Adapting care provision in family practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the impact of primary care reforms in four Canadian regions.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, Canadian provinces and territories have introduced a series of primary care reforms in an attempt to improve access to and quality of primary care services, resulting in diverse organizational structures and practice models. We examine the impact of these reforms on family physicians' (FPs) ability to adapt their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the provision of routine primary care. METHODS: As part of a larger case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs in four Canadian regions: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. During the interviews, participants were asked about their personal and practice characteristics, the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles FPs could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was applied to identify recurring themes in the data. RESULTS: Sixty-eight FPs completed an interview across the four regions. Participants described five areas of primary care reform that impacted their ability to operate and provide care during the pandemic: funding models, electronic medical records (EMRs), integration with regional entities, interdisciplinary teams, and practice size. FPs in alternate funding models experienced fewer financial constraints than those in fee-for-service practices. EMR access enhanced FPs' ability to deliver virtual care, integration with regional entities improved access to personal protective equipment and technological support, and team-based models facilitated the implementation of infection prevention and control protocols. Lastly, larger group practices had capacity to ensure adequate staffing and cover additional costs, allowing FPs more time to devote to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Recent primary care system reforms implemented in Canada enhanced FPs' ability to adapt to the uncertain and evolving environment of providing primary care during the pandemic. Our study highlights the importance of ongoing primary care reforms to enhance pandemic preparedness and advocates for further expansion of these reforms.

"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.

Practice- and System-Based Interventions to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in Primary Care Settings: A Qualitative Study.

Using qualitative interviews with 68 family physicians (FPs) in Canada, we describe practice- and system-based approaches that were used to mitigate COVID-19 exposure in primary care settings across Canada to ensure the continuation of primary care delivery. Participants described how they applied infection prevention and control procedures (risk assessment, hand hygiene, control of environment, administrative control, personal protective equipment) and relied on centralized services that directed patients with COVID-19 to settings outside of primary care, such as testing centres. The multi-layered approach mitigated the risk of COVID-19 exposure while also conserving resources, preserving capacity and supporting supply chains.

An analysis of policies supporting the roles of family physicians in four regions in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Policy supports are needed to ensure that Family Physicians (FPs) can carry out pandemic-related roles. We conducted a document analysis in four regions in Canada to identify regulation, expenditure, and public ownership policies during the COVID-19 pandemic to support FP pandemic roles. Policies supported FP roles in five areas: FP leadership, Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC), provision of primary care services, COVID-19 vaccination, and redeployment. Public ownership polices were used to operate assessment, testing and vaccination, and influenza-like illness clinics and facilitate access to personal protective equipment. Expenditure policies were used to remunerate FPs for virtual care and carrying out COVID-19-related tasks. Regulatory policies were region-specific and used to enact and facilitate virtual care, build surge capacity, and enforce IPAC requirements. By matching FP roles to policy supports, the findings highlight different policy approaches for FPs in carrying out pandemic roles and will help to inform future pandemic preparedness.

Strengthening the integration of primary care in pandemic response plans: a qualitative interview study of Canadian family physicians.

BACKGROUND: As the first point of contact in health care, primary care providers play an integral role in pandemic response. Despite this, primary care has been overlooked in previous pandemic plans, with a lack of emphasis on ways in which the unique characteristics of family practice could be leveraged to create a more effective response. AIM: To explore family physicians' perceptions of the integration of primary care in the COVID-19 pandemic response. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive qualitative approach examining family physician roles during the COVID-19 pandemic across four regions in Canada. METHOD: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with family physicians and participants were asked about their roles during each pandemic stage, as well as facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was employed to develop a unified coding template across the four regions and identify recurring themes. RESULTS: In total, 68 family physicians completed interviews. Four priorities for integrating primary care in future pandemic planning were identified: 1) improve communication with family physicians; 2) prioritise community-based primary care; 3) leverage the longitudinal relationship between patients and family physicians; and 4) preserve primary care workforce capacity. Across all regions, family physicians felt that primary care was not well incorporated into the COVID-19 pandemic response. CONCLUSION: Future pandemic plans require greater integration of primary care to ensure the delivery of an effective and coordinated pandemic response. Strengthening pandemic preparedness requires a broader reconsideration and better understanding of the central role of primary care in health system functioning.

