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

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

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

Virtual Visits With Own Family Physician vs Outside Family Physician and Emergency Department Use.

Importance: Virtual visits became more common after the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear in what context they are best used. Objective: To investigate whether there was a difference in subsequent emergency department use between patients who had a virtual visit with their own family physician vs those who had virtual visits with an outside physician. Design, Setting, and Participants: This propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted among all Ontario residents attached to a family physician as of April 1, 2021, who had a virtual family physician visit in the subsequent year (to March 31, 2022). Exposure: The type of virtual family physician visit, with own or outside physician, was determined. In a secondary analysis, own physician visits were compared with visits with a physician working in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was an emergency department visit within 7 days after the virtual visit. Results: Among 5 229 240 Ontario residents with a family physician and virtual visit, 4 173 869 patients (79.8%) had a virtual encounter with their own physician (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [21.5] years; 2 420 712 females [58.0%]) and 1 055 371 patients (20.2%) had an encounter with an outside physician (mean [SD] age, 41.8 [20.9] years; 605 614 females [57.4%]). In the matched cohort of 1 885 966 patients, those who saw an outside physician were 66% more likely to visit an emergency department within 7 days than those who had a virtual visit with their own physician (30 748 of 942 983 patients [3.3%] vs 18 519 of 942 983 patients [2.0%]; risk difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 1.2%-1.3%]; relative risk, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.63-1.69]). The increase in the risk of emergency department visits was greater when comparing 30 216 patients with definite direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits with 30 216 patients with own physician visits (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.8%-4.5%]; relative risk, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.74-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients whose virtual visit was with an outside physician were more likely to visit an emergency department in the next 7 days than those whose virtual visit was with their own family physician. These findings suggest that primary care virtual visits may be best used within an existing clinical relationship.

Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening disparities existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unclear whether those have changed since the pandemic. Objective: To assess whether changes in screening from before the pandemic to after the pandemic varied for immigrants and for people with limited income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, cross-sectional study, using data from March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022, included adults in Ontario, Canada, the country's most populous province, with more than 14 million people, almost 30% of whom are immigrants. At both dates, the screening-eligible population for each cancer type was assessed. Exposures: Neighborhood income quintile, immigrant status, and primary care model type. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each cancer screening type, the main outcome was whether the screening-eligible population was up to date on screening (a binary outcome) on March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Up to date on screening was defined as having had a mammogram in the previous 2 years, a Papanicolaou test in the previous 3 years, and a fecal test in the previous 2 years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 10 years. Results: The overall cohort on March 31, 2019, included 1 666 943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3 918 225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3 886 345 people eligible for colorectal screening (51.4% female; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [6.4] years). The proportion of people up to date on screening in Ontario decreased for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, with the largest decrease for breast screening (from 61.1% before the pandemic to 51.7% [difference, -9.4 percentage points]) and the smallest decrease for colorectal screening (from 65.9% to 62.0% [difference, -3.9 percentage points]). Preexisting disparities in screening for people living in low-income neighborhoods and for immigrants widened for breast screening and colorectal screening. For breast screening, compared with income quintile 5 (highest), the ß estimate for income quintile 1 (lowest) was -1.16 (95% CI, -1.56 to -0.77); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the ß estimate was -1.51 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.18). For colorectal screening, compared with income quintile 5, the ß estimate for quntile 1 was -1.29 (95% CI, 16 -1.53 to -1.06); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the ß estimate was -1.41 (95% CI, -1.61 to -1.21). The lowest screening rates both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were for people who had no identifiable family physician (eg, moving from 11.3% in 2019 to 9.6% in 2022 up to date for breast cancer). In addition, patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models had significantly smaller reductions in ß estimates for breast (2.14 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.49]), cervical (1.72 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.98]), and colorectal (2.15 [95% CI, 1.95 to 2.36]) postpandemic screening and higher uptake of screening in general compared with patients of other primary care models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study in Ontario that included 2 time points, widening disparities before compared with after the COVID-19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigrant status, but smaller declines in disparities were found among patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models than among their counterparts. Policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or with limited income.

