Access to primary health care: perspectives of primary care physicians and community stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Action on the social determinants of health is important to strengthen primary health care and promote access among underserved populations. We report on findings from stakeholder consultations undertaken at one of the Canadian sites of the Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) program, as part of the development of a best practice intervention to improve access to primary health care. The overarching objective of this qualitative study was to understand the processes, barriers, and facilitators to connect patients to health enabling community resources (HERs) to inform a patient navigation model situated in primary care. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with primary care physicians, and community health and social service providers to understand their experiences in supporting patients in reaching HERs. Current gaps in access to primary health care and the potential of patient navigation were also explored. We applied Levesque et al., (2013) access framework to code the data and four themes emerged: (1) Approachability and Ability to Perceive, (2) Acceptability and Ability to Seek, (3) Availability and Accommodation, and Ability to Reach, and (4) Appropriateness. RESULTS: Determinants of access included patient and provider awareness of HERs, the nature of the patient-provider relationship, funding of HERs, integration of primary and community care services, and continuity of information. Participants' perspectives about the potential scope and role of a patient navigator provided valuable insight for the development of the Access to Resources in the Community (ARC) navigation model and how it could be embedded in a primary care setting. CONCLUSION: Additional consultation with key stakeholders in the health region is needed to gain a broader understanding of the challenges in caring for primary care patients with social barriers and how to support them in accessing community-based primary health care to inform the design of the ARC intervention.

Is equity considered in systematic reviews of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults?

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness affect one in four older adults in many regions around the world. Social isolation and loneliness are shown to be associated with declines in physical and mental health. Intersecting social determinants of health influence both the risk of being socially isolated and lonely as well as the access and uptake of interventions. Our objective is to evaluate what evidence is available within systematic reviews on how to mitigate inequities in access to and effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: We performed an overview of reviews following methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Overviews of Reviews. We selected systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults (aged 60 or above) published in the last 10 years. In addition, we assessed all primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in collaboration with a librarian scientist. We used a structured framework called PROGRESS-Plus to assess the reporting and consideration of equity. PROGRESS-Plus stands for place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status (SES), social capital, while "plus" stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and sexual orientation. We assessed whether PROGRESS-Plus factors were reported in description of the population, examination of differential effects, or discussion of applicability or limitations. RESULTS: We identified and assessed 17 eligible systematic reviews. We assessed all 23 primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. All systematic reviews and primary studies described the population by one or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly across place of residence and age, respectively. None of the reviews and five primary studies examined differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus dimension. Nine reviews and four primary studies discussed applicability or limitations of their findings by at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor. CONCLUSIONS: Although we know that social isolation and loneliness are worse for the poorest and most socially disadvantaged older adults, the existing evidence base lacks details on how to tailor interventions for these socially disadvantaged older people.

Perspectives of structurally marginalised patients attending contextually tailored and integrated care practices in Canada: a focused ethnography study.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the experience of patients attending community-based primary healthcare practices (CBPHCPs) aimed at improving equity and access to primary care for underserved patients, which have been implemented locally in several countries, including Canada. There are currently little data on how, or to what extent, they mitigate patients' experience of social inequalities in care and improve their access to health. This study explored the impacts of the sociospatial characteristics of these practices on patients' care experience. DESIGN AND METHODS: Qualitative, multisite, focused ethnographic study based on in-situ observations and interviews, incorporating inductive and deductive analysis, and using the concept of sense of place. SETTING: Three CBPHCPs located in deprived urban areas in two provinces of Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 28 structurally marginalised persons (17 women) attending the clinics, ranging in age from 18 to 79 years, and 16 managers, clinicians and practitioners working in these clinics. RESULTS: Data underscored the importance of clinic proximity and accessibility in facilitating patients' navigation of the health system. Patients appreciated the clinics' positive sociospatial characteristics. Non-judgmental environments and informal spaces fostered patients' empowerment and social interaction among themselves and with peer navigators and healthcare professionals. The experience of supportive continuity of care had a positive impact on patients' sense of well-being and, for many, a positive ripple effect and long-term impact on their social integration. CONCLUSION: These results have important implications for policy given the current context, in which governments are challenged to support primary healthcare that addresses the social determinants of health to achieve greater equity. We conclude that scaling up contextually tailored care and deploying humanistic innovative organisational practices into mainstream care will help narrow the equity gap and reduce current prevalent social inequalities in the health system.

