"Family doctors are also people": a qualitative analysis of how family physicians managed competing personal and professional responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (FPs) fill an essential role in public health emergencies yet have frequently been neglected in pandemic response plans. This exclusion harms FPs in their clinical roles and has unintended consequences in the management of concurrent personal responsibilities, many of which were amplified by the pandemic. The objective of our study was to explore the experiences of FPs during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how they managed their competing professional and personal priorities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions between October 2020 and June 2021. Employing a maximum variation sampling approach, we recruited participants until we achieved saturation. Interviews explored FPs' personal and professional roles and responsibilities during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers that they encountered, and any gender-related experiences. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed 68 FPs during the pandemic and identified four overarching themes in participants' discussion of their personal experiences: personal caregiving responsibilities, COVID-19 risk navigation to protect family members, personal health concerns, and available and desired personal supports for FPs to manage their competing responsibilities. While FPs expressed a variety of ways in which their personal experiences made their professional responsibilities more complicated, rarely did that affect the extent to which they participated in the pandemic response. CONCLUSIONS: For FPs to contribute fully to a pandemic response, they must be factored into pandemic plans. Failure to appreciate their unique role and circumstances often leaves FPs feeling unsupported in both their professional and personal lives. Comprehensive planning in anticipation of future pandemics must consider FPs' varied responsibilities, health concerns, and necessary precautions. Having adequate personal and practice supports in place will facilitate the essential role of FPs in responding to a pandemic crisis while continuing to support their patients' primary care needs.

"Technology has allowed us to do a lot more but it's not necessarily the panacea for everybody": Family physician perspectives on virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

INTRODUCTION: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: The move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Access to episodic primary care: a cross-sectional comparison of walk-in clinics and urgent primary care centers in British Columbia.

AIM: This study aimed to identify publicly reported access characteristics for episodic primary care in BC and provided a clinic-level comparison between walk-in clinics and UPCCs. BACKGROUND: Walk-in clinics are non-hospital-based primary care facilities that are designed to operate without appointments and provide increased healthcare access with extended hours. Urgent and Primary Care Centres (UPCCs) were introduced to British Columbia (BC) in 2018 as an additional primary care resource that provided urgent, but not emergent care during extended hours. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from all walk-in clinics and UPCCs in BC. A structured data collection form was used to record access characteristics from clinic websites, including business hours, weekend availability, attachment to a longitudinal family practice, and provision of virtual services. FINDINGS: In total, 268 clinics were included in the analysis (243 walk-in clinics, 25 UPCCs). Of those, 225 walk-in clinics (92.6%) and two UPCCs (8.0%) were attached to a longitudinal family practice. Only 153 (63%) walk-in clinics offered weekend services, compared to 24 (96%) of UPCCs. Walk-in clinics offered the majority (8,968.6/ 78.4%) of their service hours between 08:00 and 17:00, Monday to Friday. UPCCs offered the majority (889.3/ 53.7%) of their service hours after 17:00. CONCLUSION: Most walk-in clinics were associated with a longitudinal family practice and provided the majority of clinic services during typical business hours. More research that includes patient characteristics and care outcomes, analyzed at the clinic level, may be useful to support the optimization of episodic primary healthcare delivery.

Evaluation of audit and feedback to family physicians on prescribing of opioid analgesics to opioid-naïve patients: A pragmatic randomized delay trial.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to opioid analgesics have historically raised concern for a risk of developing opioid use disorder. Prescriber audit-and-feedback interventions may reduce opioid prescribing, but some studies have shown detrimental effects for current users. We examined the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention, named Portrait, to reduce initiation of opioid analgesics among opioid-naïve patients experiencing pain. METHODS: REDONNA was a single-blinded, two-arm (Early vs Delayed mailing) randomized trial of a portrait for eligible family physicians (FPs) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The primary outcome was the change in the number of initiations of opioid analgesic prescriptions written by FPs for acute/chronic pain management. We compared outcomes for a 6-month window before vs. after each mailed intervention, using differences in percent differences (DPD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratios (OR) from logistic regressions adjusted for clustering of patients by FP. RESULTS: In the Early (n = 2260) and Delayed (n = 2156) groups, opioid initiations per month were the same in the Before (2.10 Early; 2.06 Delayed) and After (1.94 Early; 1.95 Delayed) windows. The DPD was -2.1% (CI: -4.4% to 0.3%), and ORs were: 0.98 (CI: 0.96 to 1.01) for any opioid, 0.97 (CI: 0.94 to 1.01) for codeine (62% of initiations), and 1.0 (CI: 0.97 to 1.07) for tramadol (25% of initiations). There were no differences in mean quantity of tablets, mean milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME), or mean number of days. CONCLUSION: Portrait had no impact on FPs' rates of prescribing opioid analgesics to opioid-naïve patients experiencing pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively on 30 March 2020 at the ISRCTN Register (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34246811).

