IntroductionCanadians report persistent problems accessing primary care despite an increasing per-capita supply of primary care physicians (PCPs). There is speculation that PCPs, especially those early in their careers, may now be working less and/or choosing to practice in focused clinical areas rather than comprehensive family medicine, but little evidence to support or refute this. The goal of this study is to inform primary care planning by: (1) identifying values and preferences shaping the practice intentions and choices of family medicine residents and early career PCPs, (2) comparing practice patterns of early-career and established PCPs to determine if changes over time reflect cohort effects (attributes unique to the most recent cohort of PCPs) or period effects (changes over time across all PCPs) and (3) integrating findings to understand the dynamics among practice intentions, practice choices and practice patterns and to identify policy implications.Methods and analysisWe plan a mixed-methods study in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. We will conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with family medicine residents and early-career PCPs and analyse survey data collected by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. We will also analyse linked administrative health data within each province. Mixed methods integration both within the study and as an end-of-study step will inform how practice intentions, choices and patterns are interrelated and inform policy recommendations.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Simon Fraser University Research Ethics Board with harmonised approval from partner institutions. This study will produce a framework to understand practice choices, new measures for comparing practice patterns across jurisdictions and information necessary for planners to ensure adequate provider supply and patient access to primary care.

IntroductionSignificant evidence in the literature supports case management (CM) as an effective intervention to improve care for patients with complex healthcare needs. However, there is still little evidence about the facilitators and barriers to CM implementation in primary care setting. The three specific objectives of this study are to: (1) identify the facilitators and barriers of CM implementation in primary care clinics across Canada; (2) explain and understand the relationships between the actors, contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes of the CM intervention; (3) identify the next steps towards CM spread in primary care across Canada.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a multiple-case embedded mixed methods study. CM will be implemented in 10 primary care clinics in five Canadian provinces. Three different units of analysis will be embedded to obtain an in-depth understanding of each case: the healthcare system (macro level), the CM intervention in the clinics (meso level) and the individual/patient (micro level). For each objective, the following strategy will be performed: (1) an implementation analysis, (2) a realist evaluation and (3) consensus building among stakeholders using the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts method.Ethics and disseminationThis study, which received ethics approval, will provide innovative knowledge about facilitators and barriers to implementation of CM in different primary care jurisdictions and will explain how and why different mechanisms operate in different contexts to generate different outcomes among frequent users. Consensual and prioritised statements about next steps for spread of CM in primary care from the perspectives of all stakeholders will be provided. Our results will offer context-sensitive explanations that can better inform local practices and policies and contribute to improve the health of patients with complex healthcare needs who frequently use healthcare services. Ultimately, this will increase the performance of healthcare systems and specifically mitigate ineffective use and costs.

Background: Acceptance to a family practice is key to access and continuity of care. While Canadian patients increasingly report not being able to acquire acceptance to a family practice, little is known about the association between requiring opioids and acceptance. We aim to determine the proportion of family physicians who would accept new patients who require opioids and describe physician and practice characteristics associated with willingness to accept these patients. Methods: Census telephone survey of family physicians' practices in Nova Scotia, Canada. Measures: physician (i.e., age, sex, years in practice) and practice (i.e., number/type of provider in the practice, care hours/week) characteristics and practice-reported willingness to accept new patients who require opioids. Results: The survey was completed for 587 family physicians (83.7% response rate). 354 (60.3%) were taking new patients unconditionally or with conditions; 326 provided a response to whether they would accept new patients who require opioids; 91 (27.9%) reported they would not accept a new patient who requires opioids. Compared to family physicians who would not accept patients who require opioids, in bivariate analysis, those who would, tended to work in larger practices; had fewer years in practice; are female; and provided more patient care. The relationship to number of providers in the practice, having a nurse, and experience persisted in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The strongest predictors of willingness to accept patients who require opioids are fewer years in practice (OR = 0.96 [95% CI 0.93, 0.99]) and variables indicating a family physician has support of a larger (OR = 1.19 [95% CI 1.00, 1.42]), interdisciplinary team (e.g., nurses, mental health professionals) (OR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.11, 5.05]). Almost three-quarters (72.1%) of surveyed family physicians would accept patients requiring opioids.

'Meet and greets' are common among FPs in NS and result in some patients not being accepted into practice. More research is needed to understand the intentions, processes, and outcomes of 'meet and greets'. We recommend that practice scope be made clear to prospective patients before their first visit, which may eliminate the need for 'meet and greets'.

No abstract