RÉSUMÉ
RATIONALE: A common strategy to reduce COPD readmissions is to encourage patient follow-up with a physician within 1 to 2 weeks of discharge, yet evidence confirming its benefit is lacking. We used a new study design called target randomized trial emulation to determine the impact of follow-up visit timing on patient outcomes. METHODS: All Ontario residents aged 35 or older discharged from a COPD hospitalization were identified using health administrative data and randomly assigned to those who received and did not receive physician visit follow-up by within seven days. They were followed to all-cause emergency department visits, readmissions or death. Targeted randomized trial emulation was used to adjust for differences between the groups. COPD emergency department visits, readmissions or death was also considered. RESULTS: There were 94,034 patients hospitalized with COPD, of whom 73.5% had a physician visit within 30 days of discharge. Adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause readmission, emergency department visits or death for people with a visit within seven days post discharge was 1.03 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.01-1.05) and remained around 1 for subsequent days; adjusted hazard ratio for the composite COPD events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-1.00) and remained significantly lower than 1 for subsequent days. CONCLUSION: While a physician visit after discharge was found to reduce COPD events, a specific time period when a physician visit was most beneficial was not found. This suggests that follow-up visits should not occur at a predetermined time but be based on factors such as anticipated medical need.
Sujet(s)
Service hospitalier d'urgences , Sortie du patient , Réadmission du patient , Broncho-pneumopathie chronique obstructive , Humains , Broncho-pneumopathie chronique obstructive/thérapie , Broncho-pneumopathie chronique obstructive/épidémiologie , Sortie du patient/statistiques et données numériques , Mâle , Femelle , Sujet âgé , Adulte d'âge moyen , Réadmission du patient/statistiques et données numériques , Service hospitalier d'urgences/statistiques et données numériques , Facteurs temps , Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus , Ontario/épidémiologie , Études de suivi , Adulte , Hospitalisation/statistiques et données numériquesRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Through medicare, residents in Canada are entitled to medically necessary physician services without paying out of pocket, but still many people struggle to access primary care. We conducted a survey to explore people's experience with and priorities for primary care. METHODS: We conducted an online, bilingual survey of adults in Canada in fall 2022. We distributed an anonymous link through diverse channels and a closed link to 122 053 people via a national public opinion firm. We weighted completed responses to mirror Canada's population and adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics using regression models. RESULTS: We analyzed 9279 completed surveys (5.9% response rate via closed link). More than one-fifth of respondents (21.8%) reported having no primary care clinician, and among those who did, 34.5% reported getting a same or next-day appointment for urgent issues. Of respondents, 89.4% expressed comfort seeing another team member if their doctor recommended it, but only 35.9%, 9.5%, and 12.4% reported that their practice had a nurse, social worker, or pharmacist, respectively. The primary care attribute that mattered most was having a clinician who "knows me as a person and considers all the factors that affect my health." After we adjusted for respondent characteristics, people in Quebec, the Atlantic region, and British Columbia had lower odds of reporting a primary care clinician than people in Ontario (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.33, and 0.39, respectively; p < 0.001). We also observed large provincial variations in timely access, interprofessional care, and walk-in clinic use. INTERPRETATION: More than 1 in 5 respondents did not have access to primary care, with large variation by province. Reforms should strive to expand access to relationship-based, longitudinal care in a team setting.
Sujet(s)
Accessibilité des services de santé , Soins de santé primaires , Humains , Soins de santé primaires/statistiques et données numériques , Canada , Études transversales , Mâle , Femelle , Adulte d'âge moyen , Adulte , Sujet âgé , Accessibilité des services de santé/statistiques et données numériques , Opinion publique , Enquêtes et questionnaires , Adolescent , Jeune adulteRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.
Sujet(s)
Accessibilité des services de santé , Soins de santé primaires , Humains , Ontario , Mâle , Femelle , Adulte d'âge moyen , Rôle médical , Adulte , Établissements de soins ambulatoires , Attitude du personnel soignant , Médecins/psychologieRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Médecine de famille , Internat et résidence , Humains , Études transversales , Médecine de famille/enseignement et éducation , Femelle , Mâle , Canada , Enquêtes et questionnaires , Adulte d'âge moyen , Adulte , Soins centrés sur le patient , Continuité des soins , Satisfaction des patients/statistiques et données numériques , Accessibilité des services de santé , Sujet âgéRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humains , Mâle , Femelle , COVID-19/épidémiologie , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , Études transversales , Pandémies , Médecins de famille , Ontario/épidémiologie , Études de cohortes , Soins de santé primairesRÉSUMÉ
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 5â¯229â¯240 Ontario residents with a family physician and virtual visit, 4â¯173â¯869 patients (79.8%) had a virtual encounter with their own physician (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [21.5] years; 2â¯420â¯712 females [58.0%]) and 1â¯055â¯371 patients (20.2%) had an encounter with an outside physician (mean [SD] age, 41.8 [20.9] years; 605â¯614 females [57.4%]). In the matched cohort of 1â¯885â¯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 (30â¯748 of 942â¯983 patients [3.3%] vs 18â¯519 of 942â¯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 30â¯216 patients with definite direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits with 30â¯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.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Médecins de famille , Femelle , Humains , Adulte d'âge moyen , Adulte , Études de cohortes , Pandémies , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Service hospitalier d'urgencesRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Médecins de famille , Conception centrée sur l'utilisateur , Humains , Rétroaction , Apprentissage , Épuisement psychologiqueRÉSUMÉ
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 1â¯666â¯943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3â¯918â¯225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3â¯886â¯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.
Sujet(s)
Tumeurs du sein , COVID-19 , Tumeurs colorectales , Tumeurs du col de l'utérus , Adulte , Humains , Femelle , Adulte d'âge moyen , Mâle , Dépistage précoce du cancer , COVID-19/diagnostic , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Études transversales , Pandémies , Tumeurs du col de l'utérus/diagnostic , Tumeurs du col de l'utérus/épidémiologie , Tumeurs du sein/diagnostic , Tumeurs du sein/épidémiologie , Ontario/épidémiologie , Tumeurs colorectales/diagnostic , Tumeurs colorectales/épidémiologieRÉSUMÉ
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 11â¯631 females with schizophrenia who turned 50 years of age during the study period and a matched cohort of 115â¯959 females without schizophrenia, for a total of 127â¯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.
Sujet(s)
Tumeurs du sein , Schizophrénie , Humains , Femelle , Dépistage précoce du cancer , Tumeurs du sein/diagnostic , Études cas-témoins , Schizophrénie/diagnostic , Ontario/épidémiologieRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Médecins de famille , Humains , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , OntarioRÉSUMÉ
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.
RÉSUMÉ
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.
RÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Hépatite C chronique , Hépatite C , Humains , Hepacivirus , Hépatite C/traitement médicamenteux , Antiviraux/usage thérapeutique , Soins de santé primaires , ARN/usage thérapeutique , Hépatite C chronique/traitement médicamenteux , Résultat thérapeutiqueRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Médecins de famille , Amélioration de la qualité , Humains , Médecine de famille , Recherche qualitative , Programme d'étudesRÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Tumeurs , Médecins , Humains , Ontario , Dépistage précoce du cancer/méthodes , Études rétrospectives , Études de cohortes , Dépistage de masseRÉSUMÉ
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.