Public experiences and perspectives of primary care in Canada: results from a cross-sectional survey.

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.

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

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.

Characteristics of walk-in clinic physicians and patients in Ontario: Cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe family physicians who primarily practise in a walk-in clinic setting and compare them with family physicians who provide longitudinal care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study that linked results from a 2019 physician survey to provincial administrative health care data in Ontario. The characteristics, practice patterns, and patients of physicians primarily working in a walk-in clinic setting were compared with those of family physicians providing longitudinal care. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who primarily worked in a walk-in clinic setting in 2019, as indicated by an annual physician survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician demographic and practice characteristics, as well as their patients' demographic and health care utilization characteristics, were reported according to whether the physician was a walk-in clinic physician or a family physician who provided longitudinal care. RESULTS: Compared with the 9137 family physicians providing longitudinal care, the 597 physicians who self-identified as practising primarily in walk-in clinics were more frequently male (67% vs 49%) and more likely to speak a language other than English or French (43% vs 32%). Walk-in clinic physicians tended to have more encounters with patients who were younger (mean 37 vs 47 years), who had lower levels of prior health care utilization (15% vs 19% in highest band), who resided in large urban areas (87% vs 77%), and who lived in highly ethnically diverse neighbourhoods (45% vs 35%). Walk-in clinic physicians tended to have more encounters with unattached patients (33% vs 17%) and with patients attached to another physician outside their group (54% vs 18%). CONCLUSION: Physicians who primarily work in walk-in clinics saw many patients from historically underserved groups and many patients who were attached to another family physician.

Up-to-date on cancer screening among Ontario patients seen by walk-in clinic physicians: A retrospective cohort study.

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.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.

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.

Characteristics and Health Care Use of Patients Attending Virtual Walk-in Clinics in Ontario, Canada: Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Funding changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic supported the growth of direct-to-consumer virtual walk-in clinics in several countries. Little is known about patients who attend virtual walk-in clinics or how these clinics contribute to care continuity and subsequent health care use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to describe the characteristics and measure the health care use of patients who attended virtual walk-in clinics compared to the general population and a subset that received any virtual family physician visit. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Ontario, Canada. Patients who had received a family physician visit at 1 of 13 selected virtual walk-in clinics from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were compared to Ontario residents who had any virtual family physician visit. The main outcome was postvisit health care use. RESULTS: Virtual walk-in patients (n=132,168) had fewer comorbidities and lower previous health care use than Ontarians with any virtual family physician visit. Virtual walk-in patients were also less likely to have a subsequent in-person visit with the same physician (309/132,168, 0.2% vs 704,759/6,412,304, 11%; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48), more likely to have a subsequent virtual visit (40,030/132,168, 30.3% vs 1,403,778/6,412,304, 21.9%; SMD 0.19), and twice as likely to have an emergency department visit within 30 days (11,003/132,168, 8.3% vs 262,509/6,412,304, 4.1%; SMD 0.18), an effect that persisted after adjustment and across urban/rural resident groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Ontarians attending any family physician virtual visit, virtual walk-in patients were less likely to have a subsequent in-person physician visit and were more likely to visit the emergency department. These findings will inform policy makers aiming to ensure the integration of virtual visits with longitudinal primary care.

Factors influencing family physician engagement in practice-based quality improvement: Qualitative study.

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.

Impact of Team-Based Care on Emergency Department Use.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the impact of team-based care on emergency department (ED) use in the context of physicians transitioning from fee-for-service payment to capitation payment in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess annual ED visit rates before and after transition from an enhanced fee-for-service model to either a team capitation model or a nonteam capitation model. We included Ontario residents aged 19 years and older who had at least 3 years of outcome data both pretransition and post-transition (N = 2,524,124). We adjusted for age, sex, income quintile, immigration status, comorbidity, and morbidity, and we stratified by rurality. A sensitivity analysis compared outcomes for team vs nonteam patients matched on year of transition, age, sex, rurality, and health region. RESULTS: We compared 387,607 team and 1,399,103 nonteam patients in big cities, 213,394 team and 380,009 nonteam patients in small towns, and 65,289 team and 78,722 nonteam patients in rural areas. In big cities, after adjustment, the ED visit rate increased by 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.6%) per year for team patients and 5.2% (95% CI, 5.1% to 5.3%) per year for nonteam patients in the years after transition (P <.001). Similarly, there was a slower increase in ED visits for team relative to nonteam patients in small towns (0.9% [95% CI, 0.7% to 1.1%] vs 2.9% [95% CI, 2.8% to 3.1%], P <.001) and rural areas (‒0.5% [95% CI, -0.8% to 0.2%] vs 1.3% [95% CI, 1.0% to 1.6%], P <.001). Results were much the same in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of team-based primary care may reduce ED use. Further research is needed to understand optimal team composition and roles.

