Grant Russell

Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations

BackgroundAccess is central to the performance of health care systems around the world. However, access to health care remains a complex notion as exemplified in the variety of interpretations of the concept across authors. The aim of this paper is to suggest a conceptualisation of access to health care describing broad dimensions and determinants that integrate demand and supply-side-factors and enabling the operationalisation of access to health care all along the process of obtaining care and benefiting from the services.MethodsA synthesis of the published literature on the conceptualisation of access has been performed. The most cited frameworks served as a basis to develop a revised conceptual framework.ResultsHere, we view access as the opportunity to identify healthcare needs, to seek healthcare services, to reach, to obtain or use health care services, and to actually have a need for services fulfilled. We conceptualise five dimensions of accessibility: 1) Approachability; 2) Acceptability; 3) Availability and accommodation; 4) Affordability; 5) Appropriateness. In this framework, five corresponding abilities of populations interact with the dimensions of accessibility to generate access. Five corollary dimensions of abilities include: 1) Ability to perceive; 2) Ability to seek; 3) Ability to reach; 4) Ability to pay; and 5) Ability to engage.ConclusionsThis paper explains the comprehensiveness and dynamic nature of this conceptualisation of access to care and identifies relevant determinants that can have an impact on access from a multilevel perspective where factors related to health systems, institutions, organisations and providers are considered with factors at the individual, household, community, and population levels.

Managing Chronic Disease in Ontario Primary Care: The Impact of Organizational Factors

PURPOSE New approaches to chronic disease management emphasize the need to improve the delivery of primary care services to meet the needs of chronically ill patients. This study (1) assessed whether chronic disease management differed among 4 models of primary health care delivery and (2) identified which practice organizational factors were independently associated with high-quality care. METHODS We undertook a cross-sectional survey with nested qualitative case studies (2 practices per model) in 137 randomly selected primary care practices from 4 delivery models in Ontario Canada: fee for service, capitation, blended payment, and community health centers (CHCs). Practice and clinician surveys were based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool. A chart audit assessed evidence-based care delivery for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease. Intermediate outcomes were calculated for patients with diabetes and hypertension. Multiple linear regression identified those organizational factors independently associated with chronic disease management. RESULTS Chronic disease management was superior in CHCs. Clinicians in CHCs found it easier than those in the other models to promote high-quality care through longer consultations and interprofessional collaboration. Across the whole sample and independent of model, high-quality chronic disease management was associated with the presence of a nurse-practitioner. It was also associated with lower patient-family physician ratios and when practices had 4 or fewer full-time-equivalent family physicians. CONCLUSIONS The study adds to the literature supporting the value of nurse-practitioners within primary care teams and validates the contributions of Ontario’s CHCs. Our observation that quality of care decreased in larger, busier practices suggests that moves toward larger practices and greater patient-physician ratios may have unanticipated negative effects on processes of care quality.

Framework for primary care organizations: the importance of a structural domain.

Purpose Conceptual frameworks for primary care have evolved over the last 40 years, yet little attention has been paid to the environmental, structural and organizational factors that facilitate or moderate service delivery. Since primary care is now of more interest to policy makers, it is important that they have a comprehensive and balanced conceptual framework to facilitate their understanding and appreciation. We present a conceptual framework for primary care originally developed to guide the measurement of the performance of primary care organizations within the context of a large mixed-method evaluation of four types of models of primary care in Ontario, Canada. Methods The framework was developed following an iterative process that combined expert consultation and group meetings with a narrative review of existing frameworks, as well as trends in health management and organizational theory. Results Our conceptual framework for primary care has two domains: structural and performance. The structural domain describes the health care system, practice context and organization of the practice in which any primary care organization operates. The performance domain includes features of health care service delivery and technical quality of clinical care. Conclusion As primary care evolves through demonstration projects and reformed delivery models, it is important to evaluate its structural and organizational features as these are likely to have a significant impact on performance.

Barriers and facilitators to recruitment of physicians and practices for primary care health services research at one centre

BackgroundWhile some research has been conducted examining recruitment methods to engage physicians and practices in primary care research, further research is needed on recruitment methodology as it remains a recurrent challenge and plays a crucial role in primary care research. This paper reviews recruitment strategies, common challenges, and innovative practices from five recent primary care health services research studies in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe used mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to gather data from investigators and/or project staff from five research teams. Team members were interviewed and asked to fill out a brief survey on recruitment methods, results, and challenges encountered during a recent or ongoing project involving primary care practices or physicians. Data analysis included qualitative analysis of interview notes and descriptive statistics generated for each study.ResultsRecruitment rates varied markedly across the projects despite similar initial strategies. Common challenges and creative solutions were reported by many of the research teams, including building a sampling frame, developing front-office rapport, adapting recruitment strategies, promoting buy-in and interest in the research question, and training a staff recruiter.ConclusionsInvestigators must continue to find effective ways of reaching and involving diverse and representative samples of primary care providers and practices by building personal connections with, and buy-in from, potential participants. Flexible recruitment strategies and an understanding of the needs and interests of potential participants may also facilitate recruitment.

