Telehealth in Primary Healthcare: A Portrait of its Rapid Implementation during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study documents the adoption of telehealth by various types of primary healthcare (PHC) providers working in teaching PHC clinics in Quebec during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also identifies the perceived advantages and disadvantages of telehealth. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted between May and August 2020. The e-survey was completed by 48/50 teaching primary care clinics representing 603/1,357 (44%) PHC providers. RESULTS: Telephone use increased the most, becoming the principal virtual modality of consultation, during the pandemic. Video consultations increased, with variations by type of PHC provider: between 2% and 16% reported using it "sometimes." The main perceived advantages of telehealth were minimizing the patient's need to travel, improved efficiency and reduction in infection transmission risk. The main disadvantages were the lack of physical exam and difficulties connecting with some patients. CONCLUSION: The variation in telehealth adoption by type of PHC provider may inform strategies to maximize the potential of telehealth and help create guidelines for its use in more normal times.

Improving Understanding of Reflexivity in Family Medicine: Development of an Educational Tool Based on a Rapid Review.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: In the last decade, reflexivity has emerged as a key concept in family medicine, as evidenced by its increasing integration in competency statements and frameworks in the field. However, the concept of reflexivity is inconsistent and ill-defined in medical education literature, with variable purposes and associated processes, which is an important barrier to learning and implementing reflective practices. This project built on the results of a rapid review to develop an educational tool supporting the learning and teaching of reflexivity in family medicine. Methods: We conducted a rapid review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed studies relating to reflexivity in family medicine between May 2007 to May 2017 in PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, CINHAL, ERIC and Education Source. Two reviewers independently identified, selected and reviewed studies. Results of the review were used to frame the content of the tool. Results: Our research strategy initially identified 810 studies, from which 65 studies were retained for analysis. The different conceptions of reflexivity encountered in the included studies were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four conceptions of reflexivity (i.e. clinical, professional, relational and social reflexivity), with related definitions, goals and processes were identified in the included studies and were used as a basis to develop the Reflexivi-Tool. Conclusion: There is a need to provide clear guidelines regarding the purpose and process of reflexivity, as well as better equipping mentors so they can better facilitate these kinds of skills. Based on a rapid review, this study has allowed the development of a tool that presents and clarifies four main types of reflexivity for medical practice in a concise and user-friendly way. Tools such as Reflexivi-Tool are crucial to support reflective processes that target different dimensions of professionalism.

Can patients be trained to expect shared decision making in clinical consultations? Feasibility study of a public library program to raise patient awareness.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process whereby decisions are made together by patients and/or families and clinicians. Nevertheless, few patients are aware of its proven benefits. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability and impact of an intervention to raise public awareness of SDM in public libraries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1.5 hour interactive workshop to be presented in public libraries was co-designed with Quebec City public library network officials, a science communication specialist and physicians. A clinical topic of maximum reach was chosen: antibiotic overuse in treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. The workshop content was designed and a format, whereby a physician presents the information and the science communication specialist invites questions and participation, was devised. The event was advertised to the general public. An evaluation form was used to collect data on participants' sociodemographics, feasibility and acceptability components and assess a potential impact of the intervention. Facilitators held a post-workshop focus group to qualitatively assess feasibility, acceptability and impact. RESULTS: All 10 planned workshops were held. Out of 106 eligible public participants, 89 were included in the analysis. Most participants were women (77.6%), retired (46.1%) and over 45 (59.5%). Over 90% of participants considered the workshop content to be relevant, accessible, and clear. They reported substantial average knowledge gain about antibiotics (2.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0-2.8; P < .001) and about SDM (4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.5; P < .001). Self-reported knowledge gain about SDM was significantly higher than about antibiotics (4.0 versus 2.4; P < .001). Knowledge gain did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. The focus group confirmed feasibility and suggested improvements. CONCLUSIONS: A public library intervention is feasible and effective way to increase public awareness of SDM and could be a new approach to implementing SDM by preparing potential patients to ask for it in the consulting room.