Association between continuity and access in primary care: a retrospective cohort study

Impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: protocol for a rapid scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Interprofessional teams and funding and payment provider arrangements are key attributes of high-performing primary care. Several Canadian jurisdictions have introduced team-based models with different payment models. Despite these investments, the evidence of impact is mixed. This has raised questions about whether team-based primary care models are being implemented to facilitate team collaboration and effectiveness. Thus, we present a protocol for a rapid scoping review to systematically map, synthesise and summarise the existing literature on the impact of provider remuneration mechanisms and extrinsic and intrinsic incentives in team-based primary care. This review will answer three research questions: (1) What is the impact of provider remuneration models on team, patient, provider and system outcomes in primary care?; (2) What extrinsic and intrinsic incentives have been used in interprofessional primary care teams?; and (3) What is the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic team-based incentives on team, patient, provider and system outcomes?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a rapid scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google). This review will consider all empirical studies and full-text English-language articles published between 2000 and 2022. Reviewers will independently perform the literature search, data extraction and synthesis of included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to appraise the quality of evidence. The literature will be synthesised, summarised and mapped to themes that answer the research question of this review.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. Findings from this study will be written for publication in an open-access peer-review journal and presented at national and international conferences. Knowledge users are part of the research team and will assist with disseminating findings to the public, clinicians, funders and professional associations.

Revising the advanced access model pillars: a multimethod study

BACKGROUND

The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care.

METHODS

This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content.

RESULTS

The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model ("Appointment system" and "Interprofessional practice"), 1 was merged with a revised pillar ("Develop contingency plans" with "Planning of needs and supply") and 1 underwent major transformations ("Backlog reduction" to "Continuous adjustment"). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content.

INTERPRETATION

The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Acceptability of emergency department triage nurse's advice for patients to attend general practice: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Demand for ED care is increasing at a rate higher than population growth. Strategies to attenuate ED demands include diverting low-acuity general practice-type ED attendees to alternate primary healthcare settings. The present study assessed the ED attendees' receptiveness to accept triage nurse's face-to-face advice to explore alternate options for medical care and what factors influence the level of acceptance.

METHODS

The ED attendees of four major public hospital EDs in Brisbane were surveyed between August and October 2018, using a questionnaire informed by Health Belief Model's cues to action.

RESULTS

Of the 514 valid responses, 81% of respondents were very likely/likely to accept the triage nurse's advice to see a general practitioner. Self-perceived urgency of presenting condition/s (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.97), not having confidence in general practitioner (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.66) and having a medical record at the hospital (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-0.99) were negatively associated with the likelihood of accepting the advice. For every point increase in perceived seriousness, the odds of accepting the advice decreased by 16% (95% CI 6-25%).

CONCLUSION

Most of the participants believed that EDs were for emergent care and they attended the ED because they perceived their presenting condition/s to be serious and/or urgent. The acceptability of face-to-face advice by triage nurse to seek help in general practice was influenced by perceived threats of the illness, and the underlying beliefs about availability, accessibility, suitability and affordability of the service.

Differences between recorded diagnoses of patients of an emergency department and office-hours primary care doctors: a register-based study in a Finnish town

To determine the extent to which it is possible to provide continuity of primary care for those who visit Emergency Departments (EDs) we studied how recorded diagnoses in primary care differ, depending on whether the patient is met in an ED or a primary care office-hours practice. In the present, 12-year follow-up study a report generator of the Electronic Health Record-system provided monthly figures for the number of different recorded diagnoses using the International Classification of Diagnoses (10^thedition, ICD-10) and the total number of ED doctors and office-hour visits to General Practitioners (GPs). The 20 most common diagnoses covered 48.1% of the visits with recorded diagnoses to the office hour GPs and 45.9% of the visits to the doctors of the ED. Of these 20 diagnoses, 10 were common in both systems. These 10 diagnoses constituted about 30% of the diagnoses given by ED doctors. Furthermore, five out of the six most common diagnoses were the same in the ED and office-hours practices. The doctors in EDs and office-hour GPs treat quite similar patient material. This may provide organisational ways to reorganise the work of primary care and to guarantee continuity of care for those who may benefit from it.