Beyond Fighting Fires and Chasing Tails? Chronic Illness Care Plans in Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE Recent work has conceptualized new models for the primary care management of patients with chronic illness. This study investigated the experience of family physicians and patients with a chronic illness management initiative that involved the joint formulation of comprehensive individual patient care plans. METHODS A qualitative evaluation, framed by phenomenology, immediately followed a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of external facilitators in enhancing the delivery of chronic condition care planning in primary care. The study, set in Ontario family practices, used semistructured in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 13 family physicians, 20 patients, and all 3 study facilitators. Analysis used independent transcript review and constant comparative methods. RESULTS Despite the intervention being grounded in patient-centered principles, family physicians generally viewed chronic illness management from a predominantly biomedical perspective. Only a few enthusiasts viewed systematic care planning as a new approach to managing patients with chronic illness. Most family physicians found the strategy to be difficult to implement within existing organizational and financial constraints. For these participants, care planning conflicted with preexisting concepts of their role and of their patient’s abilities to become partners in care. The few patients who noticed the process spoke favorably about their experience. CONCLUSIONS Although the experiences of the enthusiastic family physicians were encouraging, we found important individual-level barriers to chronic illness management in primary care. These issues seemed to transcend existing organizational and resource constraints.

Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices

Background: Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior preventive care. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, we included 137 primary care practices in the province of Ontario (35 fee-for-service practices, 35 with salaried physicians [community health centres], 35 practices in the new capitation model [family health networks] and 32 practices in the established capitation model [health services organizations]). We surveyed 288 family physicians. We reviewed 4108 randomly selected patient charts and assigned prevention scores based on the proportion of eligible preventive manoeuvres delivered for each patient. Results: A total of 3284 patients were eligible for at least one of six preventive manoeuvres. After adjusting for patient profile and contextual factors, we found that, compared with prevention scores in practices in the new capitation model, scores were significantly lower in fee-for-service practices (β estimate for effect on prevention score = −6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] −11.9 to −0.6) and practices in the established capitation model (β = −9.1, 95% CI −14.9 to −3.3) but not for those with salaried remuneration (β = −0.8, 95% CI −6.5 to 4.8). After accounting for physician characteristics and organizational structure, the type of funding model was no longer a statistically significant factor. Compared with reference practices, those with at least one female family physician (β = 8.0, 95% CI 4.2 to 11.8), a panel size of fewer than 1600 patients per full-time equivalent family physician (β = 6.8, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.6) and an electronic reminder system (β = 4.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.7) had superior prevention scores. The effect of these three factors was largely but not always consistent across the funding models; it was largely consistent across the preventive manoeuvres. Interpretation: No funding model was clearly associated with superior preventive care. Factors related to physician characteristics and practice structure were stronger predictors of performance. Practices with one or more female physicians, a smaller patient load and an electronic reminder system had superior prevention scores. Our findings raise questions about reform initiatives aimed at increasing patient numbers, but they support the adoption of information technology.

Understanding diagnosis and management of dementia and guideline implementation in general practice: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BackgroundDementia is a growing problem, causing substantial burden for patients, their families, and society. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in diagnosing and managing dementia; however, there are gaps between recommended and current practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPs’ reported practice in diagnosing and managing dementia and to describe, in theoretical terms, the proposed explanations for practice that was and was not consistent with evidence-based guidelines.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs in Victoria, Australia. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided data collection and analysis. Interviews explored the factors hindering and enabling achievement of 13 recommended behaviours. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. This paper presents an in-depth description of the factors influencing two behaviours, assessing co-morbid depression using a validated tool, and conducting a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale.ResultsA total of 30 GPs were interviewed. Most GPs reported that they did not assess for co-morbid depression using a validated tool as per recommended guidance. Barriers included the belief that depression can be adequately assessed using general clinical indicators and that validated tools provide little additional information (theoretical domain of ‘Beliefs about consequences’); discomfort in using validated tools (‘Emotion’), possibly due to limited training and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); limited awareness of the need for, and forgetting to conduct, a depression assessment (‘Knowledge’; ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’). Most reported practising in a manner consistent with the recommendation that a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale be undertaken. Key factors enabling this were having an awareness of the need to conduct a cognitive assessment (‘Knowledge’); possessing the necessary skills and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); and having adequate time and resources (‘Environmental context and resources’).ConclusionsThis is the first study to our knowledge to use a theoretical approach to investigate the barriers and enablers to guideline-recommended diagnosis and management of dementia in general practice. It has identified key factors likely to explain GPs’ uptake of the guidelines. The results have informed the design of an intervention aimed at supporting practice change in line with dementia guidelines, which is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial.