Improving access to primary health care: a cross-case comparison based on an a priori program theory.

BACKGROUND: Inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) remains a problem for most western countries. Failure to scale up effective interventions has been due, in part, to a failure to share the logic and essential elements of successful programs. The aim of this paper is to describe what we learned about improving access to PHC for vulnerable groups across multiple sites through use of a common theory-based program logic model and a common evaluation approach. This was the IMPACT initiative. METHODS: IMPACT's evaluation used a mixed methods design with longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of six interventions. The analysis for this paper included four of the six sites that met study criteria. These sites were located in Canada (Alberta, Quebec and Ontario) and Australia (New South Wales). Using the overarching logic model, unexpected findings were reviewed, and alternative explanations were considered to understand how the mechanisms of each intervention may have contributed to results. RESULTS: Each site addressed their local access problem with different strategies and from different starting points. All sites observed changes in patient abilities to access PHC and provider access capabilities. The combination of intended and observed consequences for consumers and providers was different at each site, but all sites achieved change in both consumer ability and provider capability, even in interventions where there was no activity targeting provider behaviors. DISCUSSION: The model helped to identify, explore and synthesize intended and unintended consequences of four interventions that appeared to have more differences than similarities. Similar outcomes for different interventions and multiple impacts of each intervention on abilities were observed, implying complex causal pathways. CONCLUSIONS: All the interventions were a low-cost incremental attempt to address unmet health care needs of vulnerable populations. Change is possible; sustaining change may be more challenging. Access to PHC requires attention to both patient abilities and provider characteristics. The logic model proved to be a valuable heuristic tool for defining the objectives of the interventions, evaluating their impacts, and learning from the comparison of 'cases'.

Inequities in the delivery of mental health care: a grounded theory study of the policy context of primary care.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening capacity for mental health in primary care improves health outcomes by providing timely access to coordinated and integrated mental health care. The successful integration of mental health in primary care is highly dependent on the foundation of the surrounding policy context. In Ontario, Canada, policy reforms in the early 2000's led to the implementation of a new interprofessional team-model of primary care called Family Health Teams. It is unclear the extent to which the policy context in Ontario influenced the integration of mental health care in Family Health Teams emerging from this period of policy reform. The research question guiding this study was: what were key features of Ontario's policy context that influenced FHTs capacity to provide mental health services for mood and anxiety disorders? METHODS: A qualitative study informed by constructivist grounded theory. Individual interviews were conducted with executive directors, family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the range of professionals who provide mental health services in interprofessional primary care teams; community mental health providers; and provincial policy and decision makers. We used an inductive approach to data analysis. The electronic data management programme NVivo11 helped organise the data analysis process. RESULTS: We conducted 96 interviews with 82 participants. With respect to the contextual factors considered to be important features of Ontario's policy context that influenced primary care teams' capacity to provide mental health services, we identified four key themes: i) lack of strategic direction for mental health, ii) inadequate resourcing for mental health care, iii) rivalry and envy, and, iv) variations across primary care models. CONCLUSIONS: As the first point of contact for individuals experiencing mental health difficulties, primary care plays an important role in addressing population mental health care needs. In Ontario, the successful integration of mental health in primary care has been hindered by the lack of strategic direction, and inconsistent resourcing for mental health care. Achieving health equity may be stunted by the structural variations for mental health care across Family Health Teams and across primary care models in Ontario.

Does healthcare inequity reflect variations in peoples' abilities to access healthcare? Results from a multi-jurisdictional interventional study in two high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare services must respond to the healthcare-seeking needs of persons with a wide range of personal and social characteristics. In this study, examined whether socially vulnerable persons exhibit lower abilities to access healthcare. First, we examined how personal and social characteristics are associated with the abilities to access healthcare described in the patient-centered accessibility framework and with the likelihood of reporting problematic access. We then examined whether higher abilities to access healthcare are protective against problematic access. Finally, we explored whether social vulnerabilities predict problematic access after accounting for abilities to access healthcare. METHODS: This is an exploratory analysis of pooled data collected in the Innovative Models Promoting Access-To-Care Transformation (IMPACT) study, a Canadian-Australian research program that aimed to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations. This specific analysis is based on 284 participants in four study regions who completed a baseline access survey. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to explore the effects of personal or social characteristics on the abilities to access care; logistic regression models, to determine the increased or decreased likelihood of problematic access. RESULTS: The likelihood of problematic access varies by personal and social characteristics. Those reporting at least two social vulnerabilities are more likely to experience all indicators of problematic access except hospitalizations. Perceived financial status and accumulated vulnerabilities were also associated with lower abilities to access care. Higher scores on abilities to access healthcare are protective against most indicators of problematic access except hospitalizations. Logistic regression models showed that ability to access is more predictive of problematic access than social vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that those at higher risk of social vulnerability are more likely to report problematic access and also have low scores on ability to seek, reach, pay, and engage with healthcare. Equity-oriented healthcare interventions should pay particular attention to enhancing people's abilities to access care in addition to modifying organizational processes and structures that reinforce social systems of discrimination or exclusion.

