Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Person-centred planning refers to a model of care in which programs and services are developed in collaboration with persons receiving care (i.e., persons-supported) and tailored to their unique needs and goals. In recent decades, governments around the world have enacted policies requiring community-care agencies to adopt an individualized or person-centred approach to service delivery. Although regional mandates provide a framework for directing care, it is unclear how this guidance is implemented in practice given the diversity and range of organizations within the sector. This study aims to address a gap in the literature by describing how person-centred care plans are implemented in community-care organizations. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with administrators from community-care organizations in Ontario, Canada. We asked participants about their organization’s approach to developing and updating person-centred care plans, including relevant supports and barriers. We analyzed the data thematically using a pragmatic, qualitative, descriptive approach. Results We interviewed administrators from 12 community-care organizations. We identified three overarching categories or processes related to organizational characteristics and person-centred planning: (1) organizational context, (2) organizational culture, and (3) the design and delivery of person-centred care plans. The context of care and the types of services offered by the organization were directly informed by the needs and characteristics of the population served. The culture of the organization (e.g., their values, attitudes and beliefs surrounding persons-supported) was a key influence in the development and implementation of person-centred care plans. Participants described the person-centred planning process as being iterative and collaborative, involving initial and continued consultations with persons-supported and their close family and friends, while also citing implementation challenges in cases where persons had difficulty communicating, and in cases where they preferred not to have a formal plan in place. Conclusions The person-centred planning process is largely informed by organizational context and culture. There are ongoing challenges in the implementation of person-centred care plans, highlighting a gap between policy and practice and suggesting a need for comprehensive guidance and enhanced adaptability in current regulations. Policymakers, administrators, and service providers can leverage these insights to refine policies, advocating for inclusive, flexible approaches that better align with diverse community needs.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach. We interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward. The move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Background Effective deployment of AI tools in primary health care requires the engagement of practitioners in the development and testing of these tools, and a match between the resulting AI tools and clinical/system needs in primary health care. To set the stage for these developments, we must gain a more in-depth understanding of the views of practitioners and decision-makers about the use of AI in primary health care. The objective of this study was to identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. Methods This study utilized a descriptive qualitative approach, including thematic data analysis. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary health care and digital health stakeholders in Ontario. NVivo software was utilized in the coding of the interviews. Results Five main interconnected themes emerged: (1) Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality—denoting the importance of potential applications of AI in primary health care practice, with a recognition of the current reality characterized by a lack of available tools; (2) Mechanics of AI Don’t Matter: Just Another Tool in the Toolbox– reflecting an interest in what value AI tools could bring to practice, rather than concern with the mechanics of the AI tools themselves; (3) AI in Practice: A Double-Edged Sword—the possible benefits of AI use in primary health care contrasted with fundamental concern about the possible threats posed by AI in terms of clinical skills and capacity, mistakes, and loss of control; (4) The Non-Starters: A Guarded Stance Regarding AI Adoption in Primary Health Care—broader concerns centred on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI use in primary health care; and (5) Necessary Elements: Facilitators of AI in Primary Health Care—elements required to support the uptake of AI tools, including co-creation, availability and use of high quality data, and the need for evaluation. Conclusion The use of AI in primary health care may have a positive impact, but many factors need to be considered regarding its implementation. This study may help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

Background Goal setting for persons within health and social care environments can be a challenging task; although health and social care settings aim to address a person’s care needs, the literature tends to focus on health. Person-centred care should encompass the goals/needs/wants of the person, whether these goals focus on career, relationship, and/or health domains. To understand how a person-centred participatory goal setting process is carried out in a care environment, we used an integrated knowledge translation approach. Methods We conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with community-care staff to understand a person-centred planning process, including key components and impacts. Results The interviews provide a thorough understanding of an implemented approach to person-centred plans, including its creation, implementation, and benefits (for the person-supported, family, friends, and staff). Person-centred plans provide a map with which to plan activities based on a persons’ goals, interests, and capacities, and have positive impacts for the person-supported, family, friends, and staff. Conclusions Our study highlights how a community-care organization can facilitate person-centred services through person-centred plans and has implications for wider uptake of person-centred plans in community-care organizations.

