"There's nothing like a good crisis for innovation": a qualitative study of family physicians' experiences with virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19
Canada
Family physicians
Primary care
Telehealth
Virtual care
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Apr 2023
04 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
13
12
2022
accepted:
07
03
2023
medline:
6
4
2023
entrez:
4
4
2023
pubmed:
5
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prior to the pandemic, Canada lagged behind other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the uptake of virtual care. The onset of COVID-19, however, resulted in a near-universal shift to virtual primary care to minimise exposure risks. As jurisdictions enter a pandemic recovery phase, the balance between virtual and in-person visits is reverting, though it is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the rapid move to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both future pandemic planning for primary care and the optimal integration of virtual care into the broader primary care context beyond the pandemic. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 68 family physicians from four regions in Canada between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, continuing recruitment in each region until we reached saturation. Interviews with family physicians explored their roles and experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support their patients through the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed for recurrent themes. We identified three prominent themes throughout participants' reflections on implementing virtual care: implementation and evolution of virtual modalities during the pandemic; facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual care; and virtual care in the future. While some family physicians had prior experience conducting remote assessments, most had to implement and adapt to virtual care abruptly as provinces limited in-person visits to essential and urgent care. As the pandemic progressed, initial forays into video-based consultations were frequently replaced by phone-based visits, while physicians also rebalanced the ratio of virtual to in-person visits. Medical record systems with integrated capacity for virtual visits, billing codes, supportive clinic teams, and longitudinal relationships with patients were facilitators in this rapid transition for family physicians, while the absence of these factors often posed barriers. Despite varied experiences and preferences related to virtual primary care, physicians felt that virtual visits should continue to be available beyond the pandemic but require clearer regulation and guidelines for its appropriate future use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prior to the pandemic, Canada lagged behind other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the uptake of virtual care. The onset of COVID-19, however, resulted in a near-universal shift to virtual primary care to minimise exposure risks. As jurisdictions enter a pandemic recovery phase, the balance between virtual and in-person visits is reverting, though it is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the rapid move to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both future pandemic planning for primary care and the optimal integration of virtual care into the broader primary care context beyond the pandemic.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 68 family physicians from four regions in Canada between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a purposeful, maximum variation sampling approach, continuing recruitment in each region until we reached saturation. Interviews with family physicians explored their roles and experiences during the pandemic, and the facilitators and barriers they encountered in continuing to support their patients through the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed for recurrent themes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified three prominent themes throughout participants' reflections on implementing virtual care: implementation and evolution of virtual modalities during the pandemic; facilitators and barriers to implementing virtual care; and virtual care in the future. While some family physicians had prior experience conducting remote assessments, most had to implement and adapt to virtual care abruptly as provinces limited in-person visits to essential and urgent care. As the pandemic progressed, initial forays into video-based consultations were frequently replaced by phone-based visits, while physicians also rebalanced the ratio of virtual to in-person visits. Medical record systems with integrated capacity for virtual visits, billing codes, supportive clinic teams, and longitudinal relationships with patients were facilitators in this rapid transition for family physicians, while the absence of these factors often posed barriers.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite varied experiences and preferences related to virtual primary care, physicians felt that virtual visits should continue to be available beyond the pandemic but require clearer regulation and guidelines for its appropriate future use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37016330
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09256-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09256-3
pmc: PMC10072815
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
338Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : VR41 72756
Pays : Canada
Organisme : Michael Smith Health Research BC,Canada
ID : SCH-2021-1510
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Sep 20;16:496
pubmed: 27644324
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jun 11;23(6):e27259
pubmed: 34114963
Healthc Manage Forum. 2020 Nov;33(6):288-292
pubmed: 32686506
PLOS Digit Health. 2022 May 16;1(5):e0000029
pubmed: 36812543
Qual Health Res. 2020 Apr;30(5):783-792
pubmed: 31830860
Healthc Manage Forum. 2023 Jan;36(1):30-35
pubmed: 35848444
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Dec 28;17(1):180
pubmed: 29282048
Telemed J E Health. 2022 Jul;28(7):920-931
pubmed: 34847758
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
JAMA Pediatr. 2022 Apr 01;176(4):e216298
pubmed: 35129604
Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2022 Jul 27;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print):
pubmed: 35877594
J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Apr;28(3):224-229
pubmed: 32686555
BMC Prim Care. 2023 Feb 27;24(1):56
pubmed: 36849904
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e586-e594
pubmed: 31160368
CMAJ. 2020 Mar 2;192(9):E227-E228
pubmed: 32122984
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 22;11(7):e048209
pubmed: 34301660
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 21;23(1):e20621
pubmed: 33326410
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Jun 25;6(2):e19045
pubmed: 32479413
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 9;22(6):e19264
pubmed: 32463377
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2017 Jan;18(1):73-83
pubmed: 27640522
CMAJ. 2021 Feb 8;193(6):E200-E210
pubmed: 33558406
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Sep 26;22(1):192
pubmed: 34563113
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87-91
pubmed: 2319285
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Sep;39(9):1605-1614
pubmed: 32584605
J Law Biosci. 2020 Jun 16;7(1):lsaa043
pubmed: 32843985
J Telemed Telecare. 2020 Jun;26(5):309-313
pubmed: 32196391
BMJ. 2020 Mar 12;368:m998
pubmed: 32165352
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 24;16(6):e0253665
pubmed: 34166441
BMC Prim Care. 2022 Nov 25;23(1):300
pubmed: 36434524
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2020 Jun;27(1):
pubmed: 32565418