"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.

Family physicians' responses to personal protective equipment shortages in four regions in Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-documented increased demands and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during previous disease outbreaks, health systems in Canada were poorly prepared to meet the need for PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary care sector, PPE shortages impacted the delivery of health services and contributed to increased workload, fear, and anxiety among primary care providers. This study examines family physicians' (FPs) response to PPE shortages during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future pandemic planning. METHODS: As part of a multiple case study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs across four regions in Canada. During the interviews, FPs were asked to describe the pandemic-related roles they performed over different stages of the pandemic, facilitators and barriers they experienced in performing these roles, and potential roles they could have filled. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was employed to identify recurring themes. For the current study, we examined themes related to PPE. RESULTS: A total of 68 FPs were interviewed across the four regions. Four overarching themes were identified: 1) factors associated with good PPE access, 2) managing PPE shortages, 3) impact of PPE shortages on practice and providers, and 4) symbolism of PPE in primary care. There was a wide discrepancy in access to PPE both within and across regions, and integration with hospital or regional health authorities often resulted in better access than community-based practices. When PPE was limited, FPs described rationing and reusing these resources in an effort to conserve, which often resulted in anxiety and personal safety concerns. Many FPs expressed that PPE shortages had come to symbolize neglect and a lack of concern for the primary care sector in the pandemic response. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic response, hospital-centric plans and a lack of prioritization for primary care led to shortages of PPE for family physicians. This study highlights the need to consider primary care in PPE conservation and allocation strategies and to examine the influence of the underlying organization of primary care on PPE distribution during the pandemic.

Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial and propensity-matched analyses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched). METHODS: Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]). INTERPRETATION: Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods. ONTARIO: ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.

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.

Virtual family physician care during COVID-19: a mixed methods study using health administrative data and qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in primary health care from predominantly in-person to high volumes of virtual care. The pandemic afforded the opportunity to conduct a deep regional examination of virtual care by family physicians in London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada that would inform the foundation for virtual care in our region post-pandemic. OBJECTIVES: (1) to determine volumes of in-person and virtual family physicians visits and characteristics of the family physicians and patients using them during the early COVID-19 pandemic; (2) to determine how virtual visit volumes changed over the pandemic, compared to in-person; and (3) to explore family physicians' experience in virtual visit adoption and implementation. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study of family physicians from March to October 2020. The quantitative component examined mean weekly number of total, in-person and virtual visits using health administrative data. Differences in outcomes according to physician and practice characteristics for pandemic periods were compared to pre-pandemic. The qualitative study employed Constructivist Grounded Theory, conducting semi-structured family physicians interviews; analyzing data iteratively using constant comparative analysis. We mapped themes from the qualitative analysis to quantitative findings. RESULTS: Initial volumes of patients decreased, driven by fewer in-person visits. Virtual visit volumes increased dramatically; family physicians described using telephone almost entirely. Rural family physicians reported video connectivity issues. By early second wave, total family physician visit volume returned to pre-pandemic volumes. In-person visits increased substantially; family physicians reported this happened because previously scarce personal protective equipment became available. Patients seen during the pandemic were older, sicker, and more materially deprived. CONCLUSION: These results can inform the future of virtual family physician care including the importance of continued virtual care compensation, the need for equitable family physician payment models, and the need to attend to equity for vulnerable patients. Given the move to virtual care was primarily a move to telephone care, the modality of care delivery that is acceptable to both family physicians and their patients must be considered.

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.

