Telephone outreach by volunteer navigators: a theory-based evaluation of an intervention to improve access to appropriate primary care.

BACKGROUND: A pilot intervention in a participatory research programme in Québec, Canada, used telephone outreach by volunteer patient navigators to help unattached persons from deprived neighbourhoods attach successfully to a family doctor newly-assigned to them from a centralized waiting list. According to our theory-based program logic model we evaluated the extent to which the volunteer navigator outreach helped patients reach and engage with their newly-assigned primary care team, have a positive healthcare experience, develop an enduring doctor-patient relationship, and reduce forgone care and emergency room use. METHOD: For the mixed-method evaluation, indicators were developed for all domains in the logic model and measured in a telephone-administered patient survey at baseline and three months later to determine if there was a significant difference. Interviews with a subsample of 13 survey respondents explored the mechanisms and nuances of intended effects. RESULTS: Five active volunteers provided the service to 108 persons, of whom 60 agreed to participate in the evaluation. All surveyed participants attended the first visit, where 90% attached successfully to the new doctor. Indicators of abilities to access healthcare increased statistically significantly as did ability to explain health needs to professionals. The telephone outreach predisposed patients to have a positive first visit and have trust in their new care team, establishing a basis for an enduring relationship. Patient-reported access difficulties, forgone care and use of hospital emergency rooms decreased dramatically after patients attached to their new doctors. CONCLUSIONS: As per the logic model, telephone outreach by volunteer navigators significantly increased patients' abilities to seek, reach and engage with care and helped them attach successfully to newly-assigned family doctors. This light-touch intervention may have promise to achieve of the intended policy goals for the centralized waiting list to increase population access to appropriate primary care and reduce forgone care.

Ten years later: A portrait of the implementation of the advanced access model in Quebec.

Since 2012, implementation of the advanced access model in primary care has been highly recommended across Canada to improve timely access. We present a portrait of the implementation of the advanced access model 10 years after its large-scale implementation across the province of Quebec. In total, 127 clinics participated in the study, with 999 family physicians and 107 nurse practitioners responding to the survey. Results show that opening schedules for appointments over a period of 2 to 4 weeks has largely been implemented. However, reserving consultation time for urgent or semi-urgent conditions was implemented by less than half and planning supply and demand for 20% or more of the upcoming year by fewer than one fifth of respondents. More strategies need to be put in place to react to imbalances when they occur. We demonstrate that strategies based on individual practice change are more often implemented than those requiring changes at the clinic.

Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to primary health care is among top priorities for many countries. Advanced Access (AA) is one of the most recommended models to improve timely access to care. Over the past 15 years, the AA model has been implemented in Canada, but the implementation of AA varies substantially among providers and clinics. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) approaches can be used to promote organizational change like AA implementation. While CQI fosters the adoption of evidence-based practices, knowledge gaps remain, about the mechanisms by which QI happens and the sustainability of the results. The general aim of the study is to analyse the implementation and effects of CQI cohorts on AA for primary care clinics. Specific objectives are: 1) Analyse the process of implementing CQI cohorts to support PHC clinics in their improvement of AA. 2) Document and compare structural organisational changes and processes of care with respect to AA within study groups (intervention and control). 3) Assess the effectiveness of CQI cohorts on AA outcomes. 4) Appreciate the sustainability of the intervention for AA processes, organisational changes and outcomes. METHODS: Cluster-controlled trial allowing for a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the proposed intervention 48 multidisciplinary primary care clinics will be recruited to participate. 24 Clinics from the intervention regions will receive the CQI intervention for 18 months including three activities carried out iteratively until the clinic's improvement objectives are achieved: 1) reflective sessions and problem priorisation; 2) plan-do-study-act cycles; and 3) group mentoring. Clinics located in the control regions will receive an audit-feedback report on access. Complementary qualitative and quantitative data reflecting the quintuple aim will be collected over a period of 36 months. RESULTS: This research will contribute to filling the gap in the generalizability of CQI interventions and accelerate the spread of effective AA improvement strategies while strengthening local QI culture within clinics. This research will have a direct impact on patients' experiences of care. CONCLUSION: This mixed-method approach offers a unique opportunity to contribute to the scientific literature on large-scale CQI cohorts to improve AA in primary care teams and to better understand the processes of CQI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT05715151.

