Patient Experience With Resident Versus Staff Physicians: Results From a Cross-Sectional Patient Survey From Canadian Family Medicine Residencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared experiences of patients who reported usually being seen by a resident with those usually seen by a staff physician. METHODS: We analyzed responses to a patient experience survey distributed at 13 family medicine teaching practices affiliated with the University of Toronto between May and June 2020. We analyzed responses to seven questions pertaining to timely access, continuity, and patient-centeredness. We compared responses between two types of usual primary care clinicians and calculated odds ratios before and after adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 6,545 unique surveys; 18.6% reported their usual clinician was a resident physician. Resident patients were more likely to be older, born outside of Canada, report a high school education or less, and report having difficulty making ends meet. Compared to patients of staff physicians, patients of resident physicians had lower odds of being able to see their preferred primary care clinician and lower odds of getting nonurgent care in a reasonable time. They also had lower odds of reporting patient-centered care, but we found no significant differences in whether the time for an urgent appointment was about right or whether accessing care after hours was easy. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, patients who reported usually seeing resident physicians had worse continuity of care and timeliness for nonurgent care than patients who reported usually seeing staff physicians despite resident patients being older, sicker, and having a lower socioeconomic position. Postgraduate training programs need to test models to support access and continuity for resident patient panels.

Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training.

BACKGROUND: Health care routinely fails Indigenous peoples and anti-Indigenous racism is common in clinical encounters. Clinical training programs aimed to enhance Indigenous cultural safety (ICS) rely on learner reported impact assessment even though clinician self-assessment is poorly correlated with observational or patient outcome reporting. We aimed to compare the clinical impacts of intensive and brief ICS training to control, and to assess the feasibility of ICS training evaluation tools, including unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) visits. METHOD: Using a prospective parallel group three-arm randomized controlled trial design and masked standardized patients, we compared the clinical impacts of the intensive interactive, professionally facilitated, 8- to10-h Sanyas ICS training; a brief 1-h anti-bias training adapted to address anti-Indigenous bias; and control continuing medical education time-attention matched to the intensive training. Participants included 58 non-Indigenous staff physicians, resident physicians and nurse practitioners from family practice clinics, and one emergency department across four teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Main outcome measures were the quality of care provided during UISP visits including adjusted odds that clinician would be recommended by the UISP to a friend or family member; mean item scores on patient experience of care measure; and clinical practice guideline adherence for NSAID renewal and pain assessment. RESULTS: Clinicians in the intensive or brief ICS groups had higher adjusted odds of being highly recommended to friends and family by standardized patients (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.17 to 40.45 and OR 7.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 58.03, respectively). Adjusted mean item patient experience scores were 46% (95% CI 12% to 80%) and 40% (95% CI 2% to 78%) higher for clinicians enrolled in the intensive and brief training programs, respectively, compared to control. Small sample size precluded detection of training impacts on clinical practice guideline adherence; 100% of UISP visits were undetected by participating clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-oriented evaluation design and tools including UISPs were demonstrated as feasible and effective. Results show potential impact of cultural safety training on patient recommendation of clinician and improved patient experience. A larger trial to further ascertain impact on clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org NCT05890144. Retrospectively registered on June 5, 2023.

Trust as the foundation: thoughts on the Starfield principles in Canada and Brazil: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care in Canada and Brazil and how both countries have embraced the Starfield principles in the design of their health care systems. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: A subgroup of the Besrour Centre of the College of Family Physicians of Canada developed connections with colleagues in Brazil and collaborated to undertake a between-country comparison, comparing and contrasting various elements of both countries' efforts to strengthen primary care over the past few decades. METHODS: Following a literature review, the authors collectively reflected on their experiences in an attempt to explore the past and current state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil. REPORT: The Brazilian and Canadian primary care systems have both adopted and advanced the Starfield principles in various ways, with both countries showing an increasing trend toward adopting interprofessional team-based care. Access to primary care remains a challenge in rural areas in both countries, and longitudinal relationships between providers and patients appear to be more common in Canada. With the advent of technology, increasing patient engagement and expectations, the decline of paternalistic medicine, and the sheer mass of readily available information (and misinformation), to be successful, primary care systems must also be constructed to engender trust at both the local and the system levels. Both countries face challenges to maintaining trust in the context of the increasing prevalence of team-based care, and a lack of trust at the system level can be seen in patients' perceptions about the difficulty of finding a family doctor and in high rates of emergency department and urgent care centre use in both countries. Primary care reform must be implemented with the public's trust in mind. CONCLUSION: Trust is a crucial ingredient to the success of primary care and must be protected at both local and system levels. If designed with trust in mind, primary care in Canada and Brazil has the potential to meet the challenges set out by the Starfield principles.