Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Frailty is associated with multi-system deterioration, and typically increases susceptibility to adverse events such as falls. Frailty can be better managed with early screening and intervention, ideally conducted in primary health care (PHC) settings. This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an evaluation framework during the second stage piloting of a novel web-based tool called the Frailty Portal, developed to aid in the screening, identification, and care planning of frail patients in community PHC. Methods This qualitative study conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with a purposive sample of PHC providers (family physicians, nurse practitioners) and key PHC stakeholders who were administrators, decision makers and staff. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Framework Analysis was used to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs to implementing the Frailty Portal. Results A total of 17 interviews were conducted. The CFIR-inspired interview questions helped clarify critical aspects of implementation that need to be addressed at multiple levels if the Frailty Portal is to be successfully implemented in PHC. Finding were organized into three themes 1) PHC Practice Context, 2) Intervention attributes affecting implementation, and 3) Targeting providers with frail patients. At the intervention level the Frailty Portal was viewed positively, despite the multi-level challenges to implementing it in PHC practice settings. Provider participants perceived high opportunity costs to using the Frailty Portal due to changes they needed to make to their practice routines. However, those who had older patients, took the time to learn how to use the Frailty Portal, and created processes for sharing tasks with other PHC personnel become proficient at using the Frailty Portal. Conclusions Structuring our evaluation around the CFIR was instrumental in identifying multi-level factors that will affect large-scale adoption of the Frailty Portal in PHC practices. Incorporating CFIR constructs into evaluation instruments can flag factors likely to impede future implementation and impact the effectiveness of innovative practices. Future research is encouraged to identify how best to facilitate changes in PHC practices to address frailty and to use implementation frameworks that honor the complexity of implementing innovations in PHC.

Lack of patient access to family physicians in Canada is a concern. The role of recent physician graduates in this problem of supply of primary care services has not been established. We sought to establish whether career stage or graduation cohort were related to family physician practice volume and continuity of care over time. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of family physician practice from 1997/98 to 2017/18. We collected administrative health and physician claims data in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. We included all physicians who registered with their respective provincial regulatory colleges as having a medical specialty of family practice or who had billed the provincial health insurance system for patient care as family physicians, or both. We used regression models to isolate the effects of 3-year categories of years in practice (at all career stages), time period and cohort on patient contacts and physician-level continuity of care. Between 1997/98 and 2017/18, the median number of patient contacts per provider per year fell by between 515 and 1736 contacts in the 4 provinces examined. Median contacts peaked at 27–29 years in practice in all provinces, and median physician-level continuity of care increased until 30 or more years in practice. We found no association between graduation cohort and patient contacts or physician-level continuity of care. Recent cohorts of family physicians practise similarly to their predecessors in terms of practice volumes and continuity of care. Because family physicians of all career stages showed declining patient contacts, we suggest that system-wide solutions to recent challenges in the accessibility of primary care in Canada are needed.

Introduction Improving healthcare for people with multiple chronic or ongoing conditions is receiving increased attention, particularly due to the growing number of people experiencing multimorbidity (MM) and concerns about the sustainability of the healthcare system. Primary care has been promoted as an important resource for supporting people with MM to live well with their conditions and to prevent unnecessary use of health care services. However, traditional primary care has been criticized for not centring the needs and preferences of people with MM themselves. Our aim was to conduct a review that centred on the perspective of people with MM in multiple ways, including having patient partners co‐lead the design, conduct and reporting of findings, and focusing on literature that reported the perspective of people with MM, irrespective of it being experimental or nonexperimental. Methods We searched for published literature in CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE All (Ovid). Findings from experimental and nonexperimental studies were integrated into collaboration with patient partners. Results Twenty‐nine articles were included in the review. Findings are described in five categories: (1) Care that is tailored to my unique situation; (2) meaningful inclusion in the team; (3) a healthcare team that is ready and able to address my complex needs; (4) supportive relationships and (5) access when and where I need it. Conclusion This review supports a reorientation of primary care systems to better reflect the experiences and perspectives of people with MM. This can be accomplished by involving patient partners in the design and evaluation of primary care services and incentivizing collaboration among health and social supports and services for people with MM. Patient or Public Contribution Patient partners were involved in the design and conduct of this review, and in the preparation of the manuscript. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text.

