Longitudinal costs and health service utilisation associated with primary care reforms in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last 20 years, the Canadian province of Ontario implemented several new models of primary care focusing on changes to physician remuneration, clinics led by nurse practitioners and the introduction of interprofessional primary care teams. Health outcome and cost evaluations of these models thus far have been mostly cross-sectional and in some cases results from these studies were conflicting. The aim of this population-based study is to investigate short, medium and long-term effectiveness of these reforms over the past 15-20 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the protocol for a retrospective cohort study including fee-for-service (FFS) and community health centre cohorts (control cohorts) or patients who switched from either being unattached or from FFS to a new practice model (eg, capitation, enhanced FFS, team, nurse practitioner-led) from 1997 to 2020. The primary outcome is total healthcare costs and secondary outcomes are primary care costs, other (non-primary care) health costs, hospitalisations, length of stay, emergency department visits, accessibility and mortality. A combination of hard and propensity matching will be used where relevant. Outcomes will be adjusted for demographic and health factors and measured annually. Interrupted time series models will be used where data permits and difference-in-differences methods will be used otherwise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from Queens University and Memorial University. The dissemination plan includes conference presentations, papers, brief evidence summaries targeted at select audiences and knowledge brokering sessions with key stakeholders.

Primary care bonus payments and patient-reported access in urban Ontario: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome. RESULTS: We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience.

Differences in Mode Preferences, Response Rates, and Mode Effect Between Automated Email and Phone Survey Systems for Patients of Primary Care Practices: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of health care practices are adopting software systems that link with their existing electronic medical records to generate outgoing phone calls, emails, or text notifications to patients for appointment reminders or practice updates. While practices are adopting this software technology for service notifications to patients, its use for collection of patient-reported measures is still nascent. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the mode preferences, response rates, and mode effect for a practice-based automated patient survey using phone and email modalities to patients of primary care practices. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses and respondent demographics for a short, fully automated, telephone or email patient survey sent to individuals within 72 hours of a visit to their regular primary care practice. Each survey consisted of 5 questions drawn from a larger study's patient survey that all respondents completed in the waiting room at the time of their visit. Automated patient survey responses were linked to self-reported sociodemographic information provided on the waiting room survey including age, sex, reported income, and health status. RESULTS: A total of 871 patients from 87 primary care practices in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, Canada, agreed to the automated patient survey and 470 patients (45.2%) completed all 5 questions on the automated survey. Email administration of the follow-up survey was preferred over phone-based administration, except among patients aged 75 years and older (P<.001). Overall, response rates for those who selected an emailed survey (369/606, 60.9%) were higher (P<.001) than those who selected the phone survey (101/265, 38.1%). This held true irrespective of age, sex, or chronic disease status of individuals. Response rates were also higher for email (range 57.4% [58/101] to 66.3% [108/163]) compared with phone surveys (range 36% [23/64] to 43% [10/23]) for all income groups except the lowest income quintile, which had similar response rates (email: 29/63, 46%; phone: 23/50, 46%) for phone and email modes. We observed moderate (range 64.6% [62/96] to 78.8% [282/358]) agreement between waiting room survey responses and those obtained in the follow-up automated survey. However, overall agreement in responses was poor (range 45.3% [43/95] to 46.2% [43/93]) for 2 questions relating to care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: An automated practice-based patient experience survey achieved significantly different response rates between phone and email and increased response rates for email as income group rose. Potential mode effects for the different survey modalities may limit multimodal survey approaches. An automated minimal burden patient survey could facilitate the integration of patient-reported outcomes into care planning and service organization, supporting the move of our primary care practices toward a more responsive, patient-centered, continual learning system. However, practices must be attentive to furthering inequities in health care by underrepresenting the experience of certain groups in decision making based on the reach of different survey modes.

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.

Do Incentive Payments Reward The Wrong Providers? A Study Of Primary Care Reform In Ontario, Canada.

