School of Public Policy, Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, E1A 3E9, Canada.
Office of the Vice-President Academic and Research , Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
BMC Prim Care. 2024 Oct 14;25(1):366. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02618-8.
This correlative study aimed to examine how the different primary care models (physicians in solo practice, physicians in collaborative practice, physicians and nurse practitioners in collaborative practice, after-hours clinics, community centers, or emergency rooms) were associated with their capability to offer timely access to their patients. The data collected from the primary care provider's perspective was to complete the New Brunswick Health Council results on patients' perspective.
A convenience sample of 120 primary care providers (33 physicians in solo practice, 33 physicians in collaborative practice, 27 providers in collaborative practice with nurse practitioners, 2 providers working in after-hours clinics, and 10 providers in Emergency departments) responded to an online survey about their primary care models and accessibility. We used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software to run correlations, independent t-tests and Fisher's exact tests to compare timely access to care between variable groups.
A positive correlation was observed between patient load (or the number of patients under a primary care provider's practice), age and years of experience. However, the patient load did not translate to more timely access to care. However, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.032) was observed when primary care providers kept appointment slots available for daily urgent requests. When a primary care provider booked all available appointment slots, only 85% of them could offer timely appointments (in 5 days or less), compared to 97% who could deliver it when appointment slots were left open in their daily schedule. The primary care model (solo vs. collaboration), the use of health technologies and the type of provider did not significantly influence timely access to care. In contrast, the primary care providers who reported teleworking (or working remotely) were less likely to offer timely access to care.
Timely access to care is not always available to patients, even those with a primary care provider. Certain organizational practices may improve access to care and should be integrated into primary care in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada.
本相关性研究旨在探讨不同初级保健模式(个体执业医生、合作执业医生、合作执业医生和护士从业者、夜间诊所、社区中心或急诊室)如何与其为患者提供及时就诊的能力相关联。从初级保健提供者的角度收集的数据旨在完成新不伦瑞克省卫生委员会关于患者视角的结果。
120 名初级保健提供者(33 名个体执业医生、33 名合作执业医生、27 名与护士从业者合作的提供者、2 名在夜间诊所工作的提供者和 10 名在急诊部门工作的提供者)作为便利样本,对他们的初级保健模式和可及性进行了在线调查。我们使用社会科学统计软件包运行相关性、独立 t 检验和 Fisher 确切检验,以比较变量组之间的及时获得护理情况。
观察到患者人数(或一名初级保健提供者的实践下的患者数量)、年龄和从业年限之间存在正相关。然而,患者人数并没有转化为更及时的护理获得。然而,当初级保健提供者为日常紧急需求保留预约时,观察到了统计学上的显著差异(p=0.032)。当初级保健提供者预订所有可用预约时,只有 85%的人能够提供及时预约(在 5 天或更短时间内),而 97%的人在他们的日常安排中留出预约时可以提供。初级保健模式(个体执业与合作)、卫生技术的使用和提供者的类型并没有显著影响及时获得护理。相比之下,报告远程工作(或远程工作)的初级保健提供者不太可能提供及时的护理。
即使是有初级保健提供者的患者,也并非总能及时获得护理。某些组织实践可能会改善获得护理的机会,应在新不伦瑞克省和加拿大其他地区的初级保健中实施。