Revising the advanced access model pillars: a multimethod study.

BACKGROUND: The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care. METHODS: This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content. RESULTS: The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model ("Appointment system" and "Interprofessional practice"), 1 was merged with a revised pillar ("Develop contingency plans" with "Planning of needs and supply") and 1 underwent major transformations ("Backlog reduction" to "Continuous adjustment"). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content. INTERPRETATION: The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Development of a self-reported reflective tool on advanced access to support primary healthcare providers: study protocol of a mixed-method research design using an e-Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: Timely access is one of the cornerstones of strong primary healthcare (PHC). New models to increase timely access have emerged across the world, including advanced access (AA). Recently in Quebec, Canada, the AA model has spread widely across the province. The model has largely been implemented by PHC professionals with important variations; however, a tool to assess their practice improvement within AA is lacking. The general objective of this study is to develop a self-reported online reflective tool that will guide PHC professionals' reflection on their individual AA practice and formulation of recommendations for improvement. Specific objectives are: (1) operationalisation of the pillars and subpillars of AA; (2) development of a self-reported questionnaire; and (3) evaluation of the psychometrics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The pillars composing Murray's model of AA will first be reviewed in collaboration with PHC professional and stakeholders, patients and researchers in a face-to-face meeting, with the goal to establish consensus on the pillars and subpillars of AA. Leading from these definitions, items will be identified for evaluation through an e-Delphi consultation. Three rounds are planned in 2020-2021 with a group of 20-25 experts. A repository of recommendations on how to improve one's AA practice will be populated based on the literature and enriched by our experts throughout the consultation. Median and measures of dispersions will be used to evaluate agreement. The resulting tool will then be evaluated by PHC professionals for psychometrics in 2021-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre Scientific Research Committee approved the protocol, and the Research Ethics Board provided ethics approval (2020-441, CP 980475). Dissemination plan is a mix of community diffusion through and for our partners and to the scientific community including peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Tracking domestic wastewater and road de-icing salt in a municipal drinking water reservoir: Acesulfame and chloride as co-tracers.

Developing strategies to identify the origins of contaminants in watersheds is crucial for source water protection. The use of multiple tracers improves the ability to identify contamination events originating from various land use activities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of acesulfame and chloride as co-tracers to represent the impact of pollution originating from wastewater and road de-icing on water quality in a municipal drinking water source. The study included a two-year sampling and water quality analysis program in numerous locations within a drinking water reservoir comprising a lake (upstream) and a river (downstream) which supply raw water to a municipal water treatment plant. Results showed that the spatial variability of acesulfame and chloride within the watershed of the lake-river systems depends on the location of contaminant sources, mainly municipal wastewater and septic tank discharges (for acesulfame) and the presence of small tributaries of the lake and river (for chloride). Temporal variability of the tracers under study differed according to the sampling location and was mainly affected by seasonal conditions. Correlation analyses between the two tracers in lake and river waters (in terms of concentrations and loads) made it possible to pinpoint the probable origins of contamination. The assessment of the spatio-temporal variability of these co-tracers within the lake-river watersheds allowed for the delineation of priority intervention zones as a decision-making tool for municipal authorities in improving drinking water source protection.