Primary care payment reform in the US and elsewhere usually involves capitation, often combined with bonuses and incentives. In capitation systems, providing care within the practice group is needed to contain costs and ensure continuity of care, yet this is challenging in settings that allow patient choice in access to services. We used linked population-based administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to examine a substantial payment called the "access bonus" designed to incentivize primary care access and to minimize primary care visits outside of capitation practices. We found that the access bonus flowed disproportionately to physicians outside large cities and to those whose patients made fewer primary care visits, received less after-hours care, made more emergency department visits, and had higher adjusted ambulatory costs. Our findings indicate a lack of alignment between these payments and their intended purpose. Financial incentives should be prospectively evaluated and frequently revisited to ensure relevance, alignment with system goals, efficiency, and equity.

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.

Using the CollaboraKTion framework to report on primary care practice recruitment and data collection: costs and successes in a cross-sectional practice-based survey in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Across Canada and internationally we have poor infrastructure to regularly collect survey data from primary care practices to supplement data from chart audits and physician billings. The purpose of this work is to: 1) examine the variable costs for carrying out primary care practice-based surveys and 2) share lessons learned about the level of engagement required for recruitment of practices in primary care. METHODS: This work was part of a larger study, TRANSFORMATION that collected data from three provincial study sites in Canada. We report here on practice-based engagement. Surveys were administered to providers, organizational practice leads, and up to 20 patients from each participating provider. We used the CollaboraKTion framework to report on our recruitment and engagement strategies for the survey work. Data were derived from qualitative sources, including study team meeting minutes, memos/notes from survey administrators regarding their interactions with practice staff, and patients and stakeholder meeting minutes. Quantitative data were derived from spreadsheets tracking numbers for participant eligibility, responses, and completions and from time and cost tracking for patient survey administration. RESULTS: A total of 87 practices participated in the study (n = 22 in BC; n = 26 in ON; n = 39 in NS). The first three of five CollaboraKTion activities, Contacting and Connecting, Deepening Understandings, and Adapting and Applying the Knowledge Base, and their associated processes were most pertinent to our recruitment and data collection. Practice participation rates were low but similar, averaging 36% across study sites, and completion rates were high (99%). Patient completion rates were similarly high (99%), though participation rates in BC were substantially lower than the other sites. Recruitment and data collection costs varied with the cost per practice ranging from $1503 to $1792. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive data collection system in primary care is possible to achieve with partnerships that balance researcher, clinical, and policy maker contexts. Engaging practices as valued community members and independent business owners requires significant time, and financial and human resources. An integrated knowledge translation and exchange approach provides a foundation for continued dialogue, exchange of ideas, use of the information produced, and recognises recruitment as part of an ongoing cycle.

Patients' perceptions of access to primary care: Analysis of the QUALICOPC Patient Experiences Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To gain a more comprehensive understanding of patients' perceptions of access to their primary care practice and how these relate to patient characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients in Ontario (N = 1698) completing the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) Patient Experiences Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to 11 access-related survey items, analyzed both individually and as a Composite Access Score (CAS). RESULTS: The mean (SD) CAS was 1.78 (0.16) (the highest possible CAS was 2 and the lowest was 1). Most patients (68%) waited more than 1 day for their appointment. By far most (96%) stated that it was easy to obtain their appointment and that they obtained that appointment as soon as they wanted to (87%). There were no statistically significant relationships between CAS and sex, language fluency, income, education, frequency of emergency department use, or chronic disease status. A higher CAS was associated with being older and being born in Canada, better self-reported health, and increased frequency of visits to a doctor. CONCLUSION: Despite criticisms of access to primary care, this study found that Ontario patients belonging to primary care practices have favourable impressions of their access. There were few statistically significant relationships between patient characteristics and access, and these relationships appeared to be weak.

Measuring Patient Experiences: Is It Meaningful and Actionable?

