RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Recommendations for virtual care in primary care practices: A survey of patients across Ontario, Canada
JF The Annals of Family Medicine
JO Ann Fam Med
FD American Academy of Family Physicians
SP 2947
DO 10.1370/afm.20.s1.2947
VO 20
IS Supplement 1
A1 Ashcroft, Rachelle
A1 Saluja, Kiran
A1 Ryan, Bridget
A1 Mehta, Kavita
A1 Brown, Judith
A1 Lam, Simon
A1 Dolovich, Lisa
A1 Rayner, Jennifer
A1 Grenier, Jean
A1 Dahrouge, Simone
A1 Gill, Sandeep
A1 Donnelly, Catherine
A1 Alloo, Javed
A1 Verrilli, David
YR 2022
UL http://www.annfammed.org/content/20/Supplement_1/2947.abstract
AB Context: The onset of COVID-19 has required the rapid adoption of virtual services in primary care (PC) practices, and virtual care delivery is likely to continue to some extent post-pandemic.Objective: To understand patient experience with synchronous virtual (telephone (Tel)/Video) appointments and elicit recommendations for its future use.Design: Mixed method, including patient survey co-developed with stakeholders and implemented online Feb-Mar 2021 with large promotional efforts through social media, patient and caregiver organizations, and other networks. We report on the survey results.Eligibility: 1+ virtual encounter in PC.Outcome measures: A) Patient experience scale (12/17 questions for Tel/Video) covering 4 sub-dimensions; B) Access related questions. Questions had 5-point Likert scale items (strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) and were converted into percentage (potential range -100%, +100%)Setting : Ontario, Canada which offers universal coverage for PC visits with no co-payment.Results: 534 eligible respondents (402/18/114 had Tel/Video/both): Females (78%), < 55 years (61%), white (75%), employed (61%), bachelor’s degree (74%), family income > 100k (52%). Encounters evaluated were with family physicians (vs other health professionals) for 75%/46% of Tel/Video encounters. A) Patient Experience (Tel/Video) overall score: 75%/78%; Sub-dimensions: technology: 92%/84%, patient-provider relationship: 83%/86%, quality of care: 66%/66%, whole-person care: 43%/53%. Factors associated with a statistically significant(*) > 10% higher overall score in tel and/or video were: non-females: (8%*/14%*), French speaking (13%*/16%*), patient-provider relationship >1 year (16%*/7%), provider age < 50 (5%/15%*), having the choice of appointment time (15%*/21%*). Wanting to show problem to the provider was associated with a lower scores (-23%*/NA). B) Access Respondents overwhelmingly reported that Tel/Video visits reduced time (97%/97%), costs (81%/85%), and was more convenient (91%/91%). The majority wanted Tel (69%) and Video (71%) visits at least as often as in person visits post-covid. Only 5% did not want any future virtual care.Conclusions: Patient experience was largely positive and is influenced by patient/provider factors. Patients and providers may benefit from support/training to optimize care experience. We are now evaluating whether the reasons for visits influences care experience.