How do respondents of primary care surveys compare to typical users of primary care? A comparison of two surveys.

BACKGROUND: Primary care surveys are a key source of evaluative data; understanding how survey respondents compare to the intended population is important to understand results in context. The objective of this study was to examine the physician and patient representativeness of two primary care surveys (TRANSFORMATION and QUALICOPC) that each used different sampling and recruitment techniques. METHODS: We linked the physician and patient participants of the two surveys to health administrative databases. Patients were compared to other patients visiting the practice on the same day and other randomly selected dates using sociodemographic data, chronic disease diagnosis, and health system utilization. Physicians were compared to other physicians in the same practice, and other physicians in the intended geographic area using sociodemographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Physician respondents of the TRANSFORMATION survey included more males compared to their practice groups, but not to other physicians in the area. TRANSFORMATION physicians cared for a larger roster of patients than other physicians in the area. Patient respondents of the QUALICOPC survey did not have meaningful differences from other patients who visit the practice. Patient respondents of the TRANSFORMATION survey resided in more rural areas, had less chronic disease, and had lower use of health services than other patients visiting the practice. CONCLUSION: Differences in survey recruitment methods at the physician and patient level may help to explain some of the differences in representativeness. When conducting primary care surveys, investigators should consider diverse methods of ensuring representativeness to limit the potential for nonresponse bias.

Primary care practice characteristics associated with team functioning in primary care settings in Canada: A practice-based cross-sectional survey.

Team-based care is recognized as a foundational building block of high-performing primary care. The purpose of this study was to identify primary care practice characteristics associated with team functioning and examine whether there is relationship between team composition or size and team functioning. We sought to answer the following research questions: (1) are primary care practice characteristics associated with team functioning; and (2) does team composition or size influence team functioning. This cross-sectional correlational study was conducted in Fraser East, British Columbia, Eastern Ontario Health Unit, Ontario and Central Zone, Nova Scotia in Canada. Data were collected from primary care practices using an organization survey and the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) as a measure team functioning. The independent variables of interest were: physicians' payment model, internal clinic meetings to discuss clinical issues, care coordination through informal and ad hoc exchange, care coordination through electronic medical records and sharing clinic mission, values and objectives among health professionals. Potentially confounding variables were as follows: team size, composition, and practice panel size. A total of 63 practices were included in these analyses. The overall mean score of team climate was 73 (SD: 10.75) out of 100. Regression analyses showed that care coordination through human interaction and sharing the practice's mission, values, and objectives among health professionals were positively associated with higher functioning teams. Care coordination through electronic medical records and larger team size were negatively associated with team climate. This study provides baseline data on what practice characteristics are associated with highly functioning teams in Canada.

Fatigue behavior of additively manufactured Ti3Al2V alloy.

This study measured the tensile, compression, and fatigue behavior of additively manufactured Ti3Al2V as a function of build orientation. Ti3Al2V alloy was prepared by mixing commercially pure titanium (CpTi) and Ti6Al4V in 1:1 wt. ratio. Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) based additive manufacturing (AM) technique was used to fabricate the samples. Tensile tests resulted in an ultimate strength of 989 ± 8 MPa for Ti3Al2V. Ti6Al4V 90° orientation samples showed a compressive yield strength of 1178 ± 33 MPa, and that for Ti3Al2V 90° orientation was 968 ± 24 MPa. Varying the build orientation to account for anisotropy, Ti32-45° and Ti32-0° displayed similar compressive yield strength values of 1071 ± 16 and 1051± 18 MPa, respectively, higher than Ti32-90°. Fatigue loading revealed an endurance limit (10 million cycles) of 250 MPa for Ti6Al4V and 219 MPa for Ti3Al2V built at 90° orientations. The effect of the build orientation was significant under fatigue loading; Ti3Al2V built at 45° displayed an endurance limit of 387.5 MPa, and 0° showed 512 MPa; more than two-fold increment in endurance limit was observed. Our results show the potential of Ti3Al2V alloy for orthopedic devices, replacing Ti6Al4V alloy, particularly in load-bearing applications.