Background Health systems in Canada and elsewhere are at a crossroads of reform in response to rising economic and societal pressures. The Quadruple Aim advocates for: improving patient experience, reducing cost, advancing population health and improving the provider experience. It is at the forefront of Canadian reform debates aimed to improve a complex and often-fragmented health care system. Concurrently, collaboration between primary care and public health has been the focus of current research, looking for integrated community-based primary health care models that best suit the health needs of communities and address health equity. This study aimed to explore the nature of Canadian primary care - public health collaborations, their aims, motivations, activities, collaboration barriers and enablers, and perceived outcomes. Methods Ten case studies were conducted in three provinces (Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia) to elucidate experiences of primary care and public health collaboration in different settings, contexts, populations and forms. Data sources included a survey using the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, focus groups, and document analysis. This provided an opportunity to explore how primary care and public health collaboration could serve in transforming community-based primary health care with the potential to address the Quadruple Aims. Results Aims of collaborations included: provider capacity building, regional vaccine/immunization management, community-based health promotion programming, and, outreach to increase access to care. Common precipitators were having a shared vision and/or community concern. Barriers and enablers differed among cases. Perceived barriers included ineffective communication processes, inadequate time for collaboration, geographic challenges, lack of resources, and varying organizational goals and mandates. Enablers included clear goals, trusting and inclusive relationships, role clarity, strong leadership, strong coordination and communication, and optimal use of resources. Cases achieved outcomes addressing the Q-Aims such as improving access to services, addressing population health through outreach to at-risk populations, reducing costs through efficiencies, and improving provider experience through capacity building. Conclusions Primary care and public health collaborations can strengthen community-based primary health care while addressing the Quadruple Aims with an emphasis on reducing health inequities but requires attention to collaboration barriers and enablers.

Background The increased use of electronic medical records (EMRs) in Canadian primary health care practice has resulted in an expansion of the availability of EMR data. Potential users of these data need to understand their quality in relation to the uses to which they are applied. Herein, we propose a basic model for assessing primary health care EMR data quality, comprising a set of data quality measures within four domains. We describe the process of developing and testing this set of measures, share the results of applying these measures in three EMR-derived datasets, and discuss what this reveals about the measures and EMR data quality. The model is offered as a starting point from which data users can refine their own approach, based on their own needs. Methods Using an iterative process, measures of EMR data quality were created within four domains: comparability; completeness; correctness; and currency. We used a series of process steps to develop the measures. The measures were then operationalized, and tested within three datasets created from different EMR software products. Results A set of eleven final measures were created. We were not able to calculate results for several measures in one dataset because of the way the data were collected in that specific EMR. Overall, we found variability in the results of testing the measures (e.g. sensitivity values were highest for diabetes, and lowest for obesity), among datasets (e.g. recording of height), and by patient age and sex (e.g. recording of blood pressure, height and weight). Conclusions This paper proposes a basic model for assessing primary health care EMR data quality. We developed and tested multiple measures of data quality, within four domains, in three different EMR-derived primary health care datasets. The results of testing these measures indicated that not all measures could be utilized in all datasets, and illustrated variability in data quality. This is one step forward in creating a standard set of measures of data quality. Nonetheless, each project has unique challenges, and therefore requires its own data quality assessment before proceeding.

Background Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi‐structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two‐way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or Public Contribution Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.

Introduction: Primary health care (PHC) is the foundation of healthcare systems around the world, recognized for its ability to deliver cost-effective, equitable, and high-quality care. Measuring and reporting on PHC performance allows decision-makers to ensure accountability and quality improvement. Rural areas, where residents are few and widely dispersed across vast areas, present special challenges for PHC delivery, and performance measurement systems need to acknowledge the ways rural PHC is unique. The objective of this scoping review is to establish the features of PHC that should be measured and reported in a rural versus a non-rural context. Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL, as well as grey literature in the form of government reports and research institute publications, were searched for relevant studies. Identified articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported or described (1) rural primary health care; (2) healthcare practice characteristics or structures, provider scope of practice, provider practice patterns, or patient patterns of health care use; and (3) one of four 'pillars' of quality PHC outlined in the College of Family Physicians of Canada's 'Patient's Medical Home' model: accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, or electronic health records. Articles were excluded if they reported or described (1) specific patient populations, health concerns, or health outcomes; or (2) patient preferences or experiences with PHC. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine unique aspects of rural PHC. Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. Results: Results suggest important differences in aspects of rural PHC, particularly in how rural patients access such care and the types of services they receive from providers compared to non-rural patients. Conclusion: These differences between rural and non-rural PHC will need to be considered in the design of performance measurement systems.

