changes in healthcare utilization among patients with chronic psychotic disorders (CPDs). Study Design We conducted a population-based, retrospective propensity-matched cohort study using healthcare administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients were included if they had at least one ambulatory visit between March 14, 2020 and September 30, 2020 and a CPD diagnosis any time before March 14, 2020. Telemedicine users (2+ virtual visits after March 14, 2020) were propensity score-matched 1:1 with standard care users (minimum of 1 in-person or virtual ambulatory visit and maximum of 1 virtual visit after March 14, 2020) based on several baseline characteristics. Monthly use of various healthcare services was compared between the two groups from 12 months before to 3 months after their index in-person or virtual ambulatory visit after March 14, 2020 using generalized estimating equations (eg, hospitalizations, emergency department [ED] visits, and outpatient physician visits). The slope of change over the study period (ie, rate ratio) as well as a ratio of slopes, were calculated for both telemedicine and standard care groups for each outcome. Study Results A total of 18 333 pairs of telemedicine and standard care patients were identified after matching (60.8% male, mean [SD] age 45.4 [16.3] years). There was a significantly greater decline across time in the telemedicine group compared to the standard care group for ED visits due to any psychiatric conditions (ratio of slopes for telemedicine vs standard care (95% CI), 0.98 (0.98 to 0.99)). However, declines in primary care visit rates (ratio of slopes for telemedicine vs standard care (1.01 (1.01 to 1.02)), mental health outpatient visits with primary care (1.03 (1.03 to 1.04)), and all-cause outpatient visits with primary care (1.01 (1.01 to 1.02)), were steeper among the standard care group than telemedicine group. Conclusions Overall, patients with CPDs appeared to benefit from telemedicine as evidenced by increased outpatient healthcare utilization and reductions in ED visits due to psychiatric conditions. This suggests that telemedicine may have allowed this patient group to have better access and continuity of care during the initial waves of the pandemic.

Background Funding 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. Objective The 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. Methods This 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. Results Virtual 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. Conclusions Compared 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.

Background Vision loss from diabetic-related retinopathy (DR) is preventable through regular screening. Objective The purpose of this study was to test different patient engagement approaches to expand a teleophthalmology program at a primary care clinic in the city of Toronto, Canada. Methods A teleophthalmology program was set up in a large, urban, academic, team-based primary care practice. Patients older than 18 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of the following 4 engagement strategies: phone call, mail, mail plus phone call, or usual care. Outreach was conducted by administrative staff within the clinic. The primary outcome was booking an appointment for DR screening. Results A total of 23 patients in the phone, 28 in the mail, 32 in the mail plus phone call, and 27 in the control (usual care) group were included in the analysis. After the intervention and after excluding patients who said they were screened, 88% (15/17) of patients in the phone, 11% (2/18) in the mail, and 100% (21/21) in the mail and phone group booked an appointment with the teleophthalmology program compared to 0% (0/12) in the control group. Phoning patients positively predicted patients booking a teleophthalmology appointment (P Conclusions Patient engagement to book DR screening via teleophthalmology in an urban, academic, team-based primary care practice using telephone calls was much more effective than patient engagement using letters or usual care. Practices that have access to a local DR screening program and have resources for such engagement strategies should consider using them as a means to improve their DR screening rates. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03927859; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03927859

BACKGROUND COVIDCare@Home (CC@H) is a multifaceted, interprofessional team-based remote monitoring program led by family medicine for patients diagnosed with COVID-19, based at Women’s College Hospital (WCH), an ambulatory academic center in Toronto, Canada. CC@H offers virtual visits (phone and video) to address the clinical needs and broader social determinants of the health of patients during the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, including finding a primary care provider (PCP) and support for food insecurity. OBJECTIVE The objective of this evaluation is to understand the implementation and quality outcomes of CC@H within the Quadruple Aim framework of patient experience, provider experience, cost, and population health. METHODS This multimethod cross-sectional evaluation follows the Quadruple Aim framework to focus on implementation and service quality outcomes, including feasibility, adoption, safety, effectiveness, equity, and patient centeredness. These measures were explored using clinical and service utilization data, patient experience data (an online survey and a postdischarge questionnaire), provider experience data (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), and stakeholder interviews. Descriptive analysis was conducted for surveys and utilization data. Deductive analysis was conducted for interviews and focus groups, mapping to implementation and quality domains. The Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg) measured the proportion of underserved patients accessing CC@H. RESULTS In total, 3412 visits were conducted in the first 8 months of the program (April 8-December 8, 2020) for 616 discrete patients, including 2114 (62.0%) visits with family physician staff/residents and 149 (4.4%) visits with social workers/mental health professionals. There was a median of 5 (IQR 4) visits per patient, with a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR 27). The net promoter score was 77. In addition, 144 (23.3%) of the patients were in the most marginalized populations based on the residential postal code (as per ON-Marg). Interviews with providers and stakeholders indicated that the program continued to adapt to meet the needs of patients and the health care system. CONCLUSIONS Future remote monitoring should integrate support for addressing the social determinants of health and ensure patient-centered care through comprehensive care teams.