Feasibility of Early Active Rehabilitation for Concussion Recovery in Youth: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to evaluate the feasibility (safety and acceptability) of implementing early active rehabilitation (AR) for concussion management in youth with symptoms persisting 2 weeks after injury. A secondary and exploratory objective was to estimate the potential efficacy of early AR compared with standard AR. We hypothesize that AR at 2-weeks postconcussion will be safe and acceptable to patients. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: The Montreal Children's Hospital of the McGill University Health Center (MCH-MUHC), a tertiary care pediatric teaching hospital affiliated with McGill University in Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty youth aged 9 to 17 years old with postconcussion symptoms for at least 2 weeks. INTERVENTION: Active rehabilitation (aerobic exercise, coordination drills, visualization, and education/reassurance) was administered by physiotherapists in-person, and then continued as a home program. METHODS: Twenty participants were randomized to either early AR (initiated 2 weeks after injury) or standard AR (initiated 4 weeks after injury). RESULTS: Two adverse events (one in each group) were identified through an online survey more than one-month postconcussion. Postconcussion symptoms decreased over time for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study indicate that a full clinical trial estimating the efficacy of early AR (starting 2 weeks after injury) is feasible. Further study is needed to determine the superiority of this strategy over current treatment approaches.

Is There an Optimal Time to Initiate an Active Rehabilitation Protocol for Concussion Management in Children? A Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the time frame during which initiating an active rehabilitation intervention (aerobic exercise, balance, and sport specific skills) after concussion contributed to improvement in symptoms at follow-up in children and adolescents who are slow to recover (symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks) from concussion. SETTING: Concussion clinic at a tertiary care pediatric teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 677 children and adolescents with concussion aged 7 to 18 years. DESIGN: Case series of participants starting active rehabilitation less than 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 or more weeks postconcussion. MAIN MEASURE: Symptom severity measured by the 22-item Post-Concussion Scale (PCS)-revised. RESULTS: All patients experienced significant improvement of symptoms while participating in active rehabilitation, irrespective of the start time postonset. Patients initiating active rehabilitation at 2 (P < .001) or 3 (P = .039) weeks postinjury demonstrated lower symptom severity at follow-up than those starting at 6 weeks or later. Patients starting at 2 weeks had lower symptom severity than patients starting less than 2 (P = .02), 4 (P = .20), or 5 weeks postinjury (P = .04). Lastly, patients starting less than 2 and 6 weeks or more postinjury yielded equivalent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the use of active rehabilitation in children and adolescents who are slow to recover from concussion. Participants starting active rehabilitation less than 2 weeks and up to 6 or more weeks postconcussion demonstrated significant symptom improvements, but improvement was observed in all groups, regardless of the time to start active rehabilitation.

Evaluation of an active rehabilitation program for concussion management in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which post-concussion symptoms were influenced by participation in an Active Rehabilitation (AR) program (aerobic exercise, coordination drills, visualization and education) for children and adolescents who are slow to recover from concussion. A secondary exploratory objective included examining the influence of sex on symptom evolution. METHODS: Analysis of prospectively collected data was performed on 277 youth who initiated an AR program, between three and four weeks post-injury at a Concussion Clinic in a tertiary care paediatric teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Post-concussion symptom scale (PCSS) from Sport Concussion Assessment Tool-3 (SCAT 3). RESULTS: Children and adolescents participating in an active rehabilitation program displayed improved post-concussion symptom severity at follow-up (median = 9.5) compared to pre-intervention (median = 18) (p < .05). Patients demonstrated improved physical, cognitive, emotional and sleep-related post-concussion symptoms (p < .05). Female sex was associated with an increased post-concussion symptom severity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Youth experiencing persisting symptoms three to four weeks post-concussion demonstrated improved post-concussion symptoms scores (physical, cognitive, emotional and sleep related) with participation in an active rehabilitation program.

Development and validation of subscales to assess perceived support for self-management of mood or emotional problems: Results from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To validate 2 new patient-reported measures of self-management support from health professionals for mood and emotional problems. METHODS: The sample comprised primary care patients with chronic physical conditions and co-morbid depressive symptoms enrolled in a randomized trial of telephone coaching of a depression self-care intervention (n=120). At 6-month follow-up, patients completed 2 subscales with respect to support for self-management of their chronic physical condition(s): 1) Self-Management Information (SMInfo-Phys); and 2) Care Plan (CP-Phys) and equivalent subscales adapted to assess self-management support for mood and emotional problems: SMInfo-Mood and CP-Mood. Subscale scoring was assessed with Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis. Convergent validity of the mood subscales was assessed. The sensitivity of the mood and physical condition subscales to mental health interventions was assessed with generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: The mood subscales were associated with relevant measures of perceived unmet mental health needs. Both SMInfo-Mood and CP-Mood were sensitive to the coaching intervention; CP-Mood was also sensitive to receipt of depression treatment outside the trial. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence for the validity of the 2 new subscales. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The subscales may be used to assess perceived health professional support for self-management of mood and emotional problems.

