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.

Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training.

BACKGROUND: Health care routinely fails Indigenous peoples and anti-Indigenous racism is common in clinical encounters. Clinical training programs aimed to enhance Indigenous cultural safety (ICS) rely on learner reported impact assessment even though clinician self-assessment is poorly correlated with observational or patient outcome reporting. We aimed to compare the clinical impacts of intensive and brief ICS training to control, and to assess the feasibility of ICS training evaluation tools, including unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) visits. METHOD: Using a prospective parallel group three-arm randomized controlled trial design and masked standardized patients, we compared the clinical impacts of the intensive interactive, professionally facilitated, 8- to10-h Sanyas ICS training; a brief 1-h anti-bias training adapted to address anti-Indigenous bias; and control continuing medical education time-attention matched to the intensive training. Participants included 58 non-Indigenous staff physicians, resident physicians and nurse practitioners from family practice clinics, and one emergency department across four teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Main outcome measures were the quality of care provided during UISP visits including adjusted odds that clinician would be recommended by the UISP to a friend or family member; mean item scores on patient experience of care measure; and clinical practice guideline adherence for NSAID renewal and pain assessment. RESULTS: Clinicians in the intensive or brief ICS groups had higher adjusted odds of being highly recommended to friends and family by standardized patients (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.17 to 40.45 and OR 7.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 58.03, respectively). Adjusted mean item patient experience scores were 46% (95% CI 12% to 80%) and 40% (95% CI 2% to 78%) higher for clinicians enrolled in the intensive and brief training programs, respectively, compared to control. Small sample size precluded detection of training impacts on clinical practice guideline adherence; 100% of UISP visits were undetected by participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-oriented evaluation design and tools including UISPs were demonstrated as feasible and effective. Results show potential impact of cultural safety training on patient recommendation of clinician and improved patient experience. A larger trial to further ascertain impact on clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org NCT05890144. Retrospectively registered on June 5, 2023.

Sociodemographic differences in patient experience with primary care during COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional survey in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand patients' care-seeking behaviours early in the pandemic, their use and views of different virtual care modalities, and whether these differed by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We conducted a multisite cross-sectional patient experience survey at 13 academic primary care teaching practices between May and June 2020. An anonymised link to an electronic survey was sent to a subset of patients with a valid email address on file; sampling was based on birth month. For each question, the proportion of respondents who selected each response was calculated, followed by a comparison by sociodemographic characteristics using χ2 tests. RESULTS: In total, 7532 participants responded to the survey. Most received care from their primary care clinic during the pandemic (67.7%, 5068/7482), the majority via phone (82.5%, 4195/5086). Among those who received care, 30.53% (1509/4943) stated that they delayed seeking care because of the pandemic. Most participants reported a high degree of comfort with phone (92.4%, 3824/4139), video (95.2%, 238/250) and email or messaging (91.3%, 794/870). However, those reporting difficulty making ends meet, poor or fair health and arriving in Canada in the last 10 years reported lower levels of comfort with virtual care and fewer wanted their practice to continue offering virtual options after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that newcomers, people living with a lower income and those reporting poor or fair health have a stronger preference and comfort for in-person primary care. Further research should explore potential barriers to virtual care and how these could be addressed.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of pediatric tonsillitis.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric tonsillitis is encountered frequently across specialties, and while high quality guidelines exist, there is persistent evidence of care which is not evidence based, including antibiotic overprescribing and surgical practice variability. Quality indicators (QIs) can be utilized for initiatives to improve the quality of care and subsequent patient outcomes. We sought to develop pediatric tonsillitis QIs that are applicable across specialties and that cover aspects of both diagnosis and the spectrum of management options. METHODS: A guideline-based approach to QI development was employed. Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from international guidelines deemed high quality by two reviewers and evaluated by an eleven-member expert panel consisting of otolaryngology - head & neck surgeons, a pediatrician and a family physician. The final QIs were selected utilizing a modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-six CIs were identified after initial literature review. After the first round of evaluations, the panel agreed on thirteen candidate indicators as appropriate QIs. A subsequent expert panel meeting provided a platform to discuss areas of disagreement, discuss any recently published research, and to brainstorm additional CIs not identified from the guideline extraction. Following the second round of evaluations, the expert panel agreed upon sixteen QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes sixteen QIs developed through a multidisciplinary lens to guide practitioners in the diagnosis and management of pediatric tonsillitis. These QIs can be used to improve transparency, accountability, and provide objective data to assist future quality improvement initiatives.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a highly prevalent disease that is treated by a variety of specialties, including but not limited to, family physicians, emergency physicians, otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons, infectious disease specialists, and allergy and immunologists. Unfortunately, despite high-quality guidelines, variable and substandard care continues to be demonstrated in the treatment of ABRS. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop ABRS-specific quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate the diagnosis and management that reduces symptoms, improves quality of life, and prevents complications. METHODS: A guideline-based approach, proposed by Kötter et al., was used to develop QIs for ABRS. Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from 4 guiding documents and evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Each CI and its supporting evidence was summarized and reviewed by an expert panel based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. Final QIs were selected from CIs utilizing the modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-nine CIs were identified after literature review and evaluated by our panel. Of these, 5 CIs reached consensus as being appropriate QIs, with 1 requiring additional discussion. After a second round of evaluations, the panel selected 7 QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care. CONCLUSION: This study proposes 7 QIs for the diagnosis and management of patients with ABRS. These QIs can serve multiple purposes, including documenting the quality of care; comparing institutions and providers; prioritizing quality improvement initiatives; supporting accountability, regulation, and accreditation; and determining pay for performance initiatives.