"It was horrible for that community, but not for the way we had imagined": A qualitative study of family physicians' experiences of caring for communities experiencing marginalisation during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 response required family physicians (FPs) to adapt their practice to minimise transmission risks. Policy guidance to facilitate enacting public health measures has been generic and difficult to apply, particularly for FPs working with communities that experience marginalisation. Our objective was to explore the experiences of FPs serving communities experiencing marginalisation during COVID-19, and the impact the pandemic and pandemic response have had on physicians' ability to provide care. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions, October 2020 through June 2021. We employed maximum variation sampling and continued recruitment until we reached saturation. Interviews explored participants' roles/experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support communities experiencing marginalisation throughout. We used a thematic approach to analyse the data. FPs working with communities experiencing marginalisation expressed the need to continue providing in-person care throughout the pandemic, often requiring them to devise innovative adaptations to their clinical settings and practice. Physicians noted the health implications for their patients, particularly where services were limited or deferred, and that pandemic response policies frequently ignored the unique needs of their patient populations. Pandemic-related precautionary measures that sought to minimise viral transmission and prevent overwhelming acute care settings may have undermined pre-existing services and superseded the ongoing harms that are disproportionately experienced by communities experiencing marginalisation. FPs are well placed to support the development of pandemic response plans that appreciate competing risks amongst their communities and must be included in pandemic planning in the future.

Is primary health care ready for artificial intelligence? What do primary health care stakeholders say?

BACKGROUND: Effective deployment of AI tools in primary health care requires the engagement of practitioners in the development and testing of these tools, and a match between the resulting AI tools and clinical/system needs in primary health care. To set the stage for these developments, we must gain a more in-depth understanding of the views of practitioners and decision-makers about the use of AI in primary health care. The objective of this study was to identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. METHODS: This study utilized a descriptive qualitative approach, including thematic data analysis. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary health care and digital health stakeholders in Ontario. NVivo software was utilized in the coding of the interviews. RESULTS: Five main interconnected themes emerged: (1) Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality-denoting the importance of potential applications of AI in primary health care practice, with a recognition of the current reality characterized by a lack of available tools; (2) Mechanics of AI Don't Matter: Just Another Tool in the Toolbox- reflecting an interest in what value AI tools could bring to practice, rather than concern with the mechanics of the AI tools themselves; (3) AI in Practice: A Double-Edged Sword-the possible benefits of AI use in primary health care contrasted with fundamental concern about the possible threats posed by AI in terms of clinical skills and capacity, mistakes, and loss of control; (4) The Non-Starters: A Guarded Stance Regarding AI Adoption in Primary Health Care-broader concerns centred on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI use in primary health care; and (5) Necessary Elements: Facilitators of AI in Primary Health Care-elements required to support the uptake of AI tools, including co-creation, availability and use of high quality data, and the need for evaluation. CONCLUSION: The use of AI in primary health care may have a positive impact, but many factors need to be considered regarding its implementation. This study may help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

Family physician leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: roles, functions and key supports.

PURPOSE: Strong leadership in primary care is necessary to coordinate an effective pandemic response; however, descriptions of leadership roles for family physicians are absent from previous pandemic plans. This study aims to describe the leadership roles and functions family physicians played during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and identify supports and barriers to formalizing these roles in future pandemic plans. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians across four regions in Canada as part of a multiple case study. During the interviews, participants were asked about their roles during each pandemic stage and the facilitators and barriers they experienced. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was used to identify recurring themes. FINDINGS: Sixty-eight family physicians completed interviews. Three key functions of family physician leadership during the pandemic were identified: conveying knowledge, developing and adapting protocols for primary care practices and advocacy. Each function involved curating and synthesizing information, tailoring communications based on individual needs and building upon established relationships. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Findings demonstrate the need for future pandemic plans to incorporate formal family physician leadership appointments, as well as supports such as training, communication aides and compensation to allow family physicians to enact these key roles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to examine the leadership roles of family physicians, which have been largely overlooked in past pandemic plans. This study's findings highlight the importance of these roles toward delivering an effective and coordinated pandemic response with uninterrupted and safe access to primary care.

Complex skills are required for new primary health care researchers: a training program responds.

