Developing measures to capture the true value of primary care

Am I attached? A patient-partnered approach to creating infographics about attachment to primary care in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Having a primary care provider is associated with better care experiences and lower care costs. In 2021, INSPIRE-PHC released Primary Care Data Reports - publicly available summaries of administrative billing data about how populations in each of Ontario's 60 health teams use primary care services. Given the characterization of Canadian primary care systems as 'in crisis', publicly available data about primary care at the regional level presented a significant opportunity for knowledge mobilization. An understandable resource could ground the public conversation about primary care access in data. Recognizing the role that lived experience plays in ensuring the public understands research findings, a partnership between patient advisors, Ontario Health Team representatives, researchers, and trainees was established to co-produce public-facing infographics based on primary care data.

METHODS

Evidence-based guidelines for public health infographic creation and elements of transformative action research guided a six-meeting process to engage up to 14 patient advisors, three Ontario Health Team staff and two primary care trainees. Patient advisors were affiliated with a provincial patient-oriented primary health care research group or a Hamilton-based Ontario Health Team. Ninety-minute meetings were conducted virtually, and notes were shared with attendees to ensure they accurately reflected the conversation. Two consultations with Ontario Health Team-affiliated primary care providers provided direction and ensured project outputs aligned with local priorities.

RESULTS

Project partners shared feedback on draft infographics, audience identification, priority elements from Primary Care Data Reports to include in the infographics, and aesthetic features (e.g., headings, colour scheme, charts). Project partners felt the most important metrics to convey to the public were those that simultaneously reinforced the benefits of primary care on individual health outcomes and health system costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient engagement in research is becoming widespread, but co-developing knowledge products with patient and health system partners is less common. Our approach to engaging patients prevented both oversimplification and unnecessary complexity in a public-facing visual about attachment to primary care.

Assessing the WHO-UNICEF primary health-care measurement framework; Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka

Objective

To assess the availability of information on indicators of the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund primary health-care measurement framework in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and to outline the opportunities for and challenges to using the framework in these countries.

Methods

We reviewed global and national data repositories for quantitative indicators of the framework and conducted a desk review of country documents for qualitative indicators in February-April 2023. We assessed data sources and cross-sectional survey tools to suggest possible sources of information on framework indicators that were not currently reported in the countries. We also identified specific indicators outside the framework on which information is collected in the countries and which could be used to measure primary health-care performance.

Findings

Data on 54% (32/59) of the quantitative indicators were partially or completely available for the countries, ranging from 41% (24/59) in Pakistan to 64% (38/59) in Nepal. Information on 41% (66/163) of the qualitative subindicators could be acquired through desk reviews of country-specific documents. Information on input indicators was more readily available than on process and output indicators. The feasibility of acquiring information on the unreported indicators was moderate to high through adaptation of data collection instruments.

Conclusion

The primary health-care measurement framework provides a platform to readily assess and track the performance of primary health care. Countries should improve the completeness, quality and use of existing data for strengthening of primary health care.

Does use of GP and specialist services vary across areas and according to individual socioeconomic position? A multilevel analysis using linked data in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Timely access to primary care and supporting specialist care relative to need is essential for health equity. However, use of services can vary according to an individual's socioeconomic circumstances or where they live. This study aimed to quantify individual socioeconomic variation in general practitioner (GP) and specialist use in New South Wales (NSW), accounting for area-level variation in use.

DESIGN

Outcomes were GP use and quality-of-care and specialist use. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate: (1) median ORs (MORs) to quantify small area variation in outcomes, which gives the median increased risk of moving to an area of higher risk of an outcome, and (2) ORs to quantify associations between outcomes and individual education level, our main exposure variable. Analyses were adjusted for individual sociodemographic and health characteristics and performed separately by remoteness categories.

SETTING

Baseline data (2006-2009) from the 45 and Up Study, NSW, Australia, linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule and death data (to December 2012).

PARTICIPANTS

267 153 adults aged 45 years and older.

