Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application.

BACKGROUND: Reliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams. METHODS: We use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved. CONCLUSIONS: The development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

Integrating pharmacists into family practice teams: physicians' perspectives on collaborative care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore family physicians' perspectives on collaborative practice 12 months after pharmacists were integrated into their family practices. DESIGN: Qualitative design using focus groups followed by semistructured interviews. SETTING: Seven physician-led group family practices in urban, suburban, and semirural Ontario communities. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve purposively selected family physicians participating in the IMPACT (Integrating family Medicine and Pharmacy to Advance primary Care Therapeutics) project. METHODS: We conducted 4 exploratory focus groups to gather information on collaborative practice issues in order to construct our interview guide. We later interviewed 12 physicians 1 year into the integration process. Focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Four researchers used immersion and crystallization techniques to identify codes for the data and thematic editing to distil participants' perspectives on physician-pharmacist collaborative practice. FINDINGS The focus groups revealed concerns relating to operational efficiencies, medicolegal implications, effects on patient-physician relationships, and work satisfaction. The follow-up semistructured interviews revealed ongoing operational challenges, but several issues had resolved and clinical and practice-level benefits surfaced. Clinical benefits included having colleagues to provide reliable drug information, gaining fresh perspectives, and having increased security in prescribing. Practice-level benefits included group education, liaison with community pharmacies, and an enhanced sense of team. Persistent operational challenges included finding time to learn about pharmacists' role and skills and insufficient space in practices to accommodate both professionals. CONCLUSION: Physicians' perspectives on collaborative practice 12 months after pharmacists were integrated into their family practices were positive overall. Some ongoing operational challenges remained. Several of the early concerns about collaborative practice had been resolved as physicians discovered the benefits of working with pharmacists, such as increased security in prescribing.