Getting it all done, Organizational factors linked with comprehensive primary care

BACKGROUND Comprehensiveness, a defining feature of primary care (PC) is associated with patient satisfaction and improved health status. This paper evaluates comprehensive services in fee-for-service (FFS), Health Service Organizations (HSOs), Family Health Networks (FHNs) and Community Health Centres (CHCs) payment models in Ontario. OBJECTIVES To assess how organizational models of PC differ in the delivery of comprehensive services and which organizational factors predict comprehensive PC delivery. METHODS Cross-sectional mixed-method study with nested qualitative case studies. SETTING PC practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS One hundred and thirty-seven PC practices (35 FFS, 32 HSO, 35 FHN and 35 CHC) and 358 providers. INSTRUMENTS Surveys based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool and qualitative interviews. OUTCOME MEASURES Comprehensiveness scores were calculated from practice report of clinical services offered in womens health, psychosocial counselling, procedural and diagnostic services. Confounding variables were calculated from provider and patient surveys. Performance at a model level was compared using analysis of variance. Multiple regressions then established factors independently associated with comprehensiveness. RESULTS CHCs offered significantly more comprehensive services (74%) than other models (61%-63%; P < 0.005). Thirty-five per cent of the variance in comprehensiveness was explained by a regression model that included the number of family physicians working at the practice, presence of other allied health providers, rurality and length of practice operation. CONCLUSIONS Practice size and diversity of providers seemed to partially explain the better performance of CHCs. Practice setting and, probably, practice maturity are significant drivers in the provision of comprehensive PC services. These factors warrant further examination in other PC environments.

Working in interprofessional primary health care teams: What do pharmacists do?

BACKGROUND Interprofessional teams are forming in primary health care. Little is known about how health care professional roles and routines develop in this environment. OBJECTIVES This article describes the evolving routines of pharmacists working in new interprofessional teams, their perceptions of their roles, and perceptions of other providers toward the pharmacist role. METHODS Ethnographic methods were used. Qualitative data derived from practice documents, field notes from practice activity and provider-patient interaction observations, and transcripts from interviews with patients and practice staff were analyzed in an exploratory manner using a constant comparative approach and immersion/crystallization. For this article, data pertaining to the role of pharmacists comprised a case study subanalysis. RESULTS Two typologies emerged with some pharmacists found to be (1) physician oriented: responding to physician requests for drug information and other projects, and others found to be (2) working at multiple levels of interaction: providing patient-centered care, provider education/information, and initiating system-level interventions to improve drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS Pharmacist routines and their own perception of their roles differed across interprofessional teams. Differences could be attributed to different educational background, philosophy of practice or characteristics of individual pharmacists, and also affected by leadership and communication within family health teams (FHTs). FHT leaders wanting to include a pharmacist to improve medication therapy should demonstrate leadership and vision by articulating needs and hiring a pharmacist with matching knowledge, skills, and qualities. A similar, generic approach may be useful to determine the need for and roles of any health care professional joining the team.

Touch screen computer health assessment in Australian general practice patients: a cross-sectional study protocol.

Introduction Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are leading causes of death globally. Early detection of cancer and risk factors for CVD may improve health outcomes and reduce mortality. General practitioners (GPs) are accessed by the majority of the population and play a key role in the prevention and early detection of chronic disease risk factors. This cross-sectional study aims to assess the acceptability of an electronic method of data collection in general practice patients. The study will describe the proportion screened in line with guidelines for CVD risk factors and cancer as well as report the prevalence of depression, lifestyle risk factors, level of provision of preconception care, cervical cancer vaccination and bone density testing. Lastly, the study will assess the level of agreement between GPs and patients perception regarding presence of risk factors and screening. Methods and analysis The study has been designed to maximise recruitment of GPs by including practitioners in the research team, minimising participation burden on GPs and offering remuneration for participation. Patient recruitment will be carried out by a research assistant located in general practice waiting rooms. Participants will be asked regarding the acceptability of the touch screen computer and to report on a range of health risk and preventive behaviours using the touch screen computer. GPs will complete a one-page survey indicating their perception of the presence of risk behaviours in their patients. Descriptive statistics will be generated to describe the acceptability of the touch screen and prevalence of health risk behaviours. Cohens κ will be used to assess agreement between GP and patient perception of presence of health risk behaviours. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the human research committees in participating universities. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations as well as practice summaries provided to participating practices.