The impact of team-based primary care on medication-related outcomes in older adults: A comparative analysis of two Canadian provinces.

Objective: To evaluate if access to team-based primary care is related to medication management outcomes for older adults. Methods: We completed two retrospective cohort studies using administrative health data for older adults (66+) in Ontario (n = 428,852) and Québec (n = 310,198) who were rostered with a family physician (FP) between the 2001/02 and 2017/18 fiscal years. We generated matched comparison groups of older adults rostered to an FP practicing in a team-based model, and older adults rostered to an FP in a non-team model. We compared the following outcomes between these groups: any adverse drug reactions (ADRs), any potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP), and polypharmacy. Average treatment effects of access to team-based care were estimated using a difference-in-differences estimator. Results: The risk of an ADR was 22 % higher (RR = 1.22, 95 % CI = 1.18, 1.26) for older adults rostered to a team-based FP in Québec and 6 % lower (RR = 0.943, 95 % CI = 0.907, 0.978) in Ontario. However, absolute risk differences were less than 0.5 %. Differences in the risk of polypharmacy were small in Québec (RR = 1.005, 95 % CI = 1.001, 1.009) and Ontario (RR = 1.004, 95 % CI = 1.001, 1.007) and had absolute risk differences of less than 1 % in both provinces. Effects on PIP were not statistically or clinically significant in adjusted models. Interpretation: We did not find evidence that access to team-based primary care in Ontario or Québec meaningfully improved medication management outcomes for older adults.

Association of physician payment model and team-based care with timely access in primary care: a population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how patient-reported access to primary care differs by physician payment model and participation in team-based care. We examined the association between timely and after-hours access to primary care and physician payment model and participation in team-based care, and sought to assess how access varied by patient characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult (age ≥ 16 yr) Ontarians who responded to the Ontario Health Care Experience Survey between January 2013 and September 2015, reported having a primary care provider and agreed to have their responses linked to health administrative data. Access measures included the proportion of respondents who reported same-day or next-day access when sick, satisfaction with time to appointment when sick, telephone access and knowledge of an after-hours clinic. We tested the association between practice model and measures of access using logistic regression after stratifying for rurality. RESULTS: A total of 33 665 respondents met our inclusion criteria. In big cities, respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were less likely to report same-day or next-day access when sick than respondents in enhanced fee-for-service models (team capitation 43%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.98; nonteam capitation 39%, adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87; enhanced fee-for-service 46% [reference]). Respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were more likely than those in enhanced fee-for-service models to report that their provider had an after-hours clinic (team capitation 59%, adjusted OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.39-2.81; nonteam capitation 51%, adjusted OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.76-2.04; enhanced fee-for service 34% [reference]). Patterns were similar for respondents in small towns. There was minimal to no difference by model for satisfaction with time to appointment or telephone access. INTERPRETATION: In our setting, there was an association between some types of access to primary care and physician payment model and team-based care, but the direction was not consistent. Different measures of timely access are needed to understand health care system performance.