Trust as the foundation: thoughts on the Starfield principles in Canada and Brazil: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care in Canada and Brazil and how both countries have embraced the Starfield principles in the design of their health care systems. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: A subgroup of the Besrour Centre of the College of Family Physicians of Canada developed connections with colleagues in Brazil and collaborated to undertake a between-country comparison, comparing and contrasting various elements of both countries' efforts to strengthen primary care over the past few decades. METHODS: Following a literature review, the authors collectively reflected on their experiences in an attempt to explore the past and current state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil. REPORT: The Brazilian and Canadian primary care systems have both adopted and advanced the Starfield principles in various ways, with both countries showing an increasing trend toward adopting interprofessional team-based care. Access to primary care remains a challenge in rural areas in both countries, and longitudinal relationships between providers and patients appear to be more common in Canada. With the advent of technology, increasing patient engagement and expectations, the decline of paternalistic medicine, and the sheer mass of readily available information (and misinformation), to be successful, primary care systems must also be constructed to engender trust at both the local and the system levels. Both countries face challenges to maintaining trust in the context of the increasing prevalence of team-based care, and a lack of trust at the system level can be seen in patients' perceptions about the difficulty of finding a family doctor and in high rates of emergency department and urgent care centre use in both countries. Primary care reform must be implemented with the public's trust in mind. CONCLUSION: Trust is a crucial ingredient to the success of primary care and must be protected at both local and system levels. If designed with trust in mind, primary care in Canada and Brazil has the potential to meet the challenges set out by the Starfield principles.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has been identified as a high-priority disease category for quality improvement. To this end, this study aimed to develop CRS-specific quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate diagnosis and management that relieves patient discomfort, improves quality of life, and prevents complications. METHODS: A guideline-based approach, proposed in 2012 by Kötter et al. was used to develop QIs for CRS. Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from 3 practice guidelines and 1 international consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of CRS. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Each CI and its supporting evidence was summarized and reviewed by an expert panel based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. Final QIs were selected from CIs utilizing the modified RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology. RESULTS: Thirty-nine CIs were identified after literature review and evaluated by our panel. Of these, 9 CIs reached consensus as being appropriate QIs, with 4 requiring additional discussion. After a second round of evaluations, the panel selected 9 QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care. CONCLUSION: This study proposes 9 QIs for the diagnosis and management of patients with CRS. These QIs can serve multiple purposes, including documenting the quality of care; comparing institutions and providers; prioritizing quality improvement initiatives; supporting accountability, regulation, and accreditation; and determining pay-for-performance initiatives.

Informational Needs of Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

The patient journey with head and neck cancer (HNC) is particularly challenging given the physical and functional impact of the cancer and treatment. The ability to perform activities of daily living can be severely compromised and have a profound impact on psychosocial well-being. These complex and long-lasting effects can affect patient quality of life for months to years and the literature shows that information for HNC patients is often insufficient. This observational cross-sectional study utilized survey methodology to investigate the informational needs of HNC patients and the preferred modalities for delivery. This was done to inform the development of resources for HNC patients. Four hundred fifty surveys were analyzed. The median age was 61 years and 58% of the cohort was born in Canada. Most were Caucasian (72%), Chinese being the next largest ethnicity (12%). A third had less than high school education and most had cancer of the oral cavity (28%) and were in long-term follow-up (41%). Comparison of the percentage of items to which a patient responded "very important" across the six domains shows variation of importance by domain (overall mixed effects regression model p < 0.0001). Additionally, each domain was compared to the medical domain and all had significantly lower mean scores (all p < 0.0001) with the medical domain scoring highest (mean score 64.6). The top preferred education modalities were teaching with a healthcare professional and pamphlets. This study highlights the type of information that HNC patients want and the format they wish to receive it in. The design provides a comprehensive way to consult with patients toward building education that responds to their specific needs.