For health or for profit? Understanding how private financing and for-profit delivery operate within Canadian healthcare (4H|4P): protocol for a multimethod knowledge mobilisation research project.

INTRODUCTION: Privatisation through the expansion of private payment and investor-owned corporate healthcare delivery in Canada raises potential conflicts with equity principles on which Medicare (Canadian public health insurance) is founded. Some cases of privatisation are widely recognised, while others are evolving and more hidden, and their extent differs across provinces and territories likely due in part to variability in policies governing private payment (out-of-pocket payments and private insurance) and delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pan-Canadian knowledge mobilisation project will collect, classify, analyse and interpret data about investor-owned privatisation of healthcare financing and delivery systems in Canada. Learnings from the project will be used to develop, test and refine a new conceptual framework that will describe public-private interfaces operating within Canada's healthcare system. In Phase I, we will conduct an environmental scan to: (1) document core policies that underpin public-private interfaces; and (2) describe new or emerging forms of investor-owned privatisation ('cases'). We will analyse data from the scan and use inductive content analysis with a pragmatic approach. In Phase II, we will convene a virtual policy workshop with subject matter experts to refine the findings from the environmental scan and, using an adapted James Lind Alliance Delphi process, prioritise health system sectors and/or services in need of in-depth research on the impacts of private financing and investor-owned delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained approval from the research ethics boards at Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia and University of Victoria through Research Ethics British Columbia (H23-00612). Participants will provide written informed consent. In addition to traditional academic publications, study results will be summarised in a policy report and a series of targeted policy briefs distributed to workshop participants and decision/policymaking organisations across Canada. The prioritised list of cases will form the basis for future research projects that will investigate the impacts of investor-owned privatisation.

Changes in comprehensiveness of services delivered by Canadian family physicians: Analysis of population-based linked data in 4 provinces.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in the comprehensiveness of services delivered by family physicians across service settings and service areas in 4 Canadian provinces, to identify which settings and areas have changed the most, and to compare the magnitude of changes by physician characteristics. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of province-wide, population-based billing data linked to population and physician registries. SETTING: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians registered to practise in the 1999-2000 and 2017-2018 fiscal years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comprehensiveness was measured across 7 service settings (home care, long-term care, emergency departments, hospitals, obstetric care, surgical assistance, anesthesiology) and in 7 service areas consistent with office-based practice (prenatal and postnatal care, Papanicolaou testing, mental health, substance use, cancer care, minor surgery, palliative home visits). The proportion of physicians with activity in each setting and area are reported and the average number of service settings and areas by physician characteristics is described (years in practice, sex, urban or rural practice setting, and location of medical degree training). RESULTS: Declines in comprehensiveness were observed across all provinces studied. Declines were greater for comprehensiveness of settings than for areas consistent with office-based practice. Changes were observed across all physician characteristics. On average across provinces, declines in the number of service settings and service areas were highest among physicians in practice 20 years or longer, male physicians, and physicians practising in urban areas. CONCLUSION: Declining comprehensiveness was observed across all physician characteristics, pointing to changes in the practice and policy contexts in which all family physicians work.

What can publicly funded schools teach us about how to fix the family doctor shortage?

Recent estimates suggest that up to 22% of Canadians over 18 do not have regular access to a family doctor or nurse practitioner. This lack of access is often characterized as a "family doctor shortage" and has been making headlines for decades. However, we have more family doctors than ever before, and in fact, the lack of primary care access is less about a shortage of physicians and more a need to develop a modern infrastructure and new way of funding and organizing care. Real change will require a paradigm shift from doctor- to clinic-organized care. The example of how schools are organized for public education may hold answers about how to make that paradigm shift and with investment in infrastructure see improvements in access to care across the country.