Background Case management is one of the most frequently performed interventions to mitigate the negative effects of high healthcare use on patients, primary care providers and the healthcare system. Reviews have addressed factors influencing case management interventions (CMI) implementation and reported common themes related to the case manager role and activities, collaboration with other primary care providers, CMI training and relationships with the patients. However, the heterogeneity of the settings in which CMI have been implemented may impair the transferability of the findings. Moreover, the underlying factors influencing the first steps of CMI implementation need to be further assessed. This study aimed to evaluate facilitators and barriers of the first implementation steps of a CMI by primary care nurses for people with complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. Methods A qualitative multiple case study was conducted including six primary care clinics across four provinces in Canada. In-depth interviews and focus groups with nurse case managers, health services managers, and other primary care providers were conducted. Field notes also formed part of the data. A mixed thematic analysis, deductive and inductive, was carried out. Results Leadership of the primary care providers and managers facilitated the first steps of the of CMI implementation, as did the experience and skills of the nurse case managers and capacity development within the teams. The time required to establish CMI was a barrier at the beginning of the CMI implementation. Most nurse case managers expressed apprehension about developing an “individualized services plan” with multiple health professionals and the patient. Clinic team meetings and a nurse case managers community of practice created opportunities to address primary care providers’ concerns. Participants generally perceived the CMI as a comprehensive, adaptable, and organized approach to care, providing more resources and support for patients and better coordination in primary care. Conclusion Results of this study will be useful for decision makers, care providers, patients and researchers who are considering the implementation of CMI in primary care. Providing knowledge about first steps of CMI implementation will also help inform policies and best practices.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether cancer decedents who received palliative care early (ie, >6 months before death) and not-early had different risk of using hospital care and supportive home care in the last month of life.Design/settingWe identified a population-based cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Analysis occurred between August 2017 to March 2019.ParticipantsWe propensity-score matched decedents on receiving early or not-early palliative care using billing claims. We created two groups of matched pairs: one that had Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) home care assessments in the exposure period (Yes-RAI group) and one that did not (No-RAI group) to control for confounders uniquely available in the assessment, such as health instability and pain. The outcomes were the absolute risk difference between matched pairs in receiving hospital care, supportive home care or hospital death.ResultsIn the No-RAI group, we identified 36 238 pairs who received early and not-early palliative care. Those in the early palliative care group versus not-early group had a lower absolute risk difference of dying in hospital (−10.0%) and receiving hospital care (−10.4%) and a higher absolute risk difference of receiving supportive home care (23.3%). In the Yes-RAI group, we identified 3586 pairs, where results were similar in magnitude and direction.ConclusionsCancer decedents who received palliative care earlier than 6 months before death compared with those who did not had a lower absolute risk difference of receiving hospital care and dying in hospital, and an increased absolute risk difference of receiving supportive home care in the last month of life.

ObjectiveWith the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth case management (TCM) was introduced in primary care for patients requiring care by distance. While not all healthcare needs can be addressed via telehealth, the use of information and communication technology to support healthcare delivery has the potential to contribute to the management of patients with chronic conditions and associated complex care needs. However, few qualitative studies have documented stakeholders’ perceptions of TCM. This study aimed to describe patients’, primary care providers’ and clinic managers’ perceptions of the use of a nurse-led TCM intervention for primary care patients with complex care needs.DesignQualitative descriptive study.SettingThree primary care clinics in three Canadian provinces.ParticipantsPatients with complex care needs (n=30), primary care providers (n=11) and clinic managers (n=2) participated in qualitative individual interviews and focus groups.InterventionTCM intervention was delivered by nurse case managers over a 6-month period.ResultsParticipants’ perceptions of the TCM intervention were summarised in three themes: (1) improved patient access, comfort and sense of reassurance; (2) trusting relationships and skilled nurse case managers; (3) activities more suitable for TCM. TCM was a generally accepted mode of primary care delivery, had many benefits for patients and providers and worked well for most activities that do not require physical assessment or treatment. Participants found TCM to be useful and a viable alternative to in-person care.ConclusionsTCM improves access to care and is successful when a relationship of trust between the nurse case manager and patient can develop over time. Healthcare policymakers and primary care providers should consider the benefits of TCM and promote this mode of delivery as a complement to in-person care for patients with complex care needs.