A randomized trial to determine the duration of analgesia following a 15- and a 30-minute application of acupuncture-like TENS on patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture-like TENS (AL-TENS) has been shown to produce prolonged pain relief, but no study has yet investigated its duration on a population suffering from chronic low back pain (CLPB). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantify the duration and magnitude of analgesia induced by a 15- or 30-minute application of AL-TENS. METHODOLOGY: We recruited a sample of 11 participants presenting with CLBP and conducted a randomized, crossover study, where participants were given AL-TENS for 15 and 30 minutes on two separate occasions. The pain intensity of their CLBP was assessed with a visual analogue scale before, during, and after AL-TENS applications. Magnitude and duration of analgesia were determined for each subject and for both AL-TENS application times. RESULTS: The AL-TENS applications induced a clinically and statistically significant (p = 0.003) analgesia in all participants. Median duration of analgesia was 9 hours and 10 hours 30 minutes following the 15- and 30-minute AL-TENS applications, respectively; this 1.5-hour difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.55). Furthermore, we observed no significant difference in the magnitude of analgesia between both applications of AL-TENS (p > 0.56), suggesting that the duration of application of AL-TENS does not influence the magnitude of analgesia. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinicians could use a 15-minute AL-TENS application to provide significant analgesia in patients presenting with low back pain since if provides a comparable analgesia versus a 30-minute application.

Experienced continuity of care when patients see multiple clinicians: a qualitative metasummary.

PURPOSE: Continuity of care among different clinicians refers to consistent and coherent care management and good measures are needed. We conducted a metasummary of qualitative studies of patients' experience with care to identify measurable elements that recur over a variety of contexts and health conditions as the basis for a generic measure of management continuity. METHODS: From an initial list of 514 potential studies (1997-2007), 33 met our criteria of using qualitative methods and exploring patients' experiences of health care from various clinicians over time. They were coded independently. Consensus meetings minimized conceptual overlap between codes. RESULTS: For patients, continuity of care is experienced as security and confidence rather than seamlessness. Coordination and information transfer between professionals are assumed until proven otherwise. Care plans help clinician coordination but are rarely discerned as such by patients. Knowing what to expect and having contingency plans provides security. Information transfer includes information given to the patient, especially to support an active role in giving and receiving information, monitoring, and self-management. Having a single trusted clinician who helps navigate the system and sees the patient as a partner undergirds the experience of continuity between clinicians. CONCLUSION: Some dimensions of continuity, such as coordination and communication among clinicians, are perceived and best assessed indirectly by patients through failures and gaps (discontinuity). Patients experience continuity directly through receiving information, having confidence and security on the care pathway, and having a relationship with a trusted clinician who anchors continuity.

Validation of a generic measure of continuity of care: when patients encounter several clinicians.

PURPOSE: Patients who regularly see more than one clinician for health problems risk discontinuity and fragmented care. Our objective was to develop and validate a generic measure of management continuity from the patient perspective. METHODS: Themes from 33 qualitative studies of patient experience with care from various clinicians were matched to existing instruments to identify potential measures and measurement gaps. Adapted and new items were tested cognitively, and the instrument was administered to 376 adult patients consulting in primary care for a variety of health conditions but seeing clinicians in a variety of settings. After initial psychometric analysis, the instrument was modified slightly and readministered after 6 months. The analysis identified reliable subscales and their association with indicators of continuity. RESULTS: Observed factors correspond to 8 intended constructs, with good reliability. Three subscales (12 items) relate to the principal clinician and cover management and relational continuity. Four subscales (13 items) are related to multiple clinicians and address team relational continuity and problems with coordination and gaps in information transfer. Two (11 items) pertain to the patient's partnership in care. Subscales correlate well and in expected directions with indicators of discontinuity (wanting to change clinicians, suffering, and sense of being abandoned, medical errors) and degree of care organization. CONCLUSION: The instrument reliably assesses both positive and negative dimensions of continuity of care across the entire system, and the subscales correlate with continuity effects. It supports patient-centered and relationship-based care and can be used as a whole or in part to assess coordination and continuity in primary care.