Walk-in clinic patient characteristics and utilization patterns in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Walk-in clinics are common in North America and are designed to provide acute episodic care without an appointment. We sought to describe a sample of walk-in clinic patients in Ontario, Canada, which is a setting with high levels of primary care attachment. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using health administrative data from 2019. We compared the sociodemographic characteristics and health care utilization patterns of patients attending 1 of 72 walk-in clinics with those of the general Ontario population. We examined the subset of patients who were enrolled with a family physician and compared walk-in clinic visits to family physician visits. RESULTS: Our study found that 562 781 patients made 1 148 151 visits to the included walk-in clinics. Most (70%) patients who attended a walk-in clinic had an enrolling family physician. Walk-in clinic patients were younger (mean age 36 yr v. 41 yr, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.24), yet had greater health care utilization (moderate and high use group 74% v. 65%, SMD 0.20) than the general Ontario population. Among enrolled Ontarians, walk-in patients had more comorbidities (moderate and high count 50% v. 45%, SMD 0.10), lived farther from their enrolling physician (median 8 km v. 6 km, SMD 0.21) and saw their enrolling physician less in the previous year (any visit 67% v. 80%, SMD 0.30). Walk-in encounters happened more often after hours (16% v. 9%, SMD 0.20) and on weekends (18% v. 5%, SMD 0.45). Walk-in clinics were more often within 3 km of patients' homes than enrolling physicians' offices (0 to < 3 km: 32% v. 22%, SMD 0.21). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that proximity of walk-in clinics and after-hours access may be contributing to walk-in clinic use among patients enrolled with a family physician. These findings have implications for policy development to improve the integration of walk-in clinics and longitudinal primary care.

"There's nothing like a good crisis for innovation": a qualitative study of family physicians' experiences with virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the pandemic, Canada lagged behind other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the uptake of virtual care. The onset of COVID-19, however, resulted in a near-universal shift to virtual primary care to minimise exposure risks. As jurisdictions enter a pandemic recovery phase, the balance between virtual and in-person visits is reverting, though it is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the rapid move to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both future pandemic planning for primary care and the optimal integration of virtual care into the broader primary care context beyond the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 68 family physicians from four regions in Canada between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, continuing recruitment in each region until we reached saturation. Interviews with family physicians explored their roles and experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support their patients through the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed for recurrent themes. RESULTS: We identified three prominent themes throughout participants' reflections on implementing virtual care: implementation and evolution of virtual modalities during the pandemic; facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual care; and virtual care in the future. While some family physicians had prior experience conducting remote assessments, most had to implement and adapt to virtual care abruptly as provinces limited in-person visits to essential and urgent care. As the pandemic progressed, initial forays into video-based consultations were frequently replaced by phone-based visits, while physicians also rebalanced the ratio of virtual to in-person visits. Medical record systems with integrated capacity for virtual visits, billing codes, supportive clinic teams, and longitudinal relationships with patients were facilitators in this rapid transition for family physicians, while the absence of these factors often posed barriers. CONCLUSION: Despite varied experiences and preferences related to virtual primary care, physicians felt that virtual visits should continue to be available beyond the pandemic but require clearer regulation and guidelines for its appropriate future use.

The roles of family physicians during a pandemic.

Family physicians play important roles throughout all stages of a pandemic response; however, actionable descriptions outlining these roles are absent from current pandemic plans. Using a multiple case study design, we conducted a document analysis and interviewed 68 family physicians in four Canadian regions. We identified roles performed by family physicians in five distinct stages of pandemic response: pre-pandemic, phased closure and re-opening, acute care crisis, vaccination, and pandemic recovery. In addition to adopting public health guidance to ensure continued access to primary care services, family physicians were often expected to operationalize public health roles (eg, staffing assessment centres), modulate access to secondary/tertiary services, help provide surge capacity in acute care facilities, and enhance supports and outreach to vulnerable populations. Future pandemic plans should include family physicians in planning, explicitly incorporate family physician roles, and ensure needed resources are available to allow for an effective primary care response.

Interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescriptions and over-the-counter medication use among adults 65 years and older in primary care settings: protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on potentially inappropriate prescribing and over-the-counter (OTC) medication use among adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review of the benefits and harms and acceptability of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medication use. METHODS: De novo systematic reviews will be conducted to synthesize the available evidence on (a) the benefits and harms of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medications compared to no intervention, usual care, or non- or minimally active intervention among adults aged 65 years and older and (b) the acceptability of these interventions or attributes among patients. Outcomes of interest for the benefits and harms review are all-cause mortality, hospitalization, non-serious adverse drug reactions, quality of life, emergency department visits, injurious falls, medical visits, and the number of medications (and number of pills). Outcomes for the acceptability review are the preference for and relative importance of different interventions or their attributes. For the benefits and harms review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials. For the acceptability review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for experimental and observational studies with a comparator. Websites of relevant organizations, other grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies and reviews will be searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers using the liberal accelerated approach. Full-text review, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to inform their recommendation on potentially inappropriate prescribing and OTC medication use among adults aged 65 years and older. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (KQ1: CRD42022302313; KQ2: CRD42022302324); Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/urj4b/ ).

Family physicians' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on preventative care in primary care: findings from a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Health system disruptions, caused by unexpected emergencies such as disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and cybercrimes, impact the delivery of routine preventative care. As comprehensive care providers, family physicians (FPs) devote significant time to prevention. However, without emergency and pandemic plans in place in primary care, FPs face added barriers to prioritizing and sustaining preventative care when health systems are strained, which was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to describe FPs' experiences providing preventative care during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perceptions of the impacts of disrupted preventative care in primary care settings. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semistructured interviews with FPs across 4 provinces in Canada (i.e. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia) between October 2020 and June 2021 as part of a larger multiple case study. These interviews broadly explored the roles and responsibilities of FPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were coded thematically and codes from the larger study were analysed further using an iterative, phased process of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviews averaged 58 min in length (range 17-97 min) and FPs had a mean of 16.9 years of experience. We identified 4 major themes from interviews with FPs (n = 68): (i) lack of capacity and coordination across health systems, (ii) patient fear, (iii) impacts on patient care, and (iv) negative impacts on FPs. Physicians voiced concerns with managing patients' prevention needs when testing availability and coordination of services was limited. Early in the pandemic, patients were also missing or postponing their own primary care appointments. Change in the provision and coordination of routine preventative care had negative impacts on both patients and physicians, affecting disease incidence/progression, physician workload, and psychological wellbeing. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, upstream care efforts were impacted, and FPs were forced to reduce their provision of preventative care. FPs contribute direct insight to primary care delivery that can support pandemic planning to ensure preventative care is sustained during future emergencies.