Background Prior to the pandemic, Canada lagged behind other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the uptake of virtual care. The onset of COVID-19, however, resulted in a near-universal shift to virtual primary care to minimise exposure risks. As jurisdictions enter a pandemic recovery phase, the balance between virtual and in-person visits is reverting, though it is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians’ perspectives on the rapid move to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both future pandemic planning for primary care and the optimal integration of virtual care into the broader primary care context beyond the pandemic. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 68 family physicians from four regions in Canada between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, continuing recruitment in each region until we reached saturation. Interviews with family physicians explored their roles and experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support their patients through the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed for recurrent themes. Results We identified three prominent themes throughout participants’ reflections on implementing virtual care: implementation and evolution of virtual modalities during the pandemic; facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual care; and virtual care in the future. While some family physicians had prior experience conducting remote assessments, most had to implement and adapt to virtual care abruptly as provinces limited in-person visits to essential and urgent care. As the pandemic progressed, initial forays into video-based consultations were frequently replaced by phone-based visits, while physicians also rebalanced the ratio of virtual to in-person visits. Medical record systems with integrated capacity for virtual visits, billing codes, supportive clinic teams, and longitudinal relationships with patients were facilitators in this rapid transition for family physicians, while the absence of these factors often posed barriers. Conclusion Despite varied experiences and preferences related to virtual primary care, physicians felt that virtual visits should continue to be available beyond the pandemic but require clearer regulation and guidelines for its appropriate future use.

IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care providers rapidly adapted their practice in response to emerging knowledge of infection risk, resource availability and evolving patient and system needs. Given the previous lack of guidance specific to primary care settings, there is a need to formalise and integrate lessons learnt from these successful adaptations into future pandemic plans. Our project will develop a model for pandemic planning in primary care designed for replication in other Canadian regions and internationally to facilitate the scale and spread of effective primary care pandemic response strategies.Methods and analysisWe will apply a pragmatic approach and a sequential multiple-methods design consisting of three objectives: (1) scoping review, (2) priority setting exercise and (3) plan creation. For objective 1, we will conduct a scoping review to identify the essential supports of a pandemic response plan for primary care at the clinic, community, regional and provincial levels in Canada and comparable countries. We will conduct the review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology (search date July 2025) and synthesise findings based on recurring themes. For objective 2, we will engage primary care providers, public health professionals and health system managers in a priority-setting exercise consisting of deliberative dialogues and a Delphi process. The exercise will involve a presentation and three rounds of online surveys asking participants to rank the importance of various pandemic supports for primary care. We estimate that 100 participants will attend the presentations and 60 will complete all three rounds of the survey. For objective 3, we will co-create clinic-level, community-level and region-level pandemic response plans in Southwestern Ontario through working groups led by primary care providers and public health members of the research team, with an aim to engage approximately 12–24 participants. We will use rapid reviews, stakeholder input and evidence gathered in earlier components of the project to operationalise prioritised supports.Ethics and disseminationWe obtained ethics approval from the Western University Research Ethics Board (project ID: 127132) and will use best practices for promoting consent, confidentiality and data security. We will disseminate findings through regional, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journal publications and online platforms. Lastly, we will develop and share a toolkit for pandemic planning in primary care to encourage further research and inform future pandemic preparedness efforts.

IntroductionPrimary care nurses (PCNs) are the second largest workforce in primary care and play a critical role in facilitating access to coordinated care and reducing health disparities. There is renewed interest in team-based primary care as a solution for health workforce challenges. Some team models enable PCNs (ie, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, licensed/registered practical nurses) to leverage one another’s expertise to work to optimal scope; the extent to which this happens depends on multiple context-dependent factors. We will conduct an umbrella review to synthesise and compare international knowledge syntheses focused on scope of practice enactment (ie., roles and activities) of PCNs in primary care.Methods and analysisWe will conduct the umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines, and using the Nursing Care Organization Framework as guidance. We will search a wide range of scientific electronic databases and grey literature sources, and consider articles published in English and French by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and designated key partner countries for inclusion, with no publication date limits. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and any disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. We will use the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews to assess the quality and risk of bias in the included systematic and scoping reviews.Ethics and disseminationResults will be presented in a PRISMA Scoping Review flow diagram. We will synthesise data from included studies in a detailed literature review table and develop visual aids to communicate the shared and unique roles and activities of PCN scope of practice. We will disseminate the results of the review through peer-reviewed publications and conferences related to this field. Ethics approval is not required.