Best Practices for COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Clinics.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented global public health crisis. Mass vaccination is the safest and fastest pandemic exit strategy. Mass vaccination clinics are a particularly important tool in quickly achieving herd immunity. Primary care physicians have played a crucial role in organizing and running vaccination clinics. In this special report, we synthesize existing guidelines and peer-reviewed studies to provide physicians with practical guidance on planning and implementing COVID-19 mass vaccination clinics. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were used to search for relevant literature using search terms that included COVID-19, mass vaccination, and best practice. We also identified and analyzed national and international guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-six relevant articles, reports, and guidelines were identified and synthesized. Articles included mass vaccination clinic guidelines and studies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Key considerations for COVID-19 mass vaccination clinics include leadership and role designation, site selection, clinic layout and workflow, day-to-day operations, infection prevention, and communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Planning and implementing a successful COVID-19 mass vaccination clinic requires several key considerations. Primary care plays an important role in organizing clinics and ensuring populations made vulnerable by social and economic policies are being reached. Ongoing data collection is required to evaluate and continuously improve COVID-19 mass vaccination efforts. As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine rollout occurs in various countries, research will be required to identify the main factors for success to inform future pandemic responses.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Family Physicians Stopping Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

We conducted 2 analyses using administrative data to understand whether more family physicians in Ontario, Canada stopped working during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years. First, we found 3.1% of physicians working in 2019 (n = 385/12,247) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic; compared with other family physicians, a higher portion were aged 75 years or older (13.0% vs 3.4%, P <0.001), had fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs 24.9%, P <0.001), and had a panel size under 500 patients (40.0% vs 25.8%, P <0.001). Second, a fitted regression line found the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians stopping work was 0.03% per year from 2010 to 2019 (P = 0.042) but 1.2% between 2019 to 2020 (P <0.001). More research is needed to understand the impact of physicians stopping work on primary care attachment and access to care.

Examining COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes among 2SLGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted 2SLGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness. Little is known about vaccine attitudes and uptake among this population. To address this, the objectives of this study were to explore this group's COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and facilitators and barriers impacting vaccine uptake. METHODS: 2SLGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness in the Greater Toronto Area were recruited to participate in online surveys assessing demographic characteristics, mental health, health service use, and COVID-19 vaccine attitudes. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were used to analyze survey data to explore variables associated with vaccine confidence. Additionally, a select group of youth and frontline workers from youth serving organizations were invited to participate in online one-on-one interviews. An iterative thematic content approach was used to analyze interview data. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged for interpretation by use of a convergent parallel analytical design. RESULTS: Ninety-two youth completed surveys and 32 youth and 15 key informants participated in one-on-one interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data showed that the majority of 2SLGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness were confident in the COVID-19 vaccine; however, numerous youth were non-vaccine confident due to mistrust in the healthcare system, lack of targeted vaccine-related public health information, concerns about safety and side effects, and accessibility issues. Solutions to increase vaccine confidence were provided, including fostering trust, targeted public health messaging, and addressing accessibility needs. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for the vaccine strategy and rollouts to prioritize 2SLGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness and to address the pervasive health disparities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Family physician practice patterns during COVID-19 and future intentions: Cross-sectional survey in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which family physicians closed their doors altogether or for in-person visits during the pandemic, their future practice intentions, and related factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Six geographic areas in Toronto, Ont, aligned with Ontario Health Team regions. PARTICIPANTS: Family doctors practising office-based, comprehensive family medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice operations in January 2021, use of virtual care, and future plans. RESULTS: Of the 1016 (85.7%) individuals who responded to the survey, 99.7% (1001 of 1004) indicated their practices were open in January 2021, with 94.8% (928 of 979) seeing patients in person and 30.8% (264 of 856) providing in-person care to patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms. Respondents estimated spending 58.2% of clinical care time on telephone visits, 5.8% on video appointments, and 7.5% on e-mail or secure messaging. Among respondents, 17.5% (77 of 439) were planning to close their existing practices in the next 5 years. There were higher proportions of physicians who worked alone in clinics among those who did not see patients in person (27.6% no vs 12.4% yes, P<.05), among those who did not see symptomatic patients (15.6% no vs 6.5% yes, P<.001), and among those who planned to close their practices in the next 5 years (28.9% yes vs 13.9% no, P<.01). CONCLUSION: Most family physicians in Toronto were open to in-person care in January 2021, but almost one-fifth were considering closing their practices in the next 5 years. Policy makers need to prepare for a growing family physician shortage and better understand factors that support recruitment and retention.