The Role of Social Workers in Interprofessional Primary Healthcare Teams.

Background: In Ontario, Canada, social workers are employed in a number of primary healthcare (PHC) settings such as Community Health Centres (CHCs) and Family Health Teams (FHTs). However, many aspects of social work practice within PHC settings are unknown. Objectives: The objectives of our study are to determine the amount of social work services provided in CHCs and FHTs, identify the types of services that social workers provide in CHCs and FHTs and ascertain the methods social workers use to deliver services in CHCs and FHTs. Method: An analysis of a cross-sectional data set obtained from a survey conducted in June 2016 in Ontario was performed. Results: The majority of practices (84.2%) had a social worker, although several practices also hosted other types of mental health workers. In virtually all practices with social workers, they (and individuals designated as mental healthcare providers) were also involved in practice level efforts to support mental healthcare delivery. In several practices, the care they delivered extended beyond that related directly to mental healthcare, ranging from preventive care and health promotion (64.5%) to palliative care (16.8%). In several practices, these workers also offered group appointments related to healthy behaviour (43.6%) and self-management (~33%). Interestingly, the role of social workers in practices where they were the sole designated mental healthcare worker was not meaningfully different from practices where other mental health professionals work. Conclusions: In PHC, social workers deliver or support the delivery of mental healthcare, but their role extends beyond that domain to encompass a broader set of services that contribute to the individual's health and wellbeing.

Pragmatic Strategy Empowering Paramedics to Assess Low-Risk Trauma Patients With the Canadian C-Spine Rule and Selectively Transport Them Without Immobilization: Protocol for a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Each year, half a million patients with a potential neck (c-spine) injury are transported to Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Less than 1.0% (1/100) of these patients have a neck bone fracture. Even less (1/200, 0.5%) have a spinal cord injury or nerve damage. Currently, paramedics transport all trauma victims (with or without an injury) by ambulance using a backboard, cervical collar, and head immobilizers. Importantly, prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary; it causes patient discomfort and pain, decreases community access to paramedics, contributes to ED crowding, and is very costly. We therefore developed the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) for alert and stable trauma patients. This decision rule helps ED physicians and triage nurses to safely and selectively remove immobilization, without x-rays and missed injury. We successfully taught Ottawa paramedics to use the CCR in the field in a single-center study. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve patient care and health system efficiency and outcomes by allowing paramedics to assess eligible low-risk trauma patients with the CCR and selectively transport them without immobilization to the ED. METHODS: We propose a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with health economic evaluation, designed collaboratively with knowledge users. Our 36-month study will consist of a 12-month setup and training period (year 1), followed by the stepped-wedge trial (year 2) and a 12-month period for study completion, analyses, and knowledge translation. A total of 12 Ontario paramedic services of various sizes distributed across the province will be randomly allocated to one of three sequences. Paramedic services in each sequence will cross from the control condition (usual care) to the intervention condition (CCR implementation) at intervals of 3 months until all communities have crossed to the intervention. Data will be collected on all eligible patients in each paramedic service for a total duration of 12 months. A major strength of our design is that each community will have implemented the CCR by the end of the study. RESULTS: Interim results are expected in December 2019 and final results in 2020. If this multicenter trial is successful, we expect the Ontario Ministry of Health will recommend that paramedics evaluate all eligible patients with the CCR in the Province of Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: We conservatively estimate that in Ontario, more than 60% of all eligible trauma patients (300,000 annually) could be transported safely and comfortably, without c-spine immobilization devices. This will significantly reduce patient pain and discomfort, paramedic intervention times, and ED length of stay, thereby improving access to paramedics and ED care. This could be achieved rapidly and with lower health care costs compared with current practices (possible cost saving of Can $36 [US $25] per immobilization or Can $10,656,000 [US $7,335,231] per year). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02786966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02786966. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16966.