Performance measurement must be meaningful to those being asked to contribute data and to the clinicians who are collecting the information. It must be actionable if performance measurement and reporting is to influence health system transformation. To date, measuring patient experiences in all parts of the healthcare system in Canada lags behind other countries. More attention needs to be paid to capturing patients with complex intersecting health and social problems that result from inequitable distribution of wealth and/or underlying structural inequities related to systemic issues such as racism and discrimination, colonialism and patriarchy. Efforts to better capture the experiences of patients who do not regularly access care and who speak English or French as a second language are also needed. Before investing heavily into collecting patient experience data as part of a performance measurement system the following ought to be considered: (1) ensuring value for and buy-in from clinicians who are being asked to collect the data and/or act on the results; (2) investment in the infrastructure to administer iterative, cost-effective patient/family experience data collection, analysis and reporting (e.g., automated software tools) and (3) incorporating practice support (e.g., facilitation) and health system opportunities to integrate the findings from patient experience surveys into policy and practice. Investment into the infrastructure of measuring, reporting and engaging clinicians in improving practice is needed for patient/caregiver experiences to be acted upon.

Primary Care Performance Measurement and Reporting at a Regional Level: Could a Matrix Approach Provide Actionable Information for Policy Makers and Clinicians?

OBJECTIVE: Primary care services form the foundation of modern healthcare systems, yet the breadth and complexity of services and diversity of patient populations may present challenges for creating comprehensive primary care information systems. Our objective is to develop regional-level information on the performance of primary care in Canada. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify existing initiatives in primary care performance measurement and reporting across 11 countries. The results of this review were used by our international team of primary care researchers and clinicians to propose an approach for regional-level primary care reporting. RESULTS: We found a gap between conceptual primary care performance measurement frameworks in the peer-reviewed literature and real-world primary care performance measurement and reporting activities. We did not find a conceptual framework or analytic approach that could readily form the foundation of a regional-level primary care information system. Therefore, we propose an approach to reporting comprehensive and actionable performance information according to widely accepted core domains of primary care as well as different patient population groups. CONCLUSIONS: An approach that bridges the gap between conceptual frameworks and real-world performance measurement and reporting initiatives could address some of the potential pitfalls of existing ways of presenting performance information (i.e., by single diseases or by age). This approach could produce meaningful and actionable information on the quality of primary care services.

Practice facilitation for improving cardiovascular care: secondary evaluation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial using population-based administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Practice facilitation (PF), a multifaceted approach in which facilitators (external health care professionals) help family physicians to improve their adoption of best practices, has been highly successful. Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) was an innovative PF trial designed to improve evidence-based care for people who have, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease (CVD). The intervention was found to be ineffective as assessed by a patient-level composite score based on chart reviews from a subsample of patients (N = 5292). Here, we used population-based administrative data to examine IDOCC's effect on CVD-related hospitalizations. METHODS: IDOCC used a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled design involving primary care providers recruited across Eastern Ontario, Canada. IDOCC's effect on CVD-related hospitalizations was assessed in the 2 years of active intervention and post-intervention years. Marginal and mixed-effects regression analyses were used to account for the study design and to control for patient, physician, and practice characteristics. Secondary and subgroup analyses investigated robustness. RESULTS: Our sample included 262,996 patient/year observations representing 54,085 unique patients who had, or were at risk of, CVD, from 70 practices. There was a strong decreasing secular trend in CVD-related hospitalizations but no statistically significant effect of IDOCC. Relative to patients in the control condition, patients in the intervention condition were estimated to have 4 % lower odds of CVD-related hospitalizations (adjOR = 0.96, 99 % CI 0.83 to 1.11). The nonsignificant result persisted across robustness analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes from administrative databases were examined to form a more complete picture of the (in)effectiveness of a large-scale quality improvement intervention. IDOCC did not have a significant effect on CVD hospitalizations, suggesting that the results from the primary composite adherence score analysis were neither due to choice of outcome nor relatively short follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808 , registered on 14 December 2007.

Do new and traditional models of primary care differ with regard to access?: Canadian QUALICOPC study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access. DESIGN: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey. SETTING: All 10 Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care. RESULTS: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did. CONCLUSION: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.

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.

