"Technology has allowed us to do a lot more but it's not necessarily the panacea for everybody": Family physician perspectives on virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

INTRODUCTION: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: The move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Designing centralized waiting lists for attachment to a primary care provider: Considerations from a logic analysis.

Access to a regular primary care provider is essential to quality care. In Canada, where 15 % of patients are unattached (i.e., without a regular provider), centralized waiting lists (CWLs) help attach patients to a primary care provider (family physician or nurse practitioner). Previous studies reveal mechanisms needed for CWLs to work, but focus mostly on CWLs for specialized health care. We aim to better understand how to design CWLs for unattached patients in primary care. In this study, a logic analysis compares empirical evidence from a qualitative case study of CWLs for unattached patients in seven Canadian provinces to programme theory derived from a realist review on CWLs. Data is analyzed using context-intervention-mechanism-outcome configurations. Results identify mechanisms involved in three components of CWL design: patient registration, patient prioritization, and patient assignment to a provider for attachment. CWL programme theory is revised to integrate mechanisms specific to primary care, where patients, rather than referring providers, are responsible for registering on the CWL, where prioritization must consider a broad range of conditions and characteristics, and where long-term acceptability of attachment is important. The study provides new insight into mechanisms that enable CWLs for unattached patients to work.