Shifts in office and virtual primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Globally, primary care changed dramatically as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to understand the degree to which office and virtual primary care changed, and for which patients and physicians, during the initial months of the pandemic in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This population-based study compared comprehensive, linked primary care physician billing data from Jan. 1 to July 28, 2020, with the same period in 2019. We identified Ontario residents with at least 1 office or virtual (telephone or video) visit during the study period. We compared trends in total physician visits, office visits and virtual visits before COVID-19 with trends after pandemic-related public health measures changed the delivery of care, according to various patient and physician characteristics. We used interrupted time series analysis to compare trends in the early and later halves of the COVID-19 period. RESULTS: Compared with 2019, total primary care visits between March and July 2020 decreased by 28.0%, from 7.66 to 5.51 per 1000 people/day. The smallest declines were among patients with the highest expected health care use (8.3%), those who could not be attributed to a primary care physician (10.2%), and older adults (19.1%). In contrast, total visits in rural areas increased by 6.4%. Office visits declined by 79.1% and virtual care increased 56-fold, comprising 71.1% of primary care physician visits. The lowest uptake of virtual care was among children (57.6%), rural residents (60.6%) and physicians with panels of ≥ 2500 patients (66.0%). INTERPRETATION: Primary care in Ontario saw large shifts from office to virtual care over the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Total visits declined least among those with higher health care needs. The determinants and consequences of these major shifts in care require further study.

Gender-based differences in physician payments within the fee-for-service system in Ontario: a retrospective, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in physician income by gender have been described in numerous jurisdictions, but few studies have looked at a Canadian cohort with adjustment for confounders. In this study, we aimed to understand differences in fee-for-service payments to men and women physicians in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all Ontario physicians who submitted claims to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) in 2017. For each physician, we gathered demographic information from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario registry. We compared differences in physician claims between men and women in the entire cohort and within each specialty using multivariable linear regressions, controlling for length of practice, specialty and practice location. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 30 167 physicians who submitted claims to OHIP in 2017, including 17 992 men and 12 175 women. When controlling for confounding variables in a linear mixed-effects regression model, annual physician claims were $93 930 (95% confidence interval $88 434 to $99 431) higher for men than for women. Women claimed 74% as much as men when adjusting for covariates. This discrepancy was present in nearly all specialty categories. Men claimed more than women throughout their careers, with the greatest gap 10-15 years into practice. INTERPRETATION: We found a gender gap in fee-for-service claims in Ontario, with women claiming less than men overall and in nearly every specialty. Further work is required to understand the root causes of the gender pay gap.