Patient clustering in primary care settings: Outcomes and quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neighbours who share the same family physicians have better cardiovascular and health care outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: The study population included 2,690,482 adult patients cared for by 1710 family physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Adult residents of Ontario were linked to their family physicians and the geographic distance between patients in the same panel or list was calculated. Using distance between patients within a panel to stratify physicians into quintiles of panel proximity, physicians and patients from close-proximity practices were compared with those from more-distant-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized incidence rates and hazard ratios from cause-specific hazards regression models were determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The occurrence of a major cardiovascular event during a 5-year follow-up period (2008 to 2012). RESULTS: Patients of panels in the closest-proximity quintile lived an average of 3.9 km from the 10 closest patients in their panel compared with 12.4 km for the 10 closest patients of panels in the distant-proximity quintile. After adjusting for various patient and physician characteristics, patients in the most-distant-proximity practices had a 24% higher rate of cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio=1.24 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.28], P<.001) than patients in the closest-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized all-cause mortality and total per patient health care costs were also lowest in the closest-proximity quintile. In sensitivity analyses restricted to large urban communities and to White long-term residents, results were similar. CONCLUSION: The better cardiovascular outcomes observed in close-proximity panels may be related to a previously unrecognized mechanism of social connectedness that extends the effectiveness of primary care practitioners.

Longitudinal costs and health service utilisation associated with primary care reforms in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last 20 years, the Canadian province of Ontario implemented several new models of primary care focusing on changes to physician remuneration, clinics led by nurse practitioners and the introduction of interprofessional primary care teams. Health outcome and cost evaluations of these models thus far have been mostly cross-sectional and in some cases results from these studies were conflicting. The aim of this population-based study is to investigate short, medium and long-term effectiveness of these reforms over the past 15-20 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the protocol for a retrospective cohort study including fee-for-service (FFS) and community health centre cohorts (control cohorts) or patients who switched from either being unattached or from FFS to a new practice model (eg, capitation, enhanced FFS, team, nurse practitioner-led) from 1997 to 2020. The primary outcome is total healthcare costs and secondary outcomes are primary care costs, other (non-primary care) health costs, hospitalisations, length of stay, emergency department visits, accessibility and mortality. A combination of hard and propensity matching will be used where relevant. Outcomes will be adjusted for demographic and health factors and measured annually. Interrupted time series models will be used where data permits and difference-in-differences methods will be used otherwise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from Queens University and Memorial University. The dissemination plan includes conference presentations, papers, brief evidence summaries targeted at select audiences and knowledge brokering sessions with key stakeholders.

Practice Profiles and Patterns of Ontario Family Medicine Residents 5 Years After Residency Examinations: An Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of family medicine residency training is for graduates to provide high-quality, safe, and effective patient care for the population they serve when they enter practice. This study explores (a) the practice profiles, 5 years into practice, of residents who completed family medicine training in Ontario, Canada; and (b) relationships between performance on the College of Family Physicians of Canada's (CFPC) Certification Examination in Family Medicine and quality of care provided 5 years into practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study with secondary data analysis. We merged CFPC examination data sets with the ICES (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) administrative database. We included physicians who passed the examination between the years 2000 and 2010 and practiced in Ontario after graduation. Practice profile indicators included practice type, continuity and comprehensiveness of care, patient rostering and panel size, and rurality index. We explored 11 indicators related to management of diabetes and cancer screening. RESULTS: We included a total of 1,983 physicians in the analyses. Five years after the examinations, 74.3% of the physicians were working in major urban centers, and 67.3% of the physicians were providing comprehensive primary care. We noted significant differences across the six medical schools in multiple practice profile indicators, and three indicators showed significant differences across the examination score quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Graduates of Ontario family medicine residency programs were providing care to a broad spectrum of the population 5 years after passing the examination, and they performed similarly across quality-of-care indicators regardless of examination scores.