BACKGROUND: Current dimensions of the primary health care research (PHC) context, including the need for contextualized research methods to address complex questions, and the co-creation of knowledge through partnerships with stakeholders - require PHC researchers to have a comprehensive set of skills for engaging effectively in high impact research. MAIN BODY: In 2002 we developed a unique program to respond to these needs - Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research - Primary Health Care (TUTOR-PHC). The program's goals are to train a cadre of PHC researchers, clinicians, and decision makers in interdisciplinary research to aid them in tackling current and future challenges in PHC and in leading collaborative interdisciplinary research teams. Seven essential educational approaches employed by TUTOR-PHC are described, as well as the principles underlying the curriculum. This program is unique because of its pan-Canadian nature, longevity, and the multiplicity of disciplines represented. Program evaluation results indicate: 1) overall program experiences are very positive; 2) TUTOR-PHC increases trainee interdisciplinary research understanding and activity; and 3) this training assists in developing their interdisciplinary research careers. Taken together, the structure of the program, its content, educational approaches, and principles, represent a complex whole. This complexity parallels that of the PHC research context - a context that requires researchers who are able to respond to multiple challenges. CONCLUSION: We present this description of ways to teach and learn the advanced complex skills necessary for successful PHC researchers with a view to supporting the potential uptake of program components in other settings.

Connecting artificial intelligence and primary care challenges: findings from a multi stakeholder collaborative consultation.

Despite widespread advancements in and envisioned uses for artificial intelligence (AI), few examples of successfully implemented AI innovations exist in primary care (PC) settings. OBJECTIVES: To identify priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A collaborative consultation event engaged multiple stakeholders in a nominal group technique process to generate, discuss and rank ideas for how AI can support Ontario PC. RESULTS: The consultation process produced nine ranked priorities: (1) preventative care and risk profiling, (2) patient self-management of condition(s), (3) management and synthesis of information, (4) improved communication between PC and AI stakeholders, (5) data sharing and interoperability, (6-tie) clinical decision support, (6-tie) administrative staff support, (8) practitioner clerical and routine task support and (9) increased mental healthcare capacity and support. Themes emerging from small group discussions about barriers, implementation issues and resources needed to support the priorities included: equity and the digital divide; system capacity and culture; data availability and quality; legal and ethical issues; user-centred design; patient-centredness; and proper evaluation of AI-driven tool implementation. DISCUSSION: Findings provide guidance for future work on AI and PC. There are immediate opportunities to use existing resources to develop and test AI for priority areas at the patient, provider and system level. For larger scale, sustainable innovations, there is a need for longer-term projects that lay foundations around data and interdisciplinary work. CONCLUSION: Study findings can be used to inform future research and development of AI for PC, and to guide resource planning and allocation.

Family physician virtual care during COVID-19 in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada: a mixed methods exploration.

Context: On March 14, 2020, the Ontario, Canada health insurance plan approved COVID-19 physician virtual billing codes; family physicians (FPs) rapidly adopted a new model of care. Virtual care may remain post-pandemic; however, its future should be informed by evidence that considers access and continuity. Objective: 1) to determine FP virtual visit volumes and patient characteristics and 2) to explore FPs' perspectives on virtual visit adoption and implementation. Study Design: Mixed methods: Secondary analysis of health administrative (HA) data and semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs. Setting or Dataset: London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada. HA data through ICES, Ontario entity holding data. Population studied: FPs and their patients. Outcome Measures: Volumes of FP in-person and virtual visits during early pandemic; characteristics of patients receiving care; FPs' perspectives on adopting and delivering virtual care. Results: Overall visit volume dropped by 36% during first wave, recovered to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020. Sharp in-person visit drop of 73% and virtual visit uptake from 0.08% of total visits to 57% within two weeks of March 2020. FPs described this initial drop in volume as patients not seeking care and practices lacking PPE. The move to virtual care was largely to telephone visits. Patient characteristics compared to pre-pandemic, the proportion seeking care were older (46 vs 50 years), more vulnerable (38% vs 41%), and more multimorbidity (33% vs 41%). This was consistent with FP reports that healthier patients stayed away, routine care deferred, sicker patients needed to be seen. FPs believed most vulnerable patients had access to care but cautioned highly vulnerable such as those homeless did not have cell phone access or a safe place to receive calls. Rural FPs reported access issues because of lack of high-speed internet. FPs attributed success of virtual care to the continuity in relationships they had with patients that were established in person pre-pandemic. Conclusions: FPs moved rapidly to virtual care. FP offices remained open despite PPE concerns but overall volumes dropped initially. Vulnerable and sicker patients received care but FPs expressed concern for highly vulnerable and rural residents. FPs believed they could offer patient-centred care over the phone but indicated the importance of maintaining in-person care to build relationships.