Developing an Audit and Feedback Dashboard for Family Physicians: User-Centered Design Process.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F), the summary and provision of clinical performance data, is a common quality improvement strategy. Successful design and implementation of A&F-or any quality improvement strategy-should incorporate evidence-informed best practices as well as context-specific end user input. OBJECTIVE: We used A&F theory and user-centered design to inform the development of a web-based primary care A&F dashboard. We describe the design process and how it influenced the design of the dashboard. METHODS: Our design process included 3 phases: prototype development based on A&F theory and input from clinical improvement leaders; workshop with family physician quality improvement leaders to develop personas (ie, fictional users that represent an archetype character representative of our key users) and application of those personas to design decisions; and user-centered interviews with family physicians to learn about the physician's reactions to the revised dashboard. RESULTS: The team applied A&F best practices to the dashboard prototype. Personas were used to identify target groups with challenges and behaviors as a tool for informed design decision-making. Our workshop produced 3 user personas, Dr Skeptic, Frazzled Physician, and Eager Implementer, representing common users based on the team's experience of A&F. Interviews were conducted to further validate findings from the persona workshop and found that (1) physicians were interested in how they compare with peers; however, if performance was above average, they were not motivated to improve even if gaps compared to other standards in their care remained; (2) burnout levels were high as physicians are trying to catch up on missed care during the pandemic and are therefore less motivated to act on the data; and (3) additional desired features included integration within the electronic medical record, and more up-to-date and accurate data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that carefully incorporating data from user interviews helped operationalize generic best practices for A&F to achieve an acceptable dashboard that could meet the needs and goals of physicians. We demonstrate such a design process in this paper. A&F dashboards should address physicians' data skepticism, present data in a way that spurs action, and support physicians to have the time and capacity to engage in quality improvement work; the steps we followed may help those responsible for quality improvement strategy implementation achieve these aims.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.

PURPOSE: We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS: Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff.

Breast Cancer Screening Among Females With and Without Schizophrenia.

Importance: Breast cancer screening with mammography is recommended in Ontario, Canada, for females 50 years or older. Females with schizophrenia are at higher risk of breast cancer, but in Ontario it is currently unknown whether breast cancer screening completion differs between those with vs without schizophrenia and whether primary care payment models are a factor. Objective: To compare breast cancer screening completion within 2 years after the 50th birthday among females with and without schizophrenia, and to identify the association between breast cancer screening completion and different primary care payment models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study analyzed Ontario-wide administrative data on females with and without schizophrenia who turned 50 years of age between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Those with schizophrenia (cases) were matched 1:10 to those without schizophrenia (controls) on local health integration network, income quintile, rural residence, birth dates, and weighted Aggregated Diagnosis Group score. Data analysis was performed from November 2021 to February 2023. Exposures: Exposures were schizophrenia and primary care payment models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included breast cancer screening completion among cases and controls within 2 years after their 50th birthday and the association with receipt of care from primary care physicians enrolled in different primary care payment models, which were analyzed using logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Results: The study included 11 631 females with schizophrenia who turned 50 years of age during the study period and a matched cohort of 115 959 females without schizophrenia, for a total of 127 590 patients. Overall, 69.3% of cases and 77.1% of controls had a mammogram within 2 years after their 50th birthday. Cases had lower odds of breast cancer screening completion within 2 years after their 50th birthday (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.70). Cases who received care from a primary care physician in a fee-for-service (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.60) or enhanced fee-for-service (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.82) payment model had lower odds of having a mammogram than cases whose physicians were paid under a Family Health Team model. Conclusions and Relevance: This case-control study found that, in Ontario, Canada, breast cancer screening completion was lower among females with schizophrenia, and differences from those without schizophrenia may partially be explained by differences in primary care payment models. Widening the availability of team-based primary care for females with schizophrenia may play a role in increased breast cancer screening rates.