RESULTS

GP (MOR=1.32-1.35) and specialist use (1.16-1.18) varied between areas, accounting for individual characteristics. For a given level of need and accounting for area variation, low education-level individuals were more likely to be frequent users of GP services (no school certificate vs university, OR=1.63-1.91, depending on remoteness category) and have continuity of care (OR=1.14-1.24), but were less likely to see a specialist (OR=0.85-0.95).

CONCLUSION

GP and specialist use varied across small areas in NSW, independent of individual characteristics. Use of GP care was equitable, but specialist care was not. Failure to address inequitable specialist use may undermine equity gains within the primary care system. Policies should also focus on local variation.

General Practitioners activity patterns: the medium-term impacts of Primary Care Teams in France

Faced with the fragmentation of the French primary care system, public policies aim to promote multiprofessional teamwork to improve both delivery efficiency and health professionals' working conditions. Thus, a practice-level add-on payment backed by cooperation commitments is implemented to foster and sustain the development of multiprofessional primary care groups (MPCGs). We study the impact of practising in MPCGs for general practitioners (GPs) in terms of the supply of care, practice patterns and income. Based on this quasiexperimental framework with a panel dataset covering the period 2005-2017, we account for the selection into MPCGs by combining a difference-in-differences design with propensity score matching to prebalance samples. We show that GPs in MPCGs increased their patient list more rapidly than control GPs (+10% increase of encountered patients) without increasing their provision of services (number of visits and drug prescriptions) more rapidly. Instead, compared to control GPs, MPCG GPs had a significantly faster reduction in the average number of visits (+5.5% reduction) and the euro-amounts of drug prescriptions per patient (+7.2% reduction) and other prescriptions. The growth of these effects between the short and medium term moreover suggests that the properties of multi-professional coordination and cooperation need time to develop.

Association of individual-socioeconomic variation in quality-of-primary care with area-level service organisation: A multilevel analysis using linked data

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Ensuring equitable access to primary care (PC) contributes to reducing differences in health related to people's socioeconomic circumstances. However, there is limited data on system-level factors associated with equitable access to high-quality PC. We examine whether individual-level socioeconomic variation in general practitioner (GP) quality-of-care varies by area-level organisation of PC services.

METHODS

Baseline data (2006-2009) from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study, involving 267,153 adults in New South Wales, Australia, were linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule claims and death data (to December 2012). Small area-level measures of PC service organisation were GPs per capita, bulk-billing (i.e., no copayment) rates, out-of-pocket costs (OPCs), rates of after-hours and chronic disease care planning/coordination services. Using multilevel logistic regression with cross-level interaction terms we quantified the relationship between area-level PC service characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic variation in need-adjusted quality-of-care (continuity-of-care, long-consultations, and care planning), separately by remoteness.

RESULTS

In major cities, more bulk-billing and chronic disease services and fewer OPCs within areas were associated with an increased odds of continuity-of-care-more so among people of high- than low education (e.g., bulk-billing interaction with university vs. no school certificate 1.006 [1.000, 1.011]). While more bulk-billing, after-hours services and fewer OPCs were associated with long consultations and care planning across all education levels, in regional locations alone, more after-hours services were associated with larger increases in the odds of long consultations among people with low- than high education (0.970 [0.951, 0.989]). Area GP availability was not associated with outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In major cities, PC initiatives at the local level, such as bulk-billing and after-hours access, were not associated with a relative benefit for low- compared with high-education individuals. In regional locations, policies supporting after-hours access may improve access to long consultations, more so for people with low- compared with high-education.

Development and validation of a Japanese version of the person-centered primary care measure

Background

Although primary care (PC) is an indispensable part of the health system, measuring its quality is challenging. A recent measure of PC, Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM), covers 11 important domains of PC and has been translated into 28 languages. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the PCPCM and assess its reliability and validity.

Methods

We employed a cross-sectional mail survey to examine the reliability and content, structure, criterion-related, and convergent validity of the Japanese version of the PCPCM. This study targeted 1000 potential participants aged 20–74 years, selected by simple random sampling in an urban area in Japan. We examined internal consistency, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation between the Japanese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool-Short Form (JPCAT-SF), and the association between the PCPCM score and influenza vaccine uptake.