A population-based study comparing patterns of care delivery on the quality of care for persons living with HIV in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: Physician specialty is often positively associated with disease-specific outcomes and negatively associated with primary care outcomes for people with chronic conditions. People with HIV have increasing comorbidity arising from antiretroviral therapy (ART) related longevity, making HIV a useful condition to examine shared care models. We used a previously described, theoretically developed shared care framework to assess the impact of care delivery on the quality of care provided. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based observational study from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2012. PARTICIPANTS: 13 480 patients with HIV and receiving publicly funded healthcare in Ontario were assigned to one of five patterns of care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer screening, ART prescribing and healthcare utilisation across models using adjusted multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Models in which patients had an assigned family physician had higher odds of cancer screening than those in exclusively specialist care (colorectal cancer screening, exclusively primary care adjusted OR (AOR)=3.12, 95% CI (1.90 to 5.13), family physician-dominant co-management AOR=3.39, 95% CI (1.94 to 5.93), specialist-dominant co-management AOR=2.01, 95% CI (1.23 to 3.26)). The odds of having one emergency department visit did not differ among models, although the odds of hospitalisation and HIV-specific hospitalisation were lower among patients who saw exclusively family physicians (AOR=0.23, 95% CI (0.14 to 0.35) and AOR=0.15, 95% CI (0.12 to 0.21)). The odds of antiretroviral prescriptions were lower among models in which patients' HIV care was provided predominantly by family physicians (exclusively primary care AOR=0.15, 95% CI (0.12 to 0.21), family physician-dominant co-management AOR=0.45, 95% CI (0.32 to 0.64)). CONCLUSIONS: How care is provided had a potentially important influence on the quality of care delivered. Our key limitation is potential confounding due to the absence of HIV stage measures.

An international cross-sectional survey on the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICO-PC): recruitment and data collection of places delivering primary care across Canada.

BACKGROUND: Performance reporting in primary health care in Canada is challenging because of the dearth of concise and synthesized information. The paucity of information occurs, in part, because the majority of primary health care in Canada is delivered through a multitude of privately owned small businesses with no mechanism or incentives to provide information about their performance. The purpose of this paper is to report the methods used to recruit family physicians and their patients across 10 provinces to provide self-reported information about primary care and how this information could be used in recruitment and data collection for future large scale pan-Canadian and other cross-country studies. METHODS: Canada participated in an international large scale study-the QUALICO-PC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) study. A set of four surveys, designed to collect in-depth information regarding primary care activities was collected from: practices, providers, and patients (experiences and values). Invitations (telephone, electronic or mailed) were sent to family physicians. Eligible participants were sent a package of surveys. Provincial teams kept records on the number of: invitation emails/letters sent, physicians who registered, practices that were sent surveys, and practices returning completed surveys. Response and cooperation rates were calculated. RESULTS: Invitations to participate were sent to approximately 23,000 family physicians across Canada. A total of 792 physicians and 8,332 patients from 772 primary care practices completed the surveys, including 1,160 participants completing a Patient Values survey and 7,172 participants completing a Patient Experience survey. Overall, the response rate was very low ranging from 2% (British Columbia) to 21% (Nova Scotia). However, the participation rate was high, ranging from 72% (Ontario) to 100% (New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland & Labrador). CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties obtaining acceptable response rates by family physicians for survey participation is a universal challenge. This response rate for the QUALICO-PC arm in Canada was similar to rates found in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Even though most family physicians operate as self-employed small businesses, they could be supported to routinely submit data through a collective effort and provincial mandate. The groundwork in setting up pan-Canadian collaboration in primary care has been established through this study.

