Family physician virtual care during COVID-19 in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada: a mixed methods exploration.

Context: On March 14, 2020, the Ontario, Canada health insurance plan approved COVID-19 physician virtual billing codes; family physicians (FPs) rapidly adopted a new model of care. Virtual care may remain post-pandemic; however, its future should be informed by evidence that considers access and continuity. Objective: 1) to determine FP virtual visit volumes and patient characteristics and 2) to explore FPs' perspectives on virtual visit adoption and implementation. Study Design: Mixed methods: Secondary analysis of health administrative (HA) data and semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs. Setting or Dataset: London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada. HA data through ICES, Ontario entity holding data. Population studied: FPs and their patients. Outcome Measures: Volumes of FP in-person and virtual visits during early pandemic; characteristics of patients receiving care; FPs' perspectives on adopting and delivering virtual care. Results: Overall visit volume dropped by 36% during first wave, recovered to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020. Sharp in-person visit drop of 73% and virtual visit uptake from 0.08% of total visits to 57% within two weeks of March 2020. FPs described this initial drop in volume as patients not seeking care and practices lacking PPE. The move to virtual care was largely to telephone visits. Patient characteristics compared to pre-pandemic, the proportion seeking care were older (46 vs 50 years), more vulnerable (38% vs 41%), and more multimorbidity (33% vs 41%). This was consistent with FP reports that healthier patients stayed away, routine care deferred, sicker patients needed to be seen. FPs believed most vulnerable patients had access to care but cautioned highly vulnerable such as those homeless did not have cell phone access or a safe place to receive calls. Rural FPs reported access issues because of lack of high-speed internet. FPs attributed success of virtual care to the continuity in relationships they had with patients that were established in person pre-pandemic. Conclusions: FPs moved rapidly to virtual care. FP offices remained open despite PPE concerns but overall volumes dropped initially. Vulnerable and sicker patients received care but FPs expressed concern for highly vulnerable and rural residents. FPs believed they could offer patient-centred care over the phone but indicated the importance of maintaining in-person care to build relationships.

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.

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.