Search

BackgroundCanada has been slow to implement virtual care relative to other countries. However, in recent years, the availability of on-demand, “walk-in” virtual clinics has increased, with the COVID-19 pandemic contributing to the increased demand and provision of virtual care nationwide. Although virtual care facilitates access to physicians while maintaining physical distancing, there are concerns regarding the continuity and quality of care as well as equitable access. There is a paucity of research documenting the availability of virtual care in Canada, thus hampering the efforts to evaluate the impacts of its relatively rapid emergence on the broader health care system and on individual health. ObjectiveWe conducted a national environmental scan to determine the availability and scope of virtual walk-in clinics, cataloging the services they offer and whether they are operating through public or private payment. MethodsWe developed a power term and implemented a structured Google search to identify relevant clinics. From each clinic meeting our inclusion criteria, we abstracted data on the payment model, region of operation, services offered, and continuity of care. We compared clinics operating under different payment models using Fisher exact tests. ResultsWe identified 18 virtual walk-in clinics. Of the 18 clinics, 10 (56%) provided some services under provincial public insurance, although 44% (8/18) operated on a fully private payment model while an additional 39% (7/18) charged patients out of pocket for some services. The most common supplemental services offered included dermatology (15/18, 83%), mental health services (14/18, 78%), and sexual health (11/18, 61%). Continuity, information sharing, or communication with the consumers’ existing primary care providers were mentioned by 22% (4/18) of the clinics. ConclusionsVirtual walk-in clinics have proliferated; however, concerns about equitable access, continuity of care, and diversion of physician workforce within these models highlight the importance of supporting virtual care options within the context of longitudinal primary care. More research is needed to support quality virtual care and understand its effects on patient and provider experiences and the overall health system utilization and costs.

INTRODUCTION Balancing timely access with care continuity remains an important challenge in primary care. Although 90% of the population in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, report having a family physician [...], PURPOSE Primary care access is a key health system metric, but little research has compared models to provide primary care access when one's regular physician is not available. We compared health system use after a visit with a patient's own family physician group (ie, within-group physician who was not the patient's primary physician) vs a visit with a walk-in clinic physician who was not part of the patient's family physician group. METHODS We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, including all individuals formally enrolled with a family physician, from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared those visiting within-group physicians to those visiting walk-in clinic physicians using propensity score matching to account for differences in patient characteristics. The primary outcome was any emergency department visit within 7 days of the initial visit. RESULTS Matched patients who visited a within-group physician (N = 506,033) were 10% less likely to visit an emergency department in the 7 days after the initial visit compared to patients who saw a walk-in clinic physician (N = 506,033; 20,117 [4.0%] vs 22,320 [4.4%]; risk difference [RD] 0.4%; 95% CI 0.4-0.5; relative risk [RR] 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92). Restricting to visits occurring on weekends, the observed association was stronger (7,964 [3.7%] vs 10,055 [4.7%]; RD 1.0%; 95% CI 0.9-1.1; RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82). Those accessing after-hours within-group physician visits were more likely to have >1 additional virtual or in-person within-group physician visit within 7 days (virtual RR 1.86, in-person RR 1.87). CONCLUSIONS Compared to visiting a walk-in clinic physician, seeing a within- group physician after hours might decrease downstream emergency department visits. This finding could be explained by better continuity of care and can inform primary care service models and the policies that support them.