"She knows me best": a qualitative study of patient and caregiver views on the role of the primary care physician follow-up post-hospital discharge in individuals admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) are at high-risk of readmission after hospital discharge. There is conflicting evidence however on whether timely follow-up with a primary care provider reduces that risk. The objective of this study is to understand the perspectives of patients with COPD and CHF, and their caregivers, on the role of primary care provider follow-up after hospital discharge. METHODS: A qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews was conducted among patients or their family caregivers admitted with COPD or CHF who were enrolled in a randomized controlled study at three acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Participants were interviewed between December 2017 to January 2019, the majority discharged from hospital at least 30 days prior to their interview. Interviews were analyzed independently by three authors using a deductive directed content analysis, with the fourth author cross-comparing themes. RESULTS: Interviews with 16 participants (eight patients and eight caregivers) revealed four main themes. First, participants valued visiting their primary care provider after discharge to build upon their longitudinal relationship. Second, primary care providers played a key role in coordinating care. Third, there were mixed views on the ideal time for follow-up, with many participants expressing a desire to delay follow-up to stabilize following their acute hospitalization. Fourth, the link between the post-discharge visit and preventing hospital readmissions was unclear to participants, who often self-triaged based on their symptoms when deciding on the need for emergency care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers valued in-person follow-up with their primary care provider following discharge from hospital because of the trust established through pre-existing longitudinal relationships. Our results suggest policy makers should focus on improving rates of primary care provider attachment and systems supporting informational continuity.

Understanding disparities in primary care patient experience.

OBJECTIVE: To understand disparities in primary care patient experience. DESIGN: A serial cross-sectional study was conducted to understand disparities in patient experience at 2 time points (2014 and 2016). Disparities related to age, gender, neighbourhood income, and self-rated health were explored using 3 analytic approaches: stratification, logistic regression, and relative comparison across multiple demographic variables. SETTING: A multisite family health team in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in the family medicine practice who completed e-mail surveys in 2014 (n = 1171, 19% response rate) and 2016 (n = 1823, 15% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported access (timely access when sick, access after hours) and patient-centredness (opportunity to ask questions, involvement in care decisions, enough time with provider). RESULTS: Performance for all measures improved between 2014 and 2016, with the greatest absolute improvement seen in access after hours (61% in 2014; 75% in 2016). Patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported worse patient experiences than those in high-income neighbourhoods did, as did patients with poor versus excellent self-rated health, even after adjustment for other variables. For example, in 2016, 60% of patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported timely access when sick versus 70% in high-income neighbourhoods (adjusted odds ratio of 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95); 60% of patients with poor or fair self-rated health reported timely access when sick versus 72% with excellent self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio of 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84). Comparing across demographic groups, patients with excellent self-rated health and poor or fair self-rated health reported the best and worst experiences, respectively, for all measures. In 2016, the average disparity between subgroups was largest for access after hours. CONCLUSION: In this setting, patient experience was worse for patients in lower-income neighbourhoods and those with poor or fair self-rated health. Access after hours demonstrated the greatest overall absolute improvement but also the greatest widening of disparities.

Electronic communication between family physicians and patients: Findings from a multisite survey of academic family physicians in Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of academic family physicians using e-mail with patients and to explore related attitudes, barriers, and facilitators. DESIGN: A 47-item questionnaire was created after a literature review, discussions with study team members, pretesting, and pilot testing. The questionnaire was disseminated electronically from June to August 2017. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All family physicians affiliated with the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician practices using e-mail (including barriers to and facilitators of e-mail use with patients), use of e-mail with other health care providers, use of communication technologies other than e-mail, and demographic and practice information. RESULTS: A total of 1553 surveys were disseminated and 865 responses received (56% response rate). Overall, 610 respondents met inclusion criteria. Of these respondents, 43% (265 of 610) personally sent e-mails to patients in a typical week. An additional 21% (126 of 610) reported that they did not personally e-mail patients, but their clinic staff did. Patient convenience and a decrease in the need for telephone communication were the most commonly noted reasons for e-mail use. Facilitators of e-mail use included integration with the electronic medical record, enhanced e-mail access control, security features, and financial compensation. Barriers to e-mail use included privacy and security concerns, concerns about inappropriate e-mail use by patients, and the creation of unrealistic expectations about physician availability. CONCLUSION: E-mail use between academic family physicians and patients was found to be much higher than shown in previous studies of Canadian physicians. This finding might have been owing to unique aspects of academic medicine, remuneration via capitation, or other factors. Efforts to increase physician use of e-mail with patients should address concerns related to privacy and security, electronic medical record integration, and financial compensation.