Background The relationship between health care utilization and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation is unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate whether cardiologists’ billing amounts in a fee‐for‐service environment are associated with better patient‐level clinical outcomes. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data of cardiologists in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016. The cardiologists were stratified into quintiles based on their median billing patterns per patient over the observation period. The primary outcomes were patient‐level receipt of repeat visits, cardiac diagnostic tests, and medications ≤1 year of index date. The secondary clinical outcomes were death, emergency department visits, and all‐cause hospitalization 1‐year post‐index visit. The patient cohort comprised 182 572 patients with atrial fibrillation (median age 74 years, 58% male) from 467 cardiologists. Patients with atrial fibrillation seen by higher‐billing cardiologists were 26% more likely to have an echocardiogram (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.10–1.43] for quintile 5 versus 2), 28% a stress test (aOR, 1.28 [1.12–1.46] for quintile 5 versus 2), 25% continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (aOR, 1.25 [1.08–1.46] for quintile 4 versus 2), and 79% more likely to get a stress echocardiogram (aOR, 1.79 [1.32–2.42] for quintile 5 versus 2). They also had a higher rate of all‐cause hospitalization (aOR, 1.13 [1.07–1.20]). Mortality rates were similar across cardiologists billing quintiles (eg, aOR, 0.98 [0.87–1.11] for quintile 4 versus 2). Conclusions Higher‐billing cardiologists ordered more diagnostic tests per patient with atrial fibrillation but these are not associated with improvements in outcomes.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic shift in the delivery of outpatient medicine with reduced in-person visits and a transition to predominantly virtual visits. We sought to understand trends in visit patterns for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) commonly seen in internal medicine clinics. Methods We included adult outpatients seen for an ACSC between March 15th, 2017 and March 14th, 2021 at a single-centre in Ontario, Canada. Monthly visits were assessed by visit type (new consultation, follow-up), diagnosis, and clinic. Time series analyses compared visit volumes pre- and post-pandemic. Proportion of virtual visits were compared before and during the pandemic. Patient and visit factors were compared between in-person and virtual visits. Results 8274 patients with 34,021 visits were included. Monthly visits increased by 15% during the pandemic (p p = 0.0053) but follow-up visits increased by 21% (p p 95% of diabetes visits were virtual. Conclusions We found a significant increase in overall visits to internal medicine clinics driven by increased volumes of follow-up visits, which more than offset decreased new consultations. There was variability in visit trends and uptake of virtual care by visit diagnosis, which may indicate challenges with delivery of virtual care for certain conditions.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rapid increase in virtual care use across the globe. Many health care systems have responded by creating virtual care billing codes that allow physicians to see their patients over telephone or video. This rapid liberalization of billing requirements, both in Canada and other countries, has led to concerns about potential abuse, but empirical data are limited. Objective The objectives of this study were to examine whether there were substantial changes in physicians’ ambulatory visit volumes coinciding with the liberalization of virtual care billing rules and to describe the characteristics of physicians who significantly increased their ambulatory visit volumes during this period. We also sought to describe the relationship between visit volume changes in 2020 and the volumes of virtual care use among individual physicians and across specialties. Methods We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using health administrative data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which was linked to the ICES Physician Database. We identified a unique cohort of providers based on physicians’ billings and calculated the ratio of total in-person and virtual ambulatory visits over the period from January to June 2020 (virtual predominating) relative to that over the period from January to June 2019 (in-person predominating) for each physician. Based on these ratios, we then stratified physicians into four groups: low-, same-, high-, and very high–use physicians. We then calculated various demographic and practice characteristics of physicians in each group. Results Among 28,383 eligible physicians in 2020, the mean ratio of ambulatory visits in January to June 2020:2019 was 0.99 (SD 2.53; median 0.81, IQR 0.59-1.0). Out of 28,383 physicians, only 2672 (9.4%) fell into the high-use group and only 291 (1.0%) fell into the very high–use group. High-use physicians were younger, more recent graduates, more likely female, and less likely to be international graduates. They also had, on average, lower-volume practices. There was a significant positive correlation between percent virtual care and the 2020:2019 ratio only in the group of physicians who maintained their practice (R=0.35, P Conclusions During the early stages of the pandemic, the introduction of virtual care did not lead to significant increases in visit volume. Our results provide reassuring evidence that relaxation of billing requirements early in the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario were not associated with widespread and aberrant billing behaviors. Furthermore, the strong relationship between the ability to maintain practice volumes and the use of virtual care suggests that the introduction of virtual care allowed for continued access to care for patients.

Purpose It is currently unclear how the shift towards virtual care during the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic may have impacted chronic disease management at a population level. The goals of our study were to provide a description of the levels of use of virtual care services relative to in-person care in patients with chronic disease across Ontario, Canada and to describe levels of healthcare utilization in low versus high virtual care users. Methods We used linked health administrative data to conduct a population-based, repeated cross-sectional study of all ambulatory patient visits in Ontario, Canada (January 1, 2018 to January 16, 2021). Further stratifications were also completed to examine patients with COPD, heart failure, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, mental illness, and angina. Patients were classified as low (max 1 virtual care visit) vs. high virtual care users. A time-series analysis was done using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling on weekly hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and diagnostic tests. Results The use of virtual care increased across all chronic disease patient populations. Virtual care constituted at least half of the total care in all conditions. Both low and high virtual care user groups experienced a statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations and laboratory testing at the start of the pandemic. Hospitalization volumes increased again only among the high users, while testing increased in both groups. Outpatient visits among high users remained unaffected by the pandemic but dropped in low users. Conclusion The decrease of in-person care during the pandemic was accompanied by an increase in virtual care, which ultimately allowed patients with chronic disease to return to the same visit rate as they had before the onset of the pandemic. Virtual care was adopted across various chronic conditions, but the relative adoption of virtual care varied by condition with highest rates seen in mental health.

IMPORTANCE: Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured. OBJECTIVE: To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences. FINDINGS: A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-019-05069-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings. Methods The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12 months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients. Discussion This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2427-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.