Family physician virtual care during COVID-19 in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada: A mixed methods exploration

Context: On March 14, 2020, the Ontario, Canada health insurance plan approved COVID-19 physician virtual billing codes; family physicians (FPs) rapidly adopted a new model of care. Virtual care may remain post-pandemic; however, its future should be informed by evidence that considers access and continuity.

Objective: 1) to determine FP virtual visit volumes and patient characteristics and 2) to explore FPs’ perspectives on virtual visit adoption and implementation.

Study Design: Mixed methods: Secondary analysis of health administrative (HA) data and semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs.

Setting or Dataset: London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada. HA data through ICES, Ontario entity holding data.

Population studied: FPs and their patients.

Outcome Measures: Volumes of FP in-person and virtual visits during early pandemic; characteristics of patients receiving care; FPs’ perspectives on adopting and delivering virtual care.

Results: Overall visit volume dropped by 36% during first wave, recovered to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020. Sharp in-person visit drop of 73% and virtual visit uptake from 0.08% of total visits to 57% within two weeks of March 2020. FPs described this initial drop in volume as patients not seeking care and practices lacking PPE. The move to virtual care was largely to telephone visits. Patient characteristics compared to pre-pandemic, the proportion seeking care were older (46 vs 50 years), more vulnerable (38% vs 41%), and more multimorbidity (33% vs 41%). This was consistent with FP reports that healthier patients stayed away, routine care deferred, sicker patients needed to be seen. FPs believed most vulnerable patients had access to care but cautioned highly vulnerable such as those homeless did not have cell phone access or a safe place to receive calls. Rural FPs reported access issues because of lack of high-speed internet. FPs attributed success of virtual care to the continuity in relationships they had with patients that were established in person pre-pandemic.

Conclusions: FPs moved rapidly to virtual care. FP offices remained open despite PPE concerns but overall volumes dropped initially. Vulnerable and sicker patients received care but FPs expressed concern for highly vulnerable and rural residents. FPs believed they could offer patient-centred care over the phone but indicated the importance of maintaining in-person care to build relationships.