Mapping the coverage of attributes in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare in developed countries is undergoing important reforms, and these require evaluation strategies to assess how well the population's expectations are being met. Although numerous instruments are available to evaluate primary healthcare (PHC) from the patient perspective, they do not all measure the same range of constructs. To analyze the extent to which important PHC attributes are covered in validated instruments measuring quality of care from the patient perspective. METHOD: We systematically identified validated instruments from the literature and by consulting experts. Using a Delphi consensus-building process, Canadian PHC experts identified and operationally defined 24 important PHC attributes. One team member mapped instrument subscales to these operational definitions; this mapping was then independently validated by members of the research team and conflicts were resolved by the PHC experts. RESULTS: Of the 24 operational definitions, 13 were evaluated as being best measured by patients, 10 by providers, three by administrative databases and one by chart audits (some being best measured by more than one source). Our search retained 17 measurement tools containing 118 subscales. After eliminating redundancies, we mapped 13 unique measurement tools to the PHC attributes. Accessibility, relational continuity, interpersonal communication, management continuity, respectfulness and technical quality of clinical care were the attributes widely covered by available instruments. Advocacy, management of clinical information, comprehensiveness of services, cultural sensitivity, family-centred care, whole-person care and equity were poorly covered. CONCLUSIONS: Validated instruments to evaluate PHC quality from the patient perspective leave many important attributes of PHC uncovered. A complete assessment of PHC quality will require adjusting existing tools and/or developing new instruments.

Validation of instruments to evaluate primary healthcare from the patient perspective: overview of the method.

UNLABELLED: Patient evaluations are an important part of monitoring primary healthcare reforms, but there is little comparative information available to guide evaluators in the choice of instruments or to determine their relevance for Canada. OBJECTIVE: To compare values and the psychometric performances of validated instruments thought to be most pertinent to the Canadian context for evaluating core attributes of primary healthcare. METHOD: AMONG VALIDATED INSTRUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WE SELECTED SIX: the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS); the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S); the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI); the first version of the EUROPEP (EUROPEP-I); the Interpersonal Processes of Care Survey, version II (IPC-II); and part of the Veterans Affairs National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey (VANOCSS). We mapped subscales to operational definitions of attributes. All were administered to a sample of adult service users balanced by English/French language (in Nova Scotia and Quebec, respectively), urban/rural residency, high/low education and overall care experience. The sample was recruited from previous survey respondents, newspaper advertisements and community posters. We used common factor analysis to compare our factor resolution for each instrument to that of the developers. RESULTS: Our sample of 645 respondents was approximately balanced by design variables, but considerable effort was required to recruit low-education and poor-experience respondents. Subscale scores are statistically different by excellent, average and poor overall experience, but interpersonal communication and respectfulness scores were the most discriminating of overall experience. We found fewer factors than did the developers, but when constrained to the number of expected factors, our item loadings were largely similar to those found by developers. Subscale reliability was equivalent to or higher than that reported by developers. CONCLUSION: These instruments perform similarly in the Canadian context to their original development context, and can be used with confidence. Interpersonal and respectfulness scores are most discriminating of excellent, average or poor overall experience and are crucial dimensions of patient evaluations.

What Patients Tell Us about Primary Healthcare Evaluation Instruments: Response Formats, Bad Questions and Missing Pieces.