A "Tea and Cookies" Approach: Co-designing Cancer Screening Interventions with Patients Living with Low Income.

BACKGROUND: In our primary care organization, we have observed income gradients in cancer screening for our patients despite outreach. We hypothesized that outreach strategies could be improved upon to be more compelling for our patients living with low income. OBJECTIVE: To use co-design to adapt our current strategies and create new strategies to improve cancer screening uptake for patients living with low income. DESIGN: An exploratory, qualitative study in two phases: interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: For interviews, we recruited 25 patient participants who were or had been overdue for cancer screening and had been identified by their provider as potentially living with low income. For subsequent focus groups, we recruited 14 patient participants, 11 of whom had participated in Phase I interviews. APPROACH: To analyse written transcripts, we took an iterative, inductive approach using content analysis and drawing on best practices in Grounded Theory methodology. Emergent themes were expanded and clarified to create a derived model of possible strategies to improve the experience of cancer screening and encourage screening uptake for patients living with low income. KEY RESULTS: Fear and competing priorities were two key barriers to cancer screening identified by patients. Patients believed that a warm and encouraging outreach approach would work best to increase cancer screening participation. Phone calls and group education were specifically suggested as potentially promising methods. However, these views were not universal; for example, women were more likely to be in favour of group education. CONCLUSIONS: We used input from patients living with low income to co-design a new approach to cancer screening in our primary care organization, an approach that could be broadly applicable to other contexts and settings. We learned from our patients that a multi-modal strategy will likely be best to maximize screening uptake.

Improving Equity Through Primary Care: Proceedings of the 2019 Toronto International Conference on Quality in Primary Care.

Health equity allows people to reach their full health potential and receive high-quality care that is appropriate for them and their needs, no matter where they live, what they have, or who they are. It is a core element of quality in health care. Around the world, there are many efforts to improve equity through primary care. In order to advance these efforts, it is important to share successes and challenges. Building on our work with international stakeholders to identify key primary care research priorities, we organized the Toronto International Conference on Quality in Primary Care that was held on November 16, 2019. Participants from 8 countries took part. Key recommendations included the establishment of continuous relationships between providers and patients over time, relationships between providers in the health and social sectors, and resources supported proportionally to patient need. Solutions must be generated using team-based approaches that explicitly include people with who have experienced discrimination. Progress will require confronting structural determinants including racism, capitalism, and colonialism. Conference participants suggested practical solutions, such as developing a public transportation program for rural residents to improve community building and the ability to attend medical appointments, and identifying patients who have recently missed clinic visits that may benefit from additional care. These approaches will need to be evaluated through high-quality research and quality improvement, with a knowledge translation that facilitates sustainability and expansion across settings.

Routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Sexual orientation and gender identity are key social determinants of health, but data on these characteristics are rarely routinely collected. We examined patients' reactions to being asked routinely about their sexual orientation and gender identity, and compared answers to the gender identity question against other data in the medical chart on gender identity. METHODS: We analyzed data on any patient who answered at least 1 question on a routinely administered sociodemographic survey between Dec. 1, 2013, and Mar. 31, 2016. We also conducted semistructured interviews with 27 patients after survey completion. RESULTS: The survey was offered to 15 221 patients and 14 247 (93.6%) responded to at least 1 of the sociodemographic survey questions. Most respondents answered the sexual orientation (90.6%) and gender identity (96.1%) questions. Many patients who had been classified as transgender or gender diverse in their medical chart did not self-identify as transgender, but rather selected female (22.9%) or male (15.4%). In the semistructured interviews, many patients expressed appreciation at the variety of options available, although some did not see their identities reflected in the options and some felt uncomfortable answering the questions. INTERPRETATION: We found a high response rate to questions about sexual orientation and gender identity. Fitting with other research, we suggest using a 2-part question to explore gender identity. Future research should evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of administering these questions in a variety of care settings. These data can help organizations identify health inequities related to sexual orientation and gender identity.