"What do you mean I can't have a doctor? this is Canada!" - a qualitative study of the myriad consequences for unattached patients awaiting primary care attachment.

BACKGROUND: Patient access to primary healthcare (PHC) is the foundation of a strong healthcare system and healthy populations. Attachment to a regular PHC provider, a key to healthcare access, has seen a decline in some jurisdictions. This study explored the consequences of unattachment from a patient perspective, an under-studied phenomenon to date. METHODS: A realist-informed qualitative study was conducted with unattached patients in Nova Scotia, Canada. Semi-structured interviews with nine participants were conducted and transcribed for analysis. The framework method was used to carry out analysis, which was guided by Donabedian's model of assessing healthcare access and quality. RESULTS: Five key findings were noted in this study: 1) Participants experienced a range of consequences from not having a regular PHC provider. Participants used creative strategies to 2) attempt to gain attachment to a regular PHC provider, and, to 3) address their health needs in the absence of a regular PHC provider. 4) Participants experienced negative feelings about themselves and the healthcare system, and 5) stress related to the consequences and added work of being unattached and lost care. CONCLUSIONS: Unattached patients experienced a burden of care related to lost care and managing their own health and related information, due to the download of medical record management and system navigation to them. These findings may underestimate the consequences for further at-risk populations who would not have been included in our recruitment. This may result in poorer health outcomes, which could be mitigated by interventions at the structural level, such as enhanced centralized waitlists to promote attachment. Such waitlists may benefit from a triage approach to appropriately attach patients based on need.

Regional variation in primary care improvement strategies and policy: case studies that consider qualitative contextual data for performance measurement in three Canadian provinces.

OBJECTIVE: To explore regional primary care improvement strategies that are potentially determinants of primary care performance. DESIGN: Multiple comparative embedded case study. SETTING: Three regions in Canada: Fraser East, British Columbia; Eastern Ontario Health Unit, Ontario; Central Zone, Nova Scotia. DATA SOURCES: (1) In-depth interviews with purposively selected key informants (eg, primary care decision-makers, physician leads, regulatory agencies) and focus groups with patients and clinicians (n=68 participants) and (2) published and grey literature (n=205 documents). OUTCOME MEASURES: Variations in spread and uptake of primary care improvement strategies across the three study regions. NVivo (V.11) was used to manage data and perform content analysis to identify categories within and across cases. The coding structure was developed by researchers through iterative collaboration, using inductive and deductive processes. RESULTS: Six overarching primary care improvement strategies, differing in focus and spread, were implemented across the three study regions: interprofessional team-based approaches, provider skill mix expansion, physician groups and networks, information systems, remuneration and performance measurement and reporting infrastructure. CONCLUSION: The addition of information on regional improvement strategies to primary care performance reports could add important contextual insights into primary care performance results. This could help identify possible drivers of reported performance outcomes and levers for change in practice, regional and system-level settings.