Trends in attachment to a primary care provider in Ontario, 2008-2018: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attachment to a regular primary care provider is associated with better health outcomes, but 15% of people in Canada lack a consistent source of ongoing primary care. We sought to evaluate trends in attachment to a primary care provider in Ontario in 2008-2018, through an equity lens and in relation to policy changes in implementation of payment reforms and team-based care. METHODS: Using linked, population-level administrative data, we conducted a retrospective observational study to calculate rates of patients attached to a regular primary care provider from Apr. 1, 2008, to Mar. 31, 2019. We evaluated the association of patient characteristics and attachment in 2018 using sex-stratified, adjusted, multivariable logistic regression models and used segmented piecewise regression to evaluate changing trends before and after implementation of a policy that restricted physician entry to alternate models. RESULTS: Attachment increased from 80.5% (n = 10 352 385) in 2008 to 88.9% of the population (n = 12 537 172) in 2018, but was lower among people with low comorbidity, high residential instability, material deprivation, rural residence and recent immigrants. Inequities narrowed for recent immigrants, males and people with lower incomes over the study period, but disparities persisted for these groups. Attachment grew by 1.47% annually until 2014 (p < 0.0001), but was stagnant thereafter (annual percent change of 0.13, p = 0.16). INTERPRETATION: Lack of sustained progress in attachment followed reduced levels of physician entry to alternate funding models. Although disparities narrowed for many groups over the study period, persistent gaps remained for immigrants and people with lower incomes; targeted interventions and policy changes are needed to address these persistent gaps.

The association between patients' timely access to their usual primary care physician and use of walk-in clinics in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Challenges in timely access to one's usual primary care physician and the ongoing use of walk-in clinics have been major health policy issues in Ontario for over a decade. We sought to determine the association between patient-reported timely access to their usual primary care physician or clinic and their use of walk-in clinics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Ontario residents who had a primary care physician by linking population-based administrative data to Ontario's Health Care Experience Survey, collected between 2013 and 2020. We described sociodemographic characteristics and health care use for users of walk-in clinics and nonusers. We measured the adjusted association between self-reported same-day or next-day access and after-hours access to usual primary care physicians or clinics and the use of walk-in clinics in the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 60 935 total responses from people who had a primary care physician, 16 166 (weighted 28.6%, unweighted 26.5%) reported visiting a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months. Compared with nonusers, those who used walk-in clinics were predominantly younger, lived in large and medium-sized urban areas and reported a tight, very tight or poor financial situation. Respondents who reported poor same-day or next-day access to their primary care physician or clinic were more likely to report having attended a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months than those with better access (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.13-1.34). Those who reported being unaware that their primary care physician offered after-hours care had a higher likelihood of going to a walk-in clinic (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% Cl 1.07-1.21). INTERPRETATION: In this population-based health survey, patient-reported use of walk-in clinics was associated with a reported lack of access to same-day or next-day care and unawareness of after-hours care by respondents' usual primary care physicians. These findings could inform policies to improve access to primary care, while preserving care continuity.

Increasing Treatment Rates for Hepatitis C in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Despite antiviral agents that can cure the disease, many individuals with Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) remain untreated. Primary care clinicians can play an important role in HCV treatment but often feel they do not have the requisite skills. METHODS: We implemented a population-based improvement intervention over 10 months to support treatment of HCV in a primary care setting. The intervention included a decision-support tool, education for clinicians, enhanced interprofessional team supports, mentorship, and proactive patient outreach. We used process and outcome measures to understand the impact on the proportion of patients who initiated treatment and achieved Sustained Virologic Response (SVR). We used physician focus groups and pharmacist interviews to understand the context and mechanisms influencing the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: Between December 2018 and June 2020, the percentage of HCV RNA positive patients who started treatment rose from 66.0% (354/536) to 75.5% (401/531) with 92.5% (371/401) of those starting treatment achieving SVR. Qualitative findings highlighted that the intervention helped raise awareness and confidence among physicians for treating HCV in primary care. A collaborative team environment, education, mentorship, and a decision-support tool integrated into the electronic record were all enablers of success although patient psychosocial complexity remained a barrier to engagement in treatment. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted primary care improvement initiative increased clinician confidence and was associated with an increase in the proportion of HCV RNA positive patients who initiated curative treatment.

Up-to-date on cancer screening among Ontario patients seen by walk-in clinic physicians: A retrospective cohort study.