UNLABELLED: Instruments have been developed that measure consumer evaluations of primary healthcare using different approaches, formats and questions to measure similar attributes. In 2004 we concurrently administered six validated instruments to adults and conducted discussion groups to explore how well the instruments allowed patients to express their healthcare experience and to get their feedback about questions and formats. METHOD: We held 13 discussion groups (n=110 participants): nine in metropolitan, rural and remote areas of Quebec; four in metropolitan and rural Nova Scotia. Participants noted critical incidents in their healthcare experience over the previous year, then responded to all six instruments under direct observation and finally participated in guided discussions for 30 to 40 minutes. The instruments were: the Primary Care Assessment Survey; the Primary Care Assessment Tool; the Components of Primary Care Index; the EUROPEP; the Interpersonal Processes of Care Survey; and part of the Veterans Affairs National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey. Two team members analyzed discussion transcripts for content. RESULTS: While respondents appreciated consistency in response options, they preferred options that vary to fit the question. Likert response scales functioned best; agreement scales were least appreciated. Questions that average experience over various providers or over many events diluted the capacity to detect critical negative or positive incidents. Respondents tried to answer all questions but stressed that they were not able to report accurately on elements outside their direct experience or in the provider's world. They liked short questions and instruments, except where these compromise clarity or result in crowded formatting. All the instruments were limited in their capacity to report on the interface with other levels of care. CONCLUSION: Each instrument has strengths and weaknesses and could be marginally improved, but respondents accurately detected their intent and use. Their feedback offers insight for instrument development.

Interpersonal communication from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.

UNLABELLED: The operational definition of interpersonal communication is "the ability of the provider to elicit and understand patient concerns, to explain healthcare issues and to engage in shared decision-making if desired." OBJECTIVE: To examine how well interpersonal communication is captured in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient's perspective. METHOD: 645 adults with at least one healthcare contact in the previous 12 months responded to instruments that evaluate primary healthcare. Eight subscales measure interpersonal communication: the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS, two subscales); the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI, one subscale); the first version of the EUROPEP (EUROPEP-I); and the Interpersonal Processes of Care Survey, version II (IPC-II, four subscales). Scores were normalized for descriptive comparison. Exploratory and confirmatory (structural equation) factor analysis examined fit to operational definition, and item response theory analysis examined item performance. RESULTS: Items not pertaining to interpersonal communication were removed from the EUROPEP-I. Most subscales are skewed positively. Normalized mean scores are similar across subscales except for IPC-II Patient-Centred Decision-Making and IPC-II Hurried Communication. All subscales load reasonably well on a single factor, presumed to be interpersonal communication. The best model has three underlying factors corresponding to eliciting (eigenvalue = 26.56), explaining (eigenvalue = 2.45) and decision-making (eigenvalue = 1.34). Both the PCAS Communication and the EUROPEP-I Clinical Behaviour subscales capture all three dimensions. Individual subscales within IPC-II measure each sub-dimension. CONCLUSION: The operational definition is well reflected in the available measures, although shared decision-making is poorly represented. These subscales can be used with confidence in the Canadian context to measure this crucial aspect of patient-centred care.

Accessibility from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.

UNLABELLED: The operational definition of first-contact accessibility is "the ease with which a person can obtain needed care (including advice and support) from the practitioner of choice within a time frame appropriate to the urgency of the problem"; accommodation is "the way healthcare resources are organized to accommodate a wide range of patients' abilities to contact healthcare providers and reach healthcare services, that is to say telephone services, flexible appointment systems, hours of operation, and walk-in periods." OBJECTIVE: To compare how well accessibility is measured in validated subscales that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient's perspective. METHOD: 645 adults with at least one healthcare contact in the previous 12 months responded to six instruments that evaluate primary healthcare with four subscales that measure accessibility: the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS), the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S, two subscales) and the first version of the EUROPEP (EUROPEP-I). Scores were normalized to a 0-to-10 scale for descriptive comparison. Exploratory and confirmatory (structural equation modelling) factor analysis examined fit to operational definition, and item response theory analysis examined item performance on common constructs. RESULTS: The subscales demonstrate similar psychometric measures to those reported by developers. The PCAT-S First-Contact Utilization subscale does not fit the accessibility construct. The remaining three subscales load reasonably onto a single factor, presumed to be accessibility, but the best-fitting model has two factors: "timeliness of obtaining needed care" (PCAT-S First-Contact Access, some EUROPEP-I items) and "how resources are organized to accommodate clients" (PCAS Organizational Access and most of EUROPEP-I organization of care). Items in the PCAS and PCAT-S subscales have good discriminability. CONCLUSION: Only three of the four subscales measure accessibility; all are appropriate for use in Canada. The PCAT-S First-Contact Access subscale is the best measure for first-contact accessibility, and PCAS Organizational Accessibility has good metric properties and measures for accommodation.

