ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Implementing virtual primary care: experiences, perspectives and identification of improvement opportunities in an academic primary care setting.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The use of telemedicine in family medicine: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Navigating the landscape of remote patient monitoring in Canada: trends, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the biggest changes to primary care triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic was the rapid integration of virtual care (VC). VC offers benefits to patients and providers but implementation presents challenges.
methodsThis study is a secondary analysis of a 2021 quality improvement (QI) driven environmental scan comprising a survey and 1:1 interviews, at the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto. The scan aimed to understand the current and desired future use of VC at the 14 sites.
resultsThe survey was completed by all sites between July and October 2021 and 1:1 interviews were conducted between October and November 2021 with 12 of the 14 site/QI leads. VC was seen as convenient and flexible, and as enabling continuity of care for patients who could not easily attend in-person. Factors enabling implementation of VC included leadership at both the system and local level; a shared understanding of VC on the part of providers, patients and clinical staff; and technological and administrative readiness. Challenges included the need for triage algorithms; incongruent expectations of VC by patients and providers; technology issues; increased administrative burden; and impacts on medical education. All anticipated that some degree of VC would continue in future.
conclusionsVC offered benefits but it also impacted clinical routines and administrative processes creating new forms of work for clinicians and staff. Patient education is needed to ensure that their expectations of VC align with those of providers. Research and QI efforts are required to optimise the use of VC in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.