Walk-in clinics are typically viewed as high-volume locations for managing acute issues but also may serve as a location for primary care, including cancer screening, for patients without a family physician. In this population-based cohort study, we compared breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening up-to-date status for people living in the Canadian province of Ontario who were formally enrolled to a family physician versus those not enrolled but who had at least one encounter with a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year. Using provincial administrative databases, we created two mutually exclusive groups: i) those who were formally enrolled to a family physician, ii) those who were not enrolled but had at least one visit with a walk-in clinic physician from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared up to date status for three cancer screenings as of April 1, 2020 among screen-eligible people. We found that people who were not enrolled and had seen a walk-in clinic physician in the previous year consistently were less likely to be up to date on cancer screening than Ontarians who were formally enrolled with a family physician (46.1% vs. 67.4% for breast, 45.8% vs. 67.4% for cervical, 49.5% vs. 73.1% for colorectal). They were also more likely to be foreign-born and to live in structurally marginalized neighbourhoods. New methods are needed to enable screening for people who are reliant on walk-in clinics and to address the urgent need in Ontario for more primary care providers who deliver comprehensive, longitudinal care.

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.

Factors influencing family physician engagement in practice-based quality improvement: Qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of family physicians leading quality improvement (QI) efforts and to better understand facilitators and barriers related to advancing QI in family practice. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: The Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario. The department launched a quality and innovation program in 2011 with the dual goals of teaching QI skills to learners and supporting faculty in leading QI efforts in practice. PARTICIPANTS: Family physician faculty who held QI leadership roles at any of the department's 14 teaching units between 2011 and 2018. METHODS: Fifteen semistructured telephone interviews were conducted over 3 months in 2018. Analysis was informed by a qualitative descriptive approach. Consistency of responses across the interviews was suggestive of thematic saturation. MAIN FINDINGS: Substantial variation was found in the level of engagement with QI in practice settings despite the common training, forms of support, and curriculum the department provided. Four factors influenced the uptake of QI. First, committed leadership across the organization was fundamental to developing an effective QI culture. Second, external drivers such as mandatory QI plans sometimes motivated engagement in QI but sometimes were barriers, particularly when internal priorities conflicted with external demands. Third, at many practices, QI was widely perceived as extra work rather than as a way to enable better patient care. Finally, physicians described lack of time and resources as a challenge, particularly in community practices, and advocated for practice facilitation as a mechanism to support QI efforts. CONCLUSION: Advancing QI in primary care practice will require committed leaders, a clear understanding among physicians of the potential benefits of QI, alignment of external demands with internal drivers for improvement, and dedicated time for QI work along with support such as practice facilitation.

Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to primary health care is among top priorities for many countries. Advanced Access (AA) is one of the most recommended models to improve timely access to care. Over the past 15 years, the AA model has been implemented in Canada, but the implementation of AA varies substantially among providers and clinics. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) approaches can be used to promote organizational change like AA implementation. While CQI fosters the adoption of evidence-based practices, knowledge gaps remain, about the mechanisms by which QI happens and the sustainability of the results. The general aim of the study is to analyse the implementation and effects of CQI cohorts on AA for primary care clinics. Specific objectives are: 1) Analyse the process of implementing CQI cohorts to support PHC clinics in their improvement of AA. 2) Document and compare structural organisational changes and processes of care with respect to AA within study groups (intervention and control). 3) Assess the effectiveness of CQI cohorts on AA outcomes. 4) Appreciate the sustainability of the intervention for AA processes, organisational changes and outcomes. METHODS: Cluster-controlled trial allowing for a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the proposed intervention 48 multidisciplinary primary care clinics will be recruited to participate. 24 Clinics from the intervention regions will receive the CQI intervention for 18 months including three activities carried out iteratively until the clinic's improvement objectives are achieved: 1) reflective sessions and problem priorisation; 2) plan-do-study-act cycles; and 3) group mentoring. Clinics located in the control regions will receive an audit-feedback report on access. Complementary qualitative and quantitative data reflecting the quintuple aim will be collected over a period of 36 months. RESULTS: This research will contribute to filling the gap in the generalizability of CQI interventions and accelerate the spread of effective AA improvement strategies while strengthening local QI culture within clinics. This research will have a direct impact on patients' experiences of care. CONCLUSION: This mixed-method approach offers a unique opportunity to contribute to the scientific literature on large-scale CQI cohorts to improve AA in primary care teams and to better understand the processes of CQI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT05715151.

