Patient Experience With Resident Versus Staff Physicians: Results From a Cross-Sectional Patient Survey From Canadian Family Medicine Residencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared experiences of patients who reported usually being seen by a resident with those usually seen by a staff physician. METHODS: We analyzed responses to a patient experience survey distributed at 13 family medicine teaching practices affiliated with the University of Toronto between May and June 2020. We analyzed responses to seven questions pertaining to timely access, continuity, and patient-centeredness. We compared responses between two types of usual primary care clinicians and calculated odds ratios before and after adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 6,545 unique surveys; 18.6% reported their usual clinician was a resident physician. Resident patients were more likely to be older, born outside of Canada, report a high school education or less, and report having difficulty making ends meet. Compared to patients of staff physicians, patients of resident physicians had lower odds of being able to see their preferred primary care clinician and lower odds of getting nonurgent care in a reasonable time. They also had lower odds of reporting patient-centered care, but we found no significant differences in whether the time for an urgent appointment was about right or whether accessing care after hours was easy. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, patients who reported usually seeing resident physicians had worse continuity of care and timeliness for nonurgent care than patients who reported usually seeing staff physicians despite resident patients being older, sicker, and having a lower socioeconomic position. Postgraduate training programs need to test models to support access and continuity for resident patient panels.

The prevalence of documented cardiovascular-related pregnancy complications: cross-sectional study in an academic primary care centre.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy and the postpartum period offer a unique opportunity to identify patients with risk factors leading to premature cardiovascular disease (CVD), which often go unrecognised. AIM: This study investigates self-reported prevalence of CVD-related pregnancy complications and its documentation in electronic medical records (EMRs) in an academic family health team (AFHT). DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective cross-sectional survey conducted from 2016 to 2017 in an AFHT. METHOD: The survey assessed self-reported pregnancy complications and obstetric histories of adult females. EMRs of responders who provided consent were appraised for documented pregnancy complications, and management of traditional cardiovascular risk factors post-pregnancy. RESULTS: Out of 211 responders, 28% (n = 60) had at least one pregnancy complication reported in the survey and/or in the EMR, of which 67% (n = 40) had the complication documented in their EMR. The most prevalent complications were preterm birth (PTB; 12%, n = 25), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP; 10%, n = 22), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM; 7%, n = 14). Twenty-nine per cent (n = 4) of the patients with GDM had a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test result documented post-pregnancy. Of those with HDP, 36% (n = 8) had body mass index and 50% (n = 11) had a blood pressure measurement recorded after delivery. CONCLUSION: There has been a significant lack of documentation of pregnancy-related cardiovascular risk factors and subsequent management, introducing a missed opportunity for early cardiovascular intervention. Adequate documentation of pregnancy complications in the EMR and better transitions in care between obstetric and primary care teams could potentially enable clinicians to intervene early and better manage females at increased risk of CVD.

Sociodemographic differences in patient experience with primary care during COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional survey in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand patients' care-seeking behaviours early in the pandemic, their use and views of different virtual care modalities, and whether these differed by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We conducted a multisite cross-sectional patient experience survey at 13 academic primary care teaching practices between May and June 2020. An anonymised link to an electronic survey was sent to a subset of patients with a valid email address on file; sampling was based on birth month. For each question, the proportion of respondents who selected each response was calculated, followed by a comparison by sociodemographic characteristics using χ2 tests. RESULTS: In total, 7532 participants responded to the survey. Most received care from their primary care clinic during the pandemic (67.7%, 5068/7482), the majority via phone (82.5%, 4195/5086). Among those who received care, 30.53% (1509/4943) stated that they delayed seeking care because of the pandemic. Most participants reported a high degree of comfort with phone (92.4%, 3824/4139), video (95.2%, 238/250) and email or messaging (91.3%, 794/870). However, those reporting difficulty making ends meet, poor or fair health and arriving in Canada in the last 10 years reported lower levels of comfort with virtual care and fewer wanted their practice to continue offering virtual options after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that newcomers, people living with a lower income and those reporting poor or fair health have a stronger preference and comfort for in-person primary care. Further research should explore potential barriers to virtual care and how these could be addressed.

The effectiveness of unannounced standardised patients in the clinical setting as a teaching intervention.

PURPOSE: Teaching medical students to spontaneously identify biopsychosocial issues (e.g. family violence) remains a challenge. We examined the extent to which using unannounced standardised patients (SPs) presenting in a clerk's clinical setting could assist with this teaching challenge. METHODS: All clerks attended a family violence seminar in their family medicine rotation. Intervention students additionally saw an unannounced SP portraying 1 of 2 scenarios in their preceptor's office during the rotation, and received immediate feedback about their performance. An end of rotation objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) included an SP presentation similar to that seen by the intervention students. RESULTS: Clerks who received the intervention demonstrated increased questioning about family violence, from 0% (0 of 29 students) to 19% (5 of 26 students) in 1 OSCE scenario (P = 0.019), and from 40% (12 of 30 students) to 76% (19 of 25 students) in the other (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Seeing unannounced SPs had a dramatic effect on later student performance. This potentially powerful intervention could be applied to a range of clinical issues.