| Literature DB >> 30509205 |
Andrée-Anne Paré-Plante1,2, Antoine Boivin3,4,5, Djamal Berbiche6,7, Mylaine Breton6,7, Maryse Guay6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First-contact accessibility remains an important problem in Canada, with this indicator staying the worst of all Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In the province of Quebec, a number of primary healthcare (PHC) organizations have adopted measures to improve access (e.g. advance access scheduling, expanded nursing role, electronic medical record, financial incentives). The impact of those changes is unknown. The goal of this study is to assess which PHC organizations' characteristics are associated with improved first-contact accessibility.Entities:
Keywords: First-contact accessibility; Primary health care; Quebec; Secondary data analysis; Survey
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30509205 PMCID: PMC6276215 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0871-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
Fig. 1Conceptual model. Legend: Adapted from Hogg et al. [4] and Lévesque et al. [14]
Participant characteristics
| Frequency (n) | Proportion (%) | Khi-2 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | |||
| Sex | 1765a | 0.1164 | |
| Male | 593 | 33.6 | |
| Female | 1172 | 66.4 | |
| Age | 1752a | 0.4720 | |
| 18–25 | 100 | 5.7 | |
| 25–34 | 213 | 12.2 | |
| 35–44 | 249 | 14.2 | |
| 45–54 | 351 | 20.0 | |
| 55–64 | 393 | 22.4 | |
| 65 and over | 446 | 25.5 | |
| Income | 1731a | 0.4777 | |
| Below average | 377 | 21.8 | |
| About average | 1011 | 58.4 | |
| Above average | 343 | 19.4 | |
| Fluency in French or English | 1752a | 0.3931 | |
| Fluent | 1520 | 86.8 | |
| Sufficiently | 140 | 8.0 | |
| Moderately | 46 | 2.6 | |
| Little | 35 | 2.0 | |
| Not at all | 11 | 0.6 | |
| Education | 1749a | 0.2534 | |
| No qualifications, primary, or lower secondary | 275 | 15.7 | |
| Upper secondary education (grades 10–12) | 622 | 35.6 | |
| Post-secondary education (college, undergraduate) | 852 | 48.7 | |
| Employment status | 1798a | 0.0340 | |
| Working | 960 | 53.4 | |
| Retired | 523 | 29.1 | |
| Unable to work | 142 | 7.9 | |
| Other | 192 | 10.7 | |
| General health status | 1778a | 0.0044 | |
| Very good | 416 | 23.4 | |
| Good | 881 | 49.6 | |
| Fair | 420 | 23.6 | |
| Poor | 61 | 3.4 | |
| Chronic conditions | 1759a | 0.2394 | |
| Yes | 918 | 52.2 | |
| No | 841 | 47.8 | |
| Family practitioners | |||
| Sex | 215a | 0.5886 | |
| Male | 97 | 45.1 | |
| Female | 118 | 54.9 | |
| Age | 211a | 0.6703 | |
| 25–34 | 34 | 16.1 | |
| 35–44 | 31 | 14.7 | |
| 45–54 | 64 | 30.3 | |
| 55 and over | 82 | 38.9 | |
aTotal n are different due to different partial non-response rate to each question
Association of organizational characteristics with patient-reported first-contact accessibility
| Organizational characteristics | OR | CI 95% | Adjusted OR* | CI 95%* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human resources | ||||||
| Number of family practitioners in the clinica | 1.00 | (0.97–1.03) | 0.89 | 0.96 | (0.89–1.03) | 0.27 |
| Number of physicians from other disciplines in the clinica | 1.05 | (0.996–1.10) | 0.07 | 1.13 | (1.03–1.24) | 0.01 |
| Technical and material resources | ||||||
| Presence of specific equipment in the clinicc | 0.98 | (0.95–1.00) | 0.08 | 0.89 | (0.83–0.96) | 0.002 |
| Use of information technology for different tasks in the clinicd | 0.98 | (0.94–1.02) | 0.37 | 1.02 | (0.92–1.14) | 0.67 |
| Schedule and opening hours | ||||||
| Typical amount of time scheduled for a regular visit with the family practitioner (in minutes)a | 1.00 | (0.98–1.02) | 0.89 | 1.03 | (0.99–1.07) | 0.21 |
| Number of opening hours per daya | 1.01 | (0.97–1.05) | 0.54 | 1.10 | (0.96–1.26) | 0.18 |
| Percentage of visits with a scheduled appointmenta | 1.00 | (0.999–1.01) | 0.12 | 1.00 | (0.98–1.01) | 0.66 |
| Possibility to obtain a same-day appointment or to walk-in the clinic without an appointmentb | 1.66 | (1.01–2.74) | 0.04 | 2.94 | (1.15–7.51) | 0.02 |
| Type and scope of services | ||||||
| Number of hours worked per week by the family practitionera | 1.00 | (0.99–1.01) | 0.39 | 1.03 | (1.00–1.06) | 0.03 |
| Number of hours per week worked by the family practitioner in this clinica | 1.00 | (0.99–1.01) | 0.56 | 0.99 | (0.97–1.01) | 0.26 |
| Number of contacts with patients by the family practitioner in a typical daya | 0.99 | (0.98–1.00) | 0.30 | 0.99 | (0.97–1.01) | 0.42 |
| Integration of services | ||||||
| Primary care services offered independently by a nurse in the clinice | 1.03 | (0.90–1.18) | 0.69 | 1.03 | (0.90–1.18) | 0.69 |
*Results are adjusted for patients and family practitioners characteristics
OR superior to 1 indicates an increase in first-contact accessibility
aDifference with every increase of one unit for these continuous variables (number of family practitioners, physicians, minutes)
bDifference between the presence or the absence of this characteristic
cDifference with every additional equipment present in the clinic
dDifference with every additional task performed with information technology
eDifference with every additional service provided independently by a nurse