Is primary health care ready for artificial intelligence? Stakeholder perspectives: Worth the risk as long as you do it well.

Context: The effective deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary health care requires a match between the AI tools that are being developed and the needs of primary health care practitioners and patients. Currently, the majority of AI development targeted toward potential application in primary care is being conducted without the involvement of these stakeholders. Objective: To identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. Study Design: A descriptive qualitative approach was taken in this study. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary care and digital health stakeholders. Setting: Province of Ontario, Canada Population studied: Primary health care and digital health stakeholders Outcome Measures: N/A Results: Two main themes emerged from the data analysis: Worth the Risk as Long as You Do It Well; and, Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality. Participants noted that AI could have value if used for specific purposes, for example: supporting care for patients; reducing practitioner burden; analyzing existing evidence; managing patient populations; and, supporting operational efficiencies. Participants identified facilitators of AI being used for these purposes including: use of relevant case studies/success stories with realistic uses of AI highlighted; easy or low risk applications; and, end user involvement. However, barriers to the use of AI included: data quality; digital divide/equity; distrust of AI including security/privacy issues; for-profit motives; need for transparency about how AI works; and, fear about impact on practitioners regarding clinical judgement. Conclusion: AI will continue to become more prominent in primary health care. There is potential for positive impact, however there are many factors that need to be considered regarding the implementation of AI. The findings of this study can help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

Identifying priorities for artificial intelligence and primary care in ontario: A multi-stakeholder engagement event.

CONTEXT: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being recognized as having potential importance to primary care (PC). However, there is a gap in our understanding about where to focus efforts related to AI for PC settings, especially given the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To identify current priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-stakeholder engagement event with facilitated small and large group discussions. A nominal group technique process was used to identify and rank challenges in PC that AI may be able to support. Mentimeter software was used to allow real-time, anonymous and independent ranking from all participants. A final list of priority areas for AI and PC, with key considerations, was derived based on ranked items and small group discussion notes. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. POPULATION STUDIED: Digital health and PC stakeholders. OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A. RESULTS: The event included 8 providers, 8 patient advisors, 4 decision makers, 3 digital health stakeholders, and 12 researchers. Nine priority areas for AI and PC were identified and ranked, which can be grouped into those intended to support physician (preventative care and risk profiling, clinical decision support, routine task support), patient (self-management of conditions, increased mental health care capacity and support), or system-level initiatives (administrative staff support, management and synthesis of information sources); and foundational areas that would support work on other priorities (improved communication between PC and AI stakeholders, data sharing and interoperability between providers). Small group discussions identified barriers and facilitators related to the priorities, including data availability, quality, and consent; legal and device certification issues; trust between people and technology; equity and the digital divide; patient centredness and user-centred design; and the need for funding to support collaborative research and pilot testing. Although identified areas do not explicitly mention COVID-19, participants were encouraged to think about what would be feasible and meaningful to accomplish within a few years, including considerations of the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery phases. CONCLUSIONS: A one-day multi-stakeholder event identified priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario. These priorities can serve as guideposts to focus near-term efforts on the planning, development, and evaluation of AI for PC.