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care. METHODS: We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management. RESULTS: In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.

Improving access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations in Australia and Canada: protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of six complex interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Access to primary healthcare (PHC) has a fundamental influence on health outcomes, particularly for members of vulnerable populations. Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) is a 5-year research programme built on community-academic partnerships. IMPACT aims to design, implement and evaluate organisational innovations to improve access to appropriate PHC for vulnerable populations. Six Local Innovation Partnerships (LIPs) in three Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia) and three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec and Alberta) used a common approach to implement six different interventions. This paper describes the protocol to evaluate the processes, outcomes and scalability of these organisational innovations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation will use a convergent mixed-methods design involving longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of the six interventions. Study participants include vulnerable populations, PHC practices, their clinicians and administrative staff, service providers in other health or social service organisations, intervention staff and members of the LIP teams. Data were collected prior to and 3-6 months after the interventions and included interviews with members of the LIPs, organisational process data, document analysis and tools collecting the cost of components of the intervention. Assessment of impacts on individuals and organisations will rely on surveys and semistructured interviews (and, in some settings, direct observation) of participating patients, providers and PHC practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The IMPACT research programme received initial ethics approval from St Mary's Hospital (Montreal) SMHC #13-30. The interventions received a range of other ethics approvals across the six jurisdictions. Dissemination of the findings should generate a deeper understanding of the ways in which system-level organisational innovations can improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations and new knowledge concerning improvements in PHC delivery in health service utilisation.

The impact of the adoption of a patient rostering model on primary care access and continuity of care in urban family practices in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Greater continuity and access to primary care results in improved patient health, satisfaction, and reduced healthcare costs. Although patient rostering is considered to be a cornerstone of a high performing primary care system and is believed to improve continuity and access, few studies have examined these relationships. This study examined the impact of the adoption of a patient rostering enhanced fee-for-service model (eFFS) on continuity, coordination of specialized care, and access. METHOD: A population-based longitudinal study was conducted using health administrative data from urban family practices in Ontario, Canada. Family physicians that transitioned from traditional FFS (tFFS) to eFFS between 2004 and 2013 were followed overtime. Physicians providing comprehensive primary care that had at least 4 years of pre-transition and 2 years of post-transition data were eligible. Patients were attributed to physicians on an annual basis by determining the provider that billed the largest dollar amount over a 2 year period. Outcomes of interest were the usual provider of care index (UPC), a referral index (RI) (% of total primary care referrals for a physician's roster made by the main provider), and emergency department (ED) visits for family practice sensitive conditions (FPSCs). Mixed-effects segmented linear and logistic regressions were used to examine changes in outcomes while controlling for patient and provider contextual factors. RESULTS: Prior to transitioning, UPC was decreasing at a rate of 0.27%/year (95% CI: -0.34 to - 0.21, p < 0.0001). Following the transition, UPC began decreasing by an additional 0.59%/year (95% CI: -0.69 to - 0.49, p < 0.0001) relative to the pre-transition rate. RI decreased by an additional 0.34%/year (95% CI: -0.43 to - 0.24, p < 0.0001) relative to the pre-transition period, where it had been stable. The transition had minimal impact on FPSC ED visits. CONCLUSION: Continuity and coordination of specialized care slightly decreased upon transition from tFFS to eFFS. This is likely due to physicians working in groups and sharing patients following the transition to the eFFS model. Adoption of an enrolment model with after-hours care did not decrease non-urgent ED use, which may reflect the small impact that primary care access has on these types of ED visits.

Impact of health care reform on enrolment of immigrants in primary care in Ontario, Canada.