Intracluster correlation coefficients for sample size calculations related to cardiovascular disease prevention and management in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have comprehensively reported intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates for outcomes collected in primary care settings. Using data from a large primary care study, we aimed to: a) report ICCs for process-of-care and clinical outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease management and prevention, and b) investigate the impact of practice structure and rurality on ICC estimates. METHODS: We used baseline data from the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) trial to estimate ICC values. Data on 5,140 patients from 84 primary care practices across Eastern Ontario, Canada were collected through chart abstraction. ICC estimates were calculated using an ANOVA approach and were calculated for all patients and separately for patient subgroups defined by condition (i.e., coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking). We compared ICC estimates between practices in which data were collected from a single physician versus those that had multiple participating physicians and between urban versus rural practices. RESULTS: ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.173, with a median of 0.056. The median ICC estimate for dichotomous process outcomes (0.088) was higher than that for continuous clinical outcomes (0.035). ICC estimates calculated for single physician practices were higher than those for practices with multiple physicians for both process (average 3.9-times higher) and clinical measures (average 1.9-times higher). Urban practices tended to have higher process-of-care ICC estimates than rural practices, particularly for measuring lipid profiles and estimated glomerular filtration rates. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive summary of cardiovascular-related ICCs to be reported from Canadian primary care practices. Differences in ICC estimates based on practice structure and location highlight the importance of understanding the context in which external ICC estimates were determined prior to their use in sample size calculations. Failure to choose appropriate ICC estimates can have substantial implications for the design of a cluster randomized trial.

Barriers and Facilitators for Primary Care Reform in Canada: Results from a Deliberative Synthesis across Five Provinces.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2000, primary care (PC) reforms have been implemented in various Canadian provinces. Emerging organizational models and policies are at various levels of implementation across jurisdictions. Few cross-provincial analyses of these reforms have been realized. The aim of this study is to identify the factors that have facilitated or hindered implementation of reforms in Canadian provinces between 2000 and 2010. METHODS: A literature and policy scan identified evaluation studies across Canadian jurisdictions. Experts from British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec were asked to review the scope of published evaluations and draft provincial case descriptions. A one-day deliberative forum was held, bringing together researchers (n = 40) and decision-makers (n = 20) from all the participating provinces. RESULTS: Despite a relative lack of published evaluations, our results suggest that PC reform has varied with regard to the scope and the policy levers used to implement change. Some provinces implemented specific PC models, while other provinces designed overarching policies aiming at changing professional behaviour and practice. The main perceived barriers to reform were the lack of financial investment, resistance from professional associations, too overtly prescriptive approaches lacking adaptability and an overly centralized governance model. The main perceived facilitators were a strong financial commitment using various allocation and payment approaches, the cooperation of professional associations and an incremental emergent change philosophy based on a strong decentralization of decisions allowing adaptation to local circumstances. So far the most beneficial results of the reforms seem to be an increase in patients' affiliation with a usual source of care, improved experience of care by patients and a higher workforce satisfaction. CONCLUSION: PC reforms currently under consideration in other jurisdictions could learn from the factors identified as promoting or hindering change in the provinces that have been most proactive.

Providing high-quality care in primary care settings: how to make trade-offs.

OBJECTIVE: To gain a deeper understanding of how primary care (PC) practices belonging to different models manage resources to provide high-quality care. DESIGN: Multiple-case study embedded in a cross-sectional study of a random sample of 37 practices. SETTING: Three regions of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Health care professionals and staff of 5 PC practices. METHODS: Five cases showing above-average results on quality-of-care indicators were purposefully selected to contrast on region, practice size, and PC model. Data were collected using an organizational questionnaire; the Team Climate Inventory, which was completed by health care professionals and staff; and 33 individual interviews. Detailed case histories were written and thematic analysis was performed. MAIN FINDINGS: The core common feature of these practices was their ongoing effort to make trade-offs to deliver services that met their vision of high-quality care. These compromises involved the same 3 areas, but to varying degrees depending on clinic characteristics: developing a shared vision of high-quality care; aligning resource use with that vision; and balancing professional aspirations and population needs. The leadership of the physician lead was crucial. The external environment was perceived as a source of pressure and dilemmas rather than as a source of support in these matters. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of their models, PC practices' pursuit of high-quality care is based on a vision in which accessibility is a key component, balanced by appropriate management of available resources and of external environment expectations. Current PC reforms often create tensions rather than support PC practices in their pursuit of high-quality care.

Fostering excellence: roles, responsibilities, and expectations of new family physician clinician investigators.

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.