Background Planning for surge capacity, that is, the ability of a health service to expand beyond normal capacity and meet an increased demand for clinical care, is an essential component of public health emergency preparedness. During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians (FPs) were called upon to provide surge capacity in settings such as hospital units and emergency departments while also maintaining their primary care responsibilities. Most research reports on projection models, hospital settings, or the use of virtual care, with limited focus on the firsthand experiences of FPs in this role. To address this gap, this study examines the experiences of FPs and their roles in supporting surge capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods As part of a mixed methods, multiple case study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs between October 2020 and June 2021 across four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador). During the interviews, FPs were asked about the roles they assumed during the different stages of the pandemic and the factors that impacted their ability to fulfil these roles. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis approach was employed to identify recurring themes. Results We interviewed a total of 68 FPs across the four provinces and identified two overarching themes: (1) mechanisms used to create surge capacity by FPs, and (2) key considerations for an organized surge capacity program. During the pandemic, surge capacity was achieved by extending FP working hours, expanding the FP workforce, and redeploying FPs to new roles and settings. The effective implementation of FP surge capacity requires organized communication and coordination mechanisms, policies to clarify scope of practice during redeployment, training and mentorship related to new redeployment roles, FPs holding hospital privileges, and policies that help to preserve primary care capacity. Conclusions FPs make critical contributions to surge capacity but require structured support to balance their redeployment roles with their ongoing primary care responsibilities. Ensuring adequate coverage for their practices and employing strong communication and coordination mechanisms are essential for maintaining high-quality care and managing the strain on FPs and the health system during public health emergencies.

IntroductionThe growth and complexity of diabetes are exceeding the capacity of family physicians, resulting in the demand for community-based, interprofessional, primary care-led transition clinics. The Primary Care Diabetes Support Programme (PCDSP) in London, Ontario, is an innovative approach to diabetes care for high-risk populations, such as medically or socially complex and unattached patients. In this study, we will employ a quadruple-aim approach to evaluate the health system impacts of the PCDSP.Methods and analysisWe will use multiple methods through a convergent parallel design in this project across five unique studies: a case study, a patient study, a provider study, a complications study and a cost-effectiveness study. The project will be conducted in a dedicated stand-alone clinic specialising in chronic disease management, specifically focusing on diabetes care. Participants will include clinic staff, administrators, family physicians, specialists and patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who received care at the clinic between 2011 and 2023. The project design will define the intervention, support replication at other sites or for other chronic diseases and address each of the quadruple aims and equity. Following the execution of the five individual studies, we will build a business case by integrating the results. Data will be analysed using both qualitative (content analysis and thematic analysis) and quantitative techniques (descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression).Ethics and disseminationWe received approval from the research ethics boards at Western University (reference ID: 2023–1 21 766; 2023–1 22 326) and Lawson Health Research Institute (reference ID: R-23–202). A privacy review was completed by St. Joseph’s Healthcare Corporation. The findings will be shared among PCDSP staff and patients, stakeholders, academic researchers and the public through stakeholder sessions, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, infographics, posters, media interviews, social media and online discussions. For the patient and provider study, all participants will be asked to provide consent and are free to withdraw from the study, without penalty, until the data are combined. Participants will not be identified in any report or presentation except in the case study, for which, given the number of PCDSP providers, we will seek explicit consent to identify them.

IntroductionGiven the recurrent risk of respiratory illness-based pandemics, and the important roles family physicians play during public health emergencies, the development of pandemic plans for primary care is imperative. Existing pandemic plans in Canada, however, do not adequately incorporate family physicians’ roles and perspectives. This policy and planning oversight has become increasingly evident with the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic. This study is designed to inform the development of pandemic plans for primary care through evidence from four provinces in Canada: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Ontario.Methods and analysisWe will employ a multiple-case study of regions in four provinces. Each case consists of a mixed methods design which comprises: (1) a chronology of family physician roles in the COVID-19 pandemic response; (2) a provincial policy analysis; and (3) qualitative interviews with family physicians. Relevant policy and guidance documents will be identified through targeted, snowball and general search strategies. Additionally, these policy documents will be analysed to identify gaps and/or emphases in existing policies and policy responses. Interviews will explore family physicians’ proposed, actual and potential roles during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers they have encountered throughout and the influence of gender on their professional roles. Data will be thematically analysed using a content analysis framework, first at the regional level and then through cross-case analyses.Ethics and disseminationApproval for this study has been granted by the Research Ethics of British Columbia, the Health Research Ethics Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board and the Western University Research Ethics Board. Findings will be disseminated via conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Evidence and lessons learnt will be used to develop tools for government ministries, public health units and family physicians for improved pandemic response plans for primary care.