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

Equity of primary care service delivery for low income "sicker" adults across 10 OECD countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant investments to support primary care internationally, income-based inequities in access to quality health care are present in many high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether low- and middle-income groups are more likely to report poor quality of primary care (PC) than high-income groups cross-nationally. METHODS: The 2011 Commonwealth Fund Telephone Survey of Sicker Adults is a cross-sectional study across eleven countries. Respondents were recruited from randomly selected households. We used data from surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identified all questions relating to primary care performance, and categorized these into five dimensions: 1) access to care, 2) coordination 3) patient-centered care, and 4) technical quality of care. We used logistic regression with low and middle-income as the comparison groups and high-income as the referent. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand two hundred sixty-two respondents provided income data. Countries varied considerably in their extent of income disparity. Overall, 24.7% were categorized as low- and 13.9% as high-income. The odds of reporting poor access to care were higher for low- and middle-income than high-income respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US. Similar results were found for Sweden and Norway on coordination; the opposite trend favoring the low- and middle-income groups was found in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The odds of reporting poor patient-centered care were higher for low-income than high-income respondents in the Netherlands, Norway, and the US; in Australia, this was true for low- and middle-income respondents. On technical quality of care, the odds of reporting poor care were higher for the low- and middle-income comparisons in Canada and Norway; in Germany, the odds were higher for low-income respondents only. The odds of reporting poor technical quality of care were higher for high-income than low-income respondents in the Netherlands. CONCLUSION: Inequities in quality PC for low and middle income groups exist on at least one dimension in all countries, including some that in theory provide universal access. More research is needed to fully understand equity in the PC sector.

Cancer screening inequities in a time of primary care reform: a population-based longitudinal study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has been reformed in recent years in Ontario, Canada, with a move away from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models. It is unclear how new models have affected disparities in cancer screening. We evaluated whether Ontario's enhanced fee-for-service model was associated with a change in the gaps in cancer screening for people living with low income and people who are foreign-born. METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal analysis from 2002 to 2013 of Ontario family physicians who transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to enhanced fee-for-service. The binary outcomes of interest were adherence to cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Analyses produced annual odds ratios comparing the odds of being up-to-date for screening among patients in enhanced fee-for-service versus patients in traditional fee-for-service for each social stratum separately. We calculated the ratios of stratum-specific odds ratios to assess whether the transition from traditional to enhanced fee-for-service was associated with a change in screening gaps between immigrants and long-term residents, and between people in the lowest and highest neighbourhood income quintiles. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, cancer screening was consistently lower among immigrants and among people in the lowest income quintile. Transition to enhanced fee-for-service was generally associated with increased screening uptake for all, however for most years, ratios of ratios were significantly less than 1 for all three cancer screening types, indicating that there was a widening of the screening gap between immigrants and long-term residents and between people living in the lowest vs. highest income quintile associated with transitions. CONCLUSION: The transition to enhanced fee-for-service in Ontario was generally associated with a widening of screening inequities for foreign-born and low-income patients.

Primary Care Physician Panel Size and Quality of Care: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada.

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.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Family Physician Gender and Quality of Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating primary care quality across physician gender are limited to primary and secondary prevention. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the relationship between family physician gender and quality of primary care using indicators that cover 5 key dimensions of primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using linked health administrative datasets (April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010). SUBJECTS: All family physicians working in the 3 main primary care models in the province of Ontario (Canada), providing general care and having a panel size >1200. MEASURES: Indicators of cancer screening (3), chronic disease management (9), continuity (2), comprehensiveness (2), and access (5). RESULTS: A total of 4195 physicians (31% female) were eligible. Adjusting for provider and patient factors, patients of female physicians were more likely to have received recommended cancer screening (odds ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] (OR) range: 1.24 [1.18-1.30], 1.85 [1.78-1.92]) and diabetes management (OR: 1.04 [1.01-1.08], 1.28 [1.05-1.57]). They had fewer emergency room visits (rate ratio [95% CI] (RR) range: 0.83 [0.79-0.87]) and hospitalizations (RR: 0.89 [0.86-0.93]), and higher referrals (RR: 1.12 [1.09-1.14]). There was evidence of effect modification by patient gender (female vs. male) for hospitalization (RR: 0.74 [0.70-0.79] vs. 0.96 [0.90-1.02]) and emergency room visits (RR: 0.84 [0.81-0.88] vs. 0.98 [0.94-1.01]). Lower emergency room visits were also more evident in more complex patients of female physicians. There were no significant differences in the continuity or comprehensiveness measures. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators assessed in this study point to a benefit for patients under the care of female physicians. Potential explanations are discussed.

Incentives and disincentives for treating of depression and anxiety in Ontario Family Health Teams: protocol for a grounded theory study.