Introduction: Health system disruptions, caused by unexpected emergencies such as disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and cybercrimes, impact the delivery of routine preventative care. As comprehensive care providers, family physicians (FPs) devote significant time to prevention. However, without emergency and pandemic plans in place in primary care, FPs face added barriers to prioritizing and sustaining preventative care when health systems are strained, which was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to describe FPs' experiences providing preventative care during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perceptions of the impacts of disrupted preventative care in primary care settings.Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semistructured interviews with FPs across 4 provinces in Canada (i.e. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia) between October 2020 and June 2021 as part of a larger multiple case study. These interviews broadly explored the roles and responsibilities of FPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were coded thematically and codes from the larger study were analysed further using an iterative, phased process of thematic analysis.Results: Interviews averaged 58 min in length (range 17-97 min) and FPs had a mean of 16.9 years of experience. We identified 4 major themes from interviews with FPs (n = 68): (i) lack of capacity and coordination across health systems, (ii) patient fear, (iii) impacts on patient care, and (iv) negative impacts on FPs. Physicians voiced concerns with managing patients' prevention needs when testing availability and coordination of services was limited. Early in the pandemic, patients were also missing or postponing their own primary care appointments. Change in the provision and coordination of routine preventative care had negative impacts on both patients and physicians, affecting disease incidence/progression, physician workload, and psychological wellbeing.Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, upstream care efforts were impacted, and FPs were forced to reduce their provision of preventative care. FPs contribute direct insight to primary care delivery that can support pandemic planning to ensure preventative care is sustained during future emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a pressing need to understand the implications of the rapid adoption of virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder. Potential impacts, including disruptions to opiate agonist therapies, and the prospect of improved service accessibility remain underexplored. Objective: This scoping review synthesized current literature on virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder with a specific focus on benefits, challenges, and strategies. Methods: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological approach for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting our findings. We conducted searches in MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Embase using our developed search strategy with no date restrictions. We incorporated all study types that included the 3 concepts (ie, virtual care, primary care, and people with opioid use disorder). We excluded research on minors, asynchronous virtual modalities, and care not provided in a primary care setting. We used Covidence to screen and extract data, pulling information on study characteristics, health system features, patient outcomes, and challenges and benefits of virtual primary care. We conducted inductive content analysis and calculated descriptive statistics. We appraised the quality of the studies using the Quality Assessment With Diverse Studies tool and categorized the findings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Our search identified 1474 studies. We removed 36.36% (536/1474) of these as duplicates, leaving 938 studies for title and abstract screening. After a double review process, we retained 3% (28/938) of the studies for extraction. Only 14% (4/28) of the studies were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most (15/28, 54%) used quantitative methodologies. We summarized objectives and results, finding that most studies (18/28, 64%) described virtual primary care delivered via phone rather than video and that many studies (16/28, 57%) reported changes in appointment modality. Through content analysis, we identified that policies and regulations could either facilitate (11/28, 39%) or impede (7/28, 25%) the provision of care virtually. In addition, clinicians' perceptions of patient stability (5/28, 18%) and the heightened risks associated with virtual care (10/28, 36%) can serve as a barrier to offering virtual services. For people with opioid use disorder, increased health care accessibility was a noteworthy benefit (13/28, 46%) to the adoption of virtual visits, whereas issues regarding access to technology and digital literacy stood out as the most prominent challenge (12/28, 43%). Conclusions: The available studies highlight the potential for enhancing accessibility and continuous access to care for people with opioid use disorder using virtual modalities. Future research and policies must focus on bridging gaps to ensure that virtual primary care does not exacerbate or entrench health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (Copyright © 2024 the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To examine trends in chronic pain (CP) practice patterns among community-based family physicians (FPs)., Design: Population-based descriptive study using health administrative data., Setting: British Columbia from fiscal years 2008-2009 to 2017-2018., Participants: Patients with an algorithm-defined CP condition and community-based FPs, both registered with the British Columbia Medical Services Plan., Main Outcome Measures: Using British Columbia health administrative data and a CP algorithm adapted from a previous study, the following were compared between fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2017-2018: CP patient volumes, pain-related medication prescriptions, referrals to pain specialists, musculoskeletal imaging requests, and interventional procedures., Results: In the fiscal year 2017-2018, among community-based family physicians (N=4796), an average of 32.5% of their patients had CP. Between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018, the proportion of CP patients per FP who were prescribed long-term opioids increased by an average absolute change of 0.56%; the proportion prescribed long-term neuropathic pain medications increased by 1.1%; and the proportion prescribed long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs decreased by 0.49%. The proportion of musculoskeletal imaging out of all imaging requests made by FPs increased by 2.0%; pain-related referrals increased by 1.73%; there was a 4.6% increase in the proportion of community-based FPs who performed 1 or more pain injections; and 10% more FPs performed 1 or more trigger point injections within a fiscal year., Conclusion: Findings show that the work of providing care to patients with CP increased while CP patient volumes per FP decreased. Workforce planning for community-based FPs should consider these increased demands and ensure FPs are adequately supported to provide CP care., (Copyright © 2024 the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Family physicians play important roles throughout all stages of a pandemic response; however, actionable descriptions outlining these roles are absent from current pandemic plans. Using a multiple case study design, we conducted a document analysis and interviewed 68 family physicians in four Canadian regions. We identified roles performed by family physicians in five distinct stages of pandemic response: pre-pandemic, phased closure and re-opening, acute care crisis, vaccination, and pandemic recovery. In addition to adopting public health guidance to ensure continued access to primary care services, family physicians were often expected to operationalize public health roles (eg, staffing assessment centres), modulate access to secondary/tertiary services, help provide surge capacity in acute care facilities, and enhance supports and outreach to vulnerable populations. Future pandemic plans should include family physicians in planning, explicitly incorporate family physician roles, and ensure needed resources are available to allow for an effective primary care response.

Problem Addressed: Individuals with severe mental illness have an increased burden of physical comorbidities. Physical concerns of patients admitted to hospital for mental health reasons might be addressed by multiple specialists, leading to fragmented care and high costs to the system, when many of these concerns could be addressed by primary care., Objective of Program: The Family Doctor Outreach Clinic (FDOC) aims to provide rapid consultations for common concerns, to provide consultations for complex chronic disease and addictions, and to identify gaps in community care that contribute to patients' potential readmission to hospital. The FDOC is a simple and novel collaborative program of care in a tertiary care setting., Program Description: Members of the Department of Family Medicine at St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, BC, have been providing consultation services for patients admitted to the 4 mental health wards (total of 108 beds). Using a prospective cohort of consecutive consultations (N = 104) from July to August 2014, the study team collected data on details of current admissions, connections to community primary care, and reasons for consultations., Conclusion: Including family physicians in the care of mental health inpatients, as is done at the FDOC, might avert referrals to specialist services and provide a bridge between acute care and community family practice., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)