Comparing the Attainment of the Patient's Medical Home Model across Regions in Three Canadian Provinces: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to show the feasibility of providing a comprehensive portrait of regional primary care performance. METHODS: The TRANSFORMATION study used a mixed-methods concurrent study design where we analyzed survey data and case studies. Data were collected in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Patient's Medical Home (PMH) pillar scores were created by calculating mean clinic-level scores across regions. Scores and qualitative themes were compared. RESULTS: Participation included 86 practices (n = 1,929 patients; n = 117 clinicians). Regions had differential attainment towards PMH orientation with respect to infrastructure; community adaptiveness and accountability; and patient and family partnered care. The lowest PMH attainment for all regions were observed in connected care; accessible care; measurement, continuous quality improvement and research; and training, education and continuing professional development. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive performance reporting that draws on multiple data sources in primary care is possible. Regional portraits highlighting many of the key pillars of a PMH approach to primary care show that despite differences in policy contexts, achieving a PMH remains elusive.

Primary care bonus payments and patient-reported access in urban Ontario: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome. RESULTS: We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience.

Response to language barriers with patients from refugee background in general practice in Australia: findings from the OPTIMISE study.

BACKGROUND: Language is a barrier to many patients from refugee backgrounds accessing and receiving quality primary health care. This paper examines the way general practices address these barriers and how this changed following a practice facilitation intervention. METHODS: The OPTIMISE study was a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial set within 31 general practices in three urban regions in Australia with high refugee settlement. It involved a practice facilitation intervention addressing interpreter engagement as one of four core intervention areas. This paper analysed quantitative and qualitative data from the practices and 55 general practitioners from these, collected at baseline and after 6 months during which only those assigned to the early group received the intervention. RESULTS: Many practices (71 %) had at least one GP who spoke a language spoken by recent humanitarian entrants. At baseline, 48 % of practices reported using the government funded Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS). The role of reception staff in assessing and recording the language and interpreter needs of patients was well defined. However, they lacked effective systems to share the information with clinicians. After the intervention, the number of practices using the TIS increased. However, family members and friends continued to be used to interpret with GPs reporting patients preferred this approach. The extra time required to arrange and use interpreting services remained a major barrier. CONCLUSIONS: In this study a whole of practice facilitation intervention resulted in improvements in procedures for and engagement of interpreters. However, there were barriers such as the extra time required, and family members continued to be used. Based on these findings, further effort is needed to reduce the administrative burden and GP's opportunity cost needed to engage interpreters, to provide training for all staff on when and how to work with interpreters and discuss and respond to patient concerns about interpreting services.

Differences in Mode Preferences, Response Rates, and Mode Effect Between Automated Email and Phone Survey Systems for Patients of Primary Care Practices: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of health care practices are adopting software systems that link with their existing electronic medical records to generate outgoing phone calls, emails, or text notifications to patients for appointment reminders or practice updates. While practices are adopting this software technology for service notifications to patients, its use for collection of patient-reported measures is still nascent. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the mode preferences, response rates, and mode effect for a practice-based automated patient survey using phone and email modalities to patients of primary care practices. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses and respondent demographics for a short, fully automated, telephone or email patient survey sent to individuals within 72 hours of a visit to their regular primary care practice. Each survey consisted of 5 questions drawn from a larger study's patient survey that all respondents completed in the waiting room at the time of their visit. Automated patient survey responses were linked to self-reported sociodemographic information provided on the waiting room survey including age, sex, reported income, and health status. RESULTS: A total of 871 patients from 87 primary care practices in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, Canada, agreed to the automated patient survey and 470 patients (45.2%) completed all 5 questions on the automated survey. Email administration of the follow-up survey was preferred over phone-based administration, except among patients aged 75 years and older (P<.001). Overall, response rates for those who selected an emailed survey (369/606, 60.9%) were higher (P<.001) than those who selected the phone survey (101/265, 38.1%). This held true irrespective of age, sex, or chronic disease status of individuals. Response rates were also higher for email (range 57.4% [58/101] to 66.3% [108/163]) compared with phone surveys (range 36% [23/64] to 43% [10/23]) for all income groups except the lowest income quintile, which had similar response rates (email: 29/63, 46%; phone: 23/50, 46%) for phone and email modes. We observed moderate (range 64.6% [62/96] to 78.8% [282/358]) agreement between waiting room survey responses and those obtained in the follow-up automated survey. However, overall agreement in responses was poor (range 45.3% [43/95] to 46.2% [43/93]) for 2 questions relating to care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: An automated practice-based patient experience survey achieved significantly different response rates between phone and email and increased response rates for email as income group rose. Potential mode effects for the different survey modalities may limit multimodal survey approaches. An automated minimal burden patient survey could facilitate the integration of patient-reported outcomes into care planning and service organization, supporting the move of our primary care practices toward a more responsive, patient-centered, continual learning system. However, practices must be attentive to furthering inequities in health care by underrepresenting the experience of certain groups in decision making based on the reach of different survey modes.

Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces.

OBJECTIVE: While public reporting of hospital-based performance measurement is commonplace, it has lagged in the primary care sector, especially in Canada. Despite the increasing recognition of patients as active partners in the health-care system, little is known about what information about primary care performance is relevant to the Canadian public. We explored patient perspectives and priorities for the public reporting of primary care performance measures. METHODS: We conducted six deliberative dialogue sessions across three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia). Participants were asked to rank and discuss the importance of collecting and reporting on specific dimensions and indicators of primary care performance. We conducted a thematic analysis of the data. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients participated in the dialogue sessions. Measures of access to primary care providers, communication with providers and continuity of information across all providers involved in a patient's care were identified as the highest priority indicators of primary care performance from a patient perspective. Several common measures of quality of care, such as rates of cancer screening, were viewed as too patient dependent to be used to evaluate the health system or primary care provider's performance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that public reporting aimed at patient audiences should focus on a nuanced measure of access, incorporation of context reported alongside measurement that is for public audiences, clear reporting on provider communication and a measure of information continuity. Participants highlighted the importance the public places on their providers staying up to date with advances in care.

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.

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care. METHODS: We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management. RESULTS: In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.

Citizen perspectives on the use of publicly reported primary care performance information: Results from citizen-patient dialogues in three Canadian provinces.

OBJECTIVE: Performance measurement and reporting is proliferating in all sectors of the healthcare system, including primary care, despite a dearth of evidence on how the public uses reports on primary care performance. We explored how the public might use this information, to guide the development of effective reporting systems for primary care. METHODS: We conducted six full-day deliberative dialogue sessions with a purposive sample of 56 citizen-patients across three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia). Participants identified how they would use publicly reported performance data. We conducted a thematic analysis of the data by region. RESULTS: Common uses for primary care performance information emerged across all sessions. Participants most often discussed the utility of this information for community advocacy and participation in health system decision making. Similar barriers for using performance information to choose a primary care provider were identified in each region including the perceived lack of choice of providers and the high value placed on relationships with current providers. Finally, the value of public performance reporting in enhancing trust that people would receive good care was also a common theme. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen-patient perspectives highlight that public reporting on primary care performance could promote the health system's responsiveness by enabling public engagement in decision making at the community level. The role of public reporting in promoting trust rather than empowering patient choice may reflect unique elements of the Canadian health system's context.

Do Incentive Payments Reward The Wrong Providers? A Study Of Primary Care Reform In Ontario, Canada.

Primary care payment reform in the US and elsewhere usually involves capitation, often combined with bonuses and incentives. In capitation systems, providing care within the practice group is needed to contain costs and ensure continuity of care, yet this is challenging in settings that allow patient choice in access to services. We used linked population-based administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to examine a substantial payment called the "access bonus" designed to incentivize primary care access and to minimize primary care visits outside of capitation practices. We found that the access bonus flowed disproportionately to physicians outside large cities and to those whose patients made fewer primary care visits, received less after-hours care, made more emergency department visits, and had higher adjusted ambulatory costs. Our findings indicate a lack of alignment between these payments and their intended purpose. Financial incentives should be prospectively evaluated and frequently revisited to ensure relevance, alignment with system goals, efficiency, and equity.