Results

A total of 417 individuals responded to the survey (response rate = 41.7%), and we used the data of 244 participants who had the usual source of care to assess the reliability and validity of the PCPCM. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated sufficient structural validity of the original one-factor structure. The overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94. The Spearman correlation coefficient between PCPCM and JPCAT-SF was 0.60. Influenza vaccine uptake was not significantly associated with total PCPCM score.

Conclusions

The study showed that the Japanese version of the PCPCM has sufficient internal consistency reliability and structural- and criterion-related validity. The measure can be used to compare the quality of primary care in Japan and other countries.

Disruption to the doctor-patient relationship in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Starfield described the importance of system-level components of primary care (first contact, continuous, comprehensive, coordinated), on countries' health systems. It is postulated that, at the individual level, interpersonal interactions and relationship-centred care are central to primary care.

AIM

To explore the impact of COVID-19 on disruption to the doctor-patient relationship and subsequent development of new models of care.

DESIGN & SETTING

A series of 11 cross-sectional surveys of New Zealand (NZ) urban and rural primary care doctors, nurses, and managers, from May 2020 to February 2021, to understand and monitor responses to the pandemic.

METHOD

Using inductive content analysis, cumulated qualitative data from doctors were examined through the lenses of the doctor-patient relationship, its disruption, and resulting changes in models of care.

RESULTS

There were 1519 responses to the surveys, representing 482 unique participants. The majority (86%) of responses were from doctors. The following four key themes emerged: moving to transactional consultations; task-shifting with team changes; creating a production line; and diminished communication and coordination across services.

CONCLUSION

The advent of the pandemic led to severe and ongoing strain on practices requiring rapid change to the model of care. Team members took on new roles for triaging, testing, and separating patients with respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms. There was a rapid move to telehealth, with policies developed on where face-to-face consultations were necessary. Practice strain was exacerbated by disruption to coordination with secondary and other referral services. As new models of general practice develop, further disruptions to development of doctor-patient relationships must be avoided. This work extends Starfield's system-level paradigm to the individual level, with the core value of primary care the doctor-patient relationship. Successful sustainable models are likely to be where relationships are treated as of central importance.

Examining area-level variation in service organisation and delivery across the breadth of primary healthcare. Usefulness of measures constructed from routine data

Background

Australia has a universal healthcare system, yet organisation and delivery of primary healthcare (PHC) services varies across local areas. Understanding the nature and extent of this variation is essential to improve quality of care and health equity, but this has been hampered by a lack of suitable measures across the breadth of effective PHC systems. Using a suite of measures constructed at the area-level, this study explored their application in assessing area-level variation in PHC organisation and delivery.

Methods

Routinely collected data from New South Wales, Australia were used to construct 13 small area-level measures of PHC service organisation and delivery that best approximated access (availability, affordability, accommodation) comprehensiveness and coordination. Regression analyses and pairwise Pearson’s correlations were used to examine variation by area, and by remoteness and area disadvantage.

Results

PHC service delivery varied geographically at the small-area level–within cities and more remote locations. Areas in major cities were more accessible (all measures), while in remote areas, services were more comprehensive and coordinated. In disadvantaged areas of major cities, there were fewer GPs (most disadvantaged quintile 0.9[SD 0.1] vs least 1.0[SD 0.2]), services were more affordable (97.4%[1.6] bulk-billed vs 75.7[11.3]), a greater proportion were after-hours (10.3%[3.0] vs 6.2[2.9]) and for chronic disease care (28%[3.4] vs 17.6[8.0]) but fewer for preventive care (50.7%[3.8] had cervical screening vs 62.5[4.9]). Patterns were similar in regional locations, other than disadvantaged areas had less after-hours care (1.3%[0.7] vs 6.1%[3.9]). Measures were positively correlated, except GP supply and affordability in major cities (-0.41, p < .01).

Implications

Application of constructed measures revealed inequity in PHC service delivery amenable to policy intervention. Initiatives should consider the maldistribution of GPs not only by remoteness but also by area disadvantage. Avenues for improvement in disadvantaged areas include preventative care across all regions and after-hours care in regional locations.