Management continuity from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.

UNLABELLED: Management continuity, operationally defined as "the extent to which services delivered by different providers are timely and complementary such that care is experienced as connected and coherent," is a core attribute of primary healthcare. Continuity, as experienced by the patient, is the result of good care coordination or integration. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into how well management continuity is measured in validated coordination or integration subscales of primary healthcare instruments. METHOD: Relevant subscales from the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS), the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S), the Components of Primary Care Instrument (CPCI) and the Veterans Affairs National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey (VANOCSS) were administered to 432 adult respondents who had at least one healthcare contact with a provider other than their family physician in the previous 12 months. Subscales were examined descriptively, by correlation and factor analysis and item response theory analysis. Because the VANOCSS elicits coordination problems and is scored dichotomously, we used logistic regression to examine how evaluative subscales relate to reported problems. RESULTS: Most responses to the PCAS, PCAT-S and CPCI subscales were positive, yet 83% of respondents reported having one or more problems on the VANOCSS Overall Coordination subscale and 41% on the VANOCSS Specialist Access subscale. Exploratory factor analysis suggests two distinct factors. The first (eigenvalue=6.98) is coordination actions by the primary care physician in transitioning patient care to other providers (PCAS Integration subscale and most of the PCAT-S Coordination subscale). The second (eigenvalue=1.20) is efforts by the primary care physician to create coherence between different visits both within and outside the regular doctor's office (CPCI Coordination subscale). The PCAS Integration subscale was most strongly associated with lower likelihood of problems reported on the VANOCSS subscales. CONCLUSION: Ratings of management continuity correspond only modestly to reporting of coordination problems, possibly because they rate only the primary care physician, whereas patients experience problems across the entire system. The subscales were developed as measures of integration and provider coordination and do not capture the patient's experience of connectedness and coherence.

Relational continuity from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.

UNLABELLED: The operational definition of relational continuity is "a therapeutic relationship between a patient and one or more providers that spans various healthcare events and results in accumulated knowledge of the patient and care consistent with the patient's needs." OBJECTIVE: To examine how well relational continuity is measured in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient's perspective. METHOD: 645 adults with at least one healthcare contact in the previous 12 months responded to six instruments that evaluate primary healthcare. Five subscales map to relational continuity: the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS, two subscales), the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S) and the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI, two subscales). Scores were normalized for descriptive comparison. Exploratory and confirmatory (structural equation modelling) factor analysis examined fit to operational definition, and item response theory analysis examined item performance on common constructs. RESULTS: All subscales load reasonably well on a single factor, presumed to be relational continuity, but the best model has two underlying factors corresponding to (1) accumulated knowledge of the patient and (2) relationship that spans healthcare events. Some items were problematic even in the best model. The PCAS Contextual Knowledge subscale discriminates best between different levels of accumulated knowledge, but this dimension is also captured well by the CPCI Accumulated Knowledge subscale and most items in the PCAT-S Ongoing Care subscale. For relationship-spanning events, the items' content captures concentration of care in one doctor; this is captured best by the CPCI Preference for Regular Provider subscale and, to a lesser extent, by the PCAS Visit-Based Continuity subscale and one relevant item in the PCAT-S Ongoing Care subscale. But this dimension correlates only modestly with percentage of reported visits to the personal doctor. The items function as yes/no rather than ordinal options, and are especially informative for poor concentration of care. CONCLUSION: These subscales perform well for key elements of relational continuity, but do not capture consistency of care. They are more informative for poor relational continuity.