INTRODUCTION: There is strong consensus that prevention and management of common mental disorders (CMDs) should occur in primary care and evidence suggests that treatment of CMDs in these settings can be effective. New interprofessional team-based models of primary care have emerged that are intended to address problems of quality and access to mental health services, yet many people continue to struggle to access care for CMDs in these settings. Insufficient attention directed towards the incentives and disincentives that influence care for CMDs in primary care, and especially in interprofessional team-based settings, may have resulted in missed opportunities to improve care quality and control healthcare costs. Our research is driven by the hypothesis that a stronger understanding of the full range of incentives and disincentives at play and their relationships with performance and other contextual factors will help stakeholders identify the critical levers of change needed to enhance prevention and management of CMDs in interprofessional primary care contexts. Participant recruitment began in May 2016. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An explanatory qualitative design, based on a constructivist grounded theory methodology, will be used. Our study will be conducted in the Canadian province of Ontario, a province that features a widely implemented interprofessional team-based model of primary care. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with a diverse range of healthcare professionals and stakeholders that can help us understand how various incentives and disincentives influence the provision of evidence-based collaborative care for CMDs. A final sample size of 100 is anticipated. The protocol was peer reviewed by experts who were nominated by the funding organisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The model we generate will shed light on the incentives and disincentives that are and should be in place to support high-quality CMD care and help stimulate more targeted, coordinated stakeholder responses to improving primary mental healthcare quality.

Patient-reported access to primary care in Ontario: effect of organizational characteristics.

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.

Roles of nurse practitioners and family physicians in community health centres.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the models of practice used by nurse practitioners (NPs) and FPs in community health centres (CHCs), and to examine the roles of NPs and FPs in these models. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using an organizational survey completed by managers of the CHC sites, as well as administrative data on patient sociodemographic characteristics and encounter activities. SETTING: A total of 21 CHCs (13 main sites and 8 satellite sites) operating in eastern Ontario during the period from December 1, 2006, to November 30, 2008. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 44 849 patients, 53 full-time equivalent FPs, and 41 full-time equivalent NPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' and NPs' models of practice, the sociodemographic characteristics and medical profiles of patients who were treated in each model of practice, and FPs' and NPs' use of time. RESULTS: Patients were attributed to 1 of 3 models of practice in CHCs based on the proportion of visits to FPs and NPs: FP care (53% of patients), NP care (29%), and shared care (18%). Patients who received care in the NP model of practice were younger and more likely to be female, be homeless, and not have postsecondary education.Patients who received care in the FP model of practice had more complex medical conditions (cardiovascular disease, mental illness, lung disease, and diabetes) and more annual visits. Patients who received care in the shared care model had intermediate profiles. Nurse practitioners performed more off-site care and walk-in visits. Family physicians and NPs spent a similar proportion of time performing various duties such as direct clinical care and administration tasks. CONCLUSION: Although NPs mainly cared for their own patient panels (in the NP care model), they did share some patients with FPs and provide some care to patients under the FP model of practice. Patients who were cared for by FPs and NPs had quite different characteristics.

Delivery of primary health care to persons who are socio-economically disadvantaged: does the organizational delivery model matter?

BACKGROUND: As health systems evolve, it is essential to evaluate their impact on the delivery of health services to socially disadvantaged populations. We evaluated the delivery of primary health services for different socio-economic groups and assessed the performance of different organizational models in terms of equality of health care delivery in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Cross sectional study of 5,361 patients receiving care from primary care practices using Capitation, Salaried or Fee-For-Service remuneration models. We assessed self-reported health status of patients, visit duration, number of visits per year, quality of health service delivery, and quality of health promotion. We used multi-level regressions to study service delivery across socio-economic groups and within each delivery model. Identified disparities were further analysed using a t-test to determine the impact of service delivery model on equity. RESULTS: Low income individuals were more likely to be women, unemployed, recent immigrants, and in poorer health. These individuals were overrepresented in the Salaried model, reported more visits/year across all models, and tended to report longer visits in the Salaried model. Measures of primary care services generally did not differ significantly between low and higher income/education individuals; when they did, the difference favoured better service delivery for at-risk groups. At-risk patients in the Salaried model were somewhat more likely to report health promotion activities than patients from Capitation and Fee-For-Service models. At-risk patients from Capitation models reported a smaller increase in the number of additional clinic visits/year than Fee-For-Service and Salaried models. At-risk patients reported better first contact accessibility than their non-at-risk counterparts in the Fee-For-Service model only. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care service measures did not differ significantly across socio-economic status or primary care delivery models. In Ontario, capitation-based remuneration is age and sex adjusted only. Patients of low socio-economic status had fewer additional visits compared to those with high socio-economic status under the Capitation model. This raises the concern that Capitation may not support the provision of additional care for more vulnerable groups. Regions undertaking primary care model reforms need to consider the potential impact of the changes on the more vulnerable populations.