Virtual Care and Emergency Department Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Patients of Family Physicians in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has played a role in increased use of virtual care in primary care. However, few studies have examined the association between virtual primary care visits and other health care use. Objective: To evaluate the association between the percentage of virtual visits in primary care and the rate of emergency department (ED) visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used routinely collected administrative data and was conducted in Ontario, Canada. The sample comprised family physicians with at least 1 primary care visit claim between February 1 and October 31, 2021, and permanent Ontario residents who were alive as of March 31, 2021. All residents were assigned to physicians according to enrollment and billing data. Exposure: Family physicians' virtual visit rate was the exposure. Physicians were stratified by the percentage of total visits that they delivered virtually (via telephone or video) during the study period (0% [100% in person], >0%-20%, >20%-40%, >40%-60%, >60%-80%, >80% to <100%, or 100%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Population-level ED visit rate was calculated for each stratum of virtual care use. Multivariable regression models were used to understand the relative rate of patient ED use after adjusting for rurality of practice, patient characteristics, and 2019 ED visit rates. Results: Data were analyzed for a total of 13 820 family physicians (7114 males [51.5%]; mean [SD] age, 50 [13.1] years) with 12 951 063 patients (6 714 150 females [51.8%]; mean [SD] age, 42.6 [22.9] years) who were attached to these physicians. Most physicians provided between 40% and 80% of care virtually. A higher percentage of the physicians who provided more than 80% of care virtually were 65 years or older, female individuals, and practiced in big cities. Patient comorbidity and morbidity were similar across strata of virtual care use. The mean (SD) number of ED visits was highest among patients whose physicians provided only in-person care (470.3 [1918.8] per 1000 patients) and was lowest among patients of physicians who provided more than 80% to less than 100% of care virtually (242.0 [800.3] per 1000 patients). After adjustment for patient characteristics, patients of physicians with more than 20% of visits delivered virtually had lower rates of ED visits compared with patients of physicians who provided more than 0% to 20% of care virtually (eg, >80% to <100% vs >0%-20% virtual visits in big cities: relative rate, 0.77%; 95% CI, 0.74%-0.81%). This pattern was unchanged across all rurality of practice strata and after adjustment for 2019 ED visit rates. In urban areas, there was a gradient whereby patients of physicians providing the highest level of virtual care had the lowest ED visit rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study show that patients of physicians who provided a higher percentage of virtual care did not have higher ED visit rates compared with patients of physicians who provided the lowest levels of virtual care. The findings refute the hypothesis that family physicians providing more care virtually during the pandemic resulted in higher ED use.

Characteristics and practice patterns of family physicians who provide home visits in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Physician home visits are essential for populations who cannot easily access office-based primary care. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics, practice patterns and physician-level patient characteristics of Ontario physicians who provide home visits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, based on health administrative data, of Ontario physicians who provided home visits and their patients, between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2019. We selected family physicians who had at least 1 home visit in 2019. Physician demographic characteristics, practice patterns and aggregated patient characteristics were compared between high-volume home visit physicians (the top 5%) and low-volume home visit physicians (bottom 95%). RESULTS: A total of 6572 family physicians had at least 1 home visit in 2019. The top 5% of home visit physicians (n = 330) performed 58.6% of all home visits (n = 227 321 out of 387 139). Compared with low-volume home visit physicians (n = 6242), the top 5% were more likely to be male and practise in large urban areas, and rarely saw patients who were enrolled to them (median 4% v. 87.5%, standardized mean difference 1.12). High-volume physicians' home visit patients were younger, had greater levels of health care resource utilization, resided in lower-income and large urban neighbourhoods, and were less likely to have a medical home. INTERPRETATION: A small subset of home visit physicians provided a large proportion of home visits in Ontario. These home visits may be addressing a gap in access to primary care for certain patients, but could be contributing to lower continuity of care.