The Benefits and Challenges of Precepting Pharmacy Students Virtually in Interprofessional Primary Care Teams.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify pharmacists' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of precepting pharmacy students during circumstances that require using virtual care in team-based primary care practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was disseminated through Qualtrics software from July 5, 2021, to October 13, 2021. We used a convenience sampling technique to recruit a sample of pharmacists working in primary care teams across Ontario, Canada, who were able to complete a web-based survey in English. RESULTS: A total of 51 pharmacists participated in the survey and provided complete responses (response rate of 41%). Participants noted benefits at 3 levels of precepting pharmacy students in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) benefits to pharmacists, (2) benefits to patients, and (3) benefits to students. Challenges of precepting pharmacy students were: (1) difficulty training students virtually, (2) students not being ideally prepared to begin a practicum training during a pandemic, and (3) reduced availability and new workload demands. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists in team-based primary care highlighted substantial benefits and challenges for precepting students during a pandemic. Alternative mechanisms of experiential education delivery can provide new opportunities for pharmacy care yet can also restrict immersion into interprofessional team-based primary care and diminish pharmacist capacity. Additional support and resources to facilitate capacity are critical for pharmacy students to succeed in future practice in team-based primary care.

"There's nothing like a good crisis for innovation": a qualitative study of family physicians' experiences with virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Qualitative examination of collaboration in team-based primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe Ontario primary care teams' experiences with collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive qualitative methods using focus groups conducted virtually for data collection. SETTING: Primary care teams located in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Our study conducted 11 focus groups with 10 primary care teams, with a total of 48 participants reflecting a diverse range of interprofessional healthcare providers and administrators working in primary care. RESULTS: Three themes were identified using thematic analysis: (1) prepandemic team functioning facilitated adaptation, (2) new processes of team interactions and collaboration, and (3) team as a foundation of support. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed the importance of collaboration for provider well-being, and the challenges of providing collaborative team-based primary care in the pandemic context. Caution against converting primary care collaboration to predominantly virtual modalities postpandemic is recommended. Further research on team functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic in other healthcare organisations will offer additional insight regarding how primary care teams can work collaboratively in a postpandemic environment.

Enacting care by being experts and managing relationships: A discourse analysis of chief medical officer of health media briefings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Canada, Chief Medical Officers of Health (CMOHs) are responsible for protecting and promoting the health of their respective populations, but few studies have examined this role and its connections with the practice of medicine. In Canada and elsewhere, CMOHs and other public health physicians have articulated their actions as caring for their populations as patients. In order to understand the components of enacted care, this study is a functional discourse analysis of transcribed CMOH media briefings at three time points in five Canadian jurisdictions during the first full year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). Transcripts were coded and analysed in an iterative, comparative process to understand the content, actions and purpose of CMOH communication during media briefings. CMOHs used their public communications to enact their care of populations by "being experts" and "managing relationships". "Being experts" involved describing disease characteristics, assessing risk and evidence, framing risk and evidence, and making judgments about intervention and exemption. "Managing relationships" involved self-regulating emotions, acknowledging the emotions of others, seeking adherence and collaboration, and setting expectations and boundaries. The findings suggest that traditional biomedical roles were performed by CMOHs in media briefings, implying the existence of a patient (or multiple patient-like relationships) and supporting further research into the processes by which public health physicians care for populations as patients.

Virtual family physician care during COVID-19: a mixed methods study using health administrative data and qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in primary health care from predominantly in-person to high volumes of virtual care. The pandemic afforded the opportunity to conduct a deep regional examination of virtual care by family physicians in London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada that would inform the foundation for virtual care in our region post-pandemic. OBJECTIVES: (1) to determine volumes of in-person and virtual family physicians visits and characteristics of the family physicians and patients using them during the early COVID-19 pandemic; (2) to determine how virtual visit volumes changed over the pandemic, compared to in-person; and (3) to explore family physicians' experience in virtual visit adoption and implementation. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study of family physicians from March to October 2020. The quantitative component examined mean weekly number of total, in-person and virtual visits using health administrative data. Differences in outcomes according to physician and practice characteristics for pandemic periods were compared to pre-pandemic. The qualitative study employed Constructivist Grounded Theory, conducting semi-structured family physicians interviews; analyzing data iteratively using constant comparative analysis. We mapped themes from the qualitative analysis to quantitative findings. RESULTS: Initial volumes of patients decreased, driven by fewer in-person visits. Virtual visit volumes increased dramatically; family physicians described using telephone almost entirely. Rural family physicians reported video connectivity issues. By early second wave, total family physician visit volume returned to pre-pandemic volumes. In-person visits increased substantially; family physicians reported this happened because previously scarce personal protective equipment became available. Patients seen during the pandemic were older, sicker, and more materially deprived. CONCLUSION: These results can inform the future of virtual family physician care including the importance of continued virtual care compensation, the need for equitable family physician payment models, and the need to attend to equity for vulnerable patients. Given the move to virtual care was primarily a move to telephone care, the modality of care delivery that is acceptable to both family physicians and their patients must be considered.

Family physicians' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on preventative care in primary care: findings from a qualitative study.

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.

Is primary health care ready for artificial intelligence? What do primary health care stakeholders say?

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.

Family physician leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: roles, functions and key supports.

PURPOSE: Strong leadership in primary care is necessary to coordinate an effective pandemic response; however, descriptions of leadership roles for family physicians are absent from previous pandemic plans. This study aims to describe the leadership roles and functions family physicians played during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and identify supports and barriers to formalizing these roles in future pandemic plans. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians across four regions in Canada as part of a multiple case study. During the interviews, participants were asked about their roles during each pandemic stage and the facilitators and barriers they experienced. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis approach was used to identify recurring themes. FINDINGS: Sixty-eight family physicians completed interviews. Three key functions of family physician leadership during the pandemic were identified: conveying knowledge, developing and adapting protocols for primary care practices and advocacy. Each function involved curating and synthesizing information, tailoring communications based on individual needs and building upon established relationships. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Findings demonstrate the need for future pandemic plans to incorporate formal family physician leadership appointments, as well as supports such as training, communication aides and compensation to allow family physicians to enact these key roles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to examine the leadership roles of family physicians, which have been largely overlooked in past pandemic plans. This study's findings highlight the importance of these roles toward delivering an effective and coordinated pandemic response with uninterrupted and safe access to primary care.

Development of a primary care pandemic plan informed by in-depth policy analysis and interviews with family physicians across Canada during COVID-19: a qualitative case study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Given 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 ANALYSIS: We 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 DISSEMINATION: Approval 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.

Primary care teams' experiences of delivering mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care teams are ideally positioned to support the mental health care needs arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how COVID-19 has affected mental health care delivery within primary care settings will be critical to inform future policy and practice decisions during the later phases of the pandemic and beyond. The objective of our study was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care teams' delivery of mental health care. METHODS: A qualitative study using focus groups conducted with primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Focus group data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 11 focus groups with 10 primary care teams and a total of 48 participants. With respect to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care in primary care teams, we identified three key themes: i) the high demand for mental health care, ii) the rapid transformation to virtual care, and iii) the impact on providers. CONCLUSIONS: From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care quickly responded to the rising mental health care demands of their patients. Despite the numerous challenges they faced with the rapid transition to virtual care, primary care teams have persevered. It is essential that policy and decision-makers take note of the toll that these demands have placed on providers. There is an immediate need to enhance primary care's capacity for mental health care for the duration of the pandemic and beyond.