Advancing virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder (VPC OUD): a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of COVID-19 introduced a dual public health emergency in British Columbia, which was already in the fourth year of its opioid-related overdose crisis. The public health response to COVID-19 must explicitly consider the unique needs of, and impacts on, communities experiencing marginalisation including people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD). The broad move to virtual forms of primary care, for example, may result in changes to healthcare access, delivery of opioid agonist therapies or fluctuations in co-occurring health problems that are prevalent in this population. The goal of this mixed-methods study is to characterise changes to primary care access and patient outcomes following the rapid introduction of virtual care for PWOUD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a fully integrated mixed-methods design comprised of three components: (a) qualitative interviews with family physicians and PWOUD to document experiences with delivering and accessing virtual visits, respectively; (b) quantitative analysis of linked, population-based administrative data to describe the uptake of virtual care, its impact on access to services and downstream outcomes for PWOUD; and (c) facilitated deliberative dialogues to co-create educational resources for family physicians, PWOUD and policymakers that promote equitable access to high-quality virtual primary care for this population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for this study has been granted by Research Ethics British Columbia. We will convene PWOUD and family physicians for deliberative dialogues to co-create educational materials and policy recommendations based on our findings. We will also disseminate findings via traditional academic outputs such as conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Finding Primary Care-Repurposing Physician Registration Data to Generate a Regionally Accurate List of Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of an Open-Source Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Some Canadians have limited access to longitudinal primary care, despite its known advantages for population health. Current initiatives to transform primary care aim to increase access to team-based primary care clinics. However, many regions lack a reliable method to enumerate clinics, limiting estimates of clinical capacity and ongoing access gaps. A region-based complete clinic list is needed to effectively describe clinic characteristics and to compare primary care outcomes at the clinic level. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to show how publicly available data sources, including the provincial physician license registry, can be used to generate a verifiable, region-wide list of primary care clinics in British Columbia, Canada, using a process named the Clinic List Algorithm (CLA). METHODS: The CLA has 10 steps: (1) collect data sets, (2) develop clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) process data sets, (4) consolidate data sets, (5) transform from list of physicians to initial list of clinics, (6) add additional metadata, (7) create working lists, (8) verify working lists, (9) consolidate working lists, and (10) adjust processing steps based on learnings. RESULTS: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Registry contained 13,726 physicians, at 2915 unique addresses, 6942 (50.58%) of whom were family physicians (FPs) licensed to practice in British Columbia. The CLA identified 1239 addresses where primary care was delivered by 4262 (61.39%) FPs. Of the included addresses, 84.50% (n=1047) were in urban locations, and there was a median of 2 (IQR 2-4, range 1-23) FPs at each unique address. CONCLUSIONS: The CLA provides a region-wide description of primary care clinics that improves on simple counts of primary care providers or self-report lists. It identifies the number and location of primary care clinics and excludes primary care providers who are likely not providing community-based primary care. Such information may be useful for estimates of capacity of primary care, as well as for policy planning and research in regions engaged in primary care evaluation or transformation.

Development and pilot evaluation of an educational session to support sparing opioid prescriptions to opioid naïve patients in a Canadian primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing rates of some analgesics decreased during the public health crisis. Yet, up to a quarter of opioid-naïve persons prescribed opioids for noncancer pain develop prescription opioid use disorder. We, therefore, sought to evaluate a pilot educational session to support primary care-based sparing of opioid analgesics for noncancer pain among opioid-naïve patients in British Columbia (BC). METHODS: Therapeutics Initiative in BC has launched an audit and feedback intervention. Individual prescribing portraits were mailed to opioid prescribers, followed by academic detailing webinars. The webinars' learning outcomes included defining the terms opioid naïve and opioid sparing, and educating attendees on the (lack of) evidence for opioid analgesics to treat noncancer pain. The primary outcome was change in knowledge measured by four multiple-choice questions at the outset and conclusion of the webinar. RESULTS: Two hundred participants attended four webinars; 124 (62%) responded to the knowledge questions. Community-based primary care professionals (80/65%) from mostly urban settings (77/62%) self-identified as family physicians (46/37%), residents (22/18%), nurse practitioners (24/19%), and others (32/26%). Twelve participants (10%) recalled receiving the individualized portraits. While the correct identification of opioid naïve definitions increased by 23%, the correct identification of opioid sparing declined by 7%. Knowledge of the gaps in high-quality evidence supporting opioid analgesics and risk tools increased by 26% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The educational session outlined in this pilot yielded mixed results but appeared acceptable to learners and may need further refinement to become a feasible way to train professionals to help tackle the current toxic drugs crisis.

Clinical care pathway for the evaluation of patients with suspected VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare complication after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) adenoviral vector vaccination. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, a provincial clinical care pathway was developed to guide clinicians in evaluating for VITT among patients who present with thrombocytopenia or thrombosis symptoms within 4 to 28 days after adenoviral vector vaccine exposure. All patients had enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing for platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies, and all cases with positive PF4-ELISA or d-dimer levels ≥2.0 mg/L fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU) had further testing for platelet-activating PF4 antibodies using a modified serotonin release assay (SRA). Between 1 May and 30 June 2021, 37% of 68 patients investigated for VITT had thrombosis, but only 3 had VITT confirmed by PF4-ELISA and SRA. Platelet counts, d-dimer levels, and ELISA optical density values were significantly different between those with and without VITT. Three patients had thrombocytopenia and thrombosis with d-dimer levels >4.0 mg/L FEU but had negative PF4-ELISA and SRA results. Patients with VITT were treated successfully with IV immunoglobulin, nonheparin anticoagulants, and corticosteroids. Our pathway demonstrated that thrombosis is common among patients investigated for VITT and that PF4-ELISA testing is necessary to confirm VITT in those presenting with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.

Patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs implemented within fee-for-service systems in British Columbia and Quebec: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information on patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs (e.g. incentive payments) implemented within fee-for-service systems. We explored patient characteristics associated with enrolment under these programs in British Columbia and Quebec. METHODS: We used linked administrative data and a cross-sectional design to compare people aged 40 years or more enrolled under voluntary programs to those who were eligible but not enrolled. We examined 2 programs in Quebec (enrolment of vulnerable patients with qualifying conditions [implemented in 2003] and enrolment of the general population [2009]) and 3 in BC (Chronic disease incentive [2003], Complex care incentive [2007] and enrolment of the general population [A GP for Me, 2013]). We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of enrolment by neighbourhood income, rural versus urban residence, previous treatment for mental illness, previous treatment for substance use disorder and use of health care services before program implementation, controlling for characteristics linked to program eligibility. RESULTS: In Quebec, we identified 1 569 010 people eligible for the vulnerable enrolment program (of whom 505 869 [32.2%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr of program implementation) and 2 394 923 for the general enrolment program (of whom 352 380 [14.7%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr). In BC, we identified 133 589 people eligible for the Chronic disease incentive, 47 619 for the Complex care incentive and 1 349 428 for A GP for Me; of these, 60 764 (45.5%), 28 273 (59.4%) and 1 066 714 (79.0%), respectively, were enrolled within the first 2 years. The odds of enrolment were higher in higher-income neighbourhoods for programs without enrolment criteria (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comparing highest to lowest quintiles 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.23] in Quebec and 1.67 [95% CI 1.64-1.69] in BC) but were similar across neighbourhood income quintiles for programs with health-related eligibility criteria. The odds of enrolment by urban versus rural location varied by program. People treated for substance use disorders had lower odds of enrolment in all programs (adjusted OR 0.60-0.72). Compared to people eligible but not enrolled, those enrolled had similar or higher numbers of primary care visits and longitudinal continuity of care in the year before enrolment. INTERPRETATION: People living in lower-income neighbourhoods and those treated for substance use disorders were less likely than people in higher-income neighbourhoods and those not treated for such disorders to be enrolled in programs without health-related eligibility criteria. Other strategies are needed to promote equitable access to primary care.

Team-based care Evaluation and Adoption Model (TEAM) Framework: Supporting the comprehensive evaluation of primary care transformation over time.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce the new Team-based care Evaluation and Adoption Model (TEAM) Framework. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: The initial TEAM Framework was derived from a series of reviews and consultations with academic and clinical experts. In a parallel process, team-based primary and community care evaluation in Canada was assessed through a structured review of academic literature, followed by a review of policy literature of existing primary care evaluation frameworks. MAIN MESSAGE: The review of academic articles alongside an analysis of policy documents and existing evaluation frameworks in primary care resulted in the development of the 10-dimension TEAM Framework. CONCLUSION: Primary care transformation requires evaluation over time. The TEAM Framework provides a comprehensive framework for assessing evidence needed to support short- and long-term actionable improvements for team-based primary and community care in Canada. This framework will inform the development of an evaluation tool kit for primary care teams.

Opioid prescribing practice standard in British Columbia, Canada: Rationale, controversies, and directions.

British Columbia (BC) has been the hardest hit province in Canada's ongoing overdose epidemic. As part of the province-level response, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) implemented the "Safe Prescribing of Drugs with Potential for Misuse/Diversion" practice standard in June 2016. The practice standard established specific dose and quantity thresholds for opioid prescribing as professional and ethical conduct expectations for physicians in BC. This supply side intervention was based on expert interpretation of available evidence of non-superiority of opioid treatments to non-opioid treatments. However, the potential for misinterpretation of dosage ceiling thresholds and the negative repercussions to patients that could follow raised concerns among both physicians and patients. We provide a comprehensive overview of the rationale, early impact, controversies, and potential shortcomings of the CPSBC's practice standard.