Table 3:
Characteristics of practices across primary care funding models
| Characteristic* | Primary care model† | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salaried | Fee for service | New capitation | Established capitation | |
| Patient profile | n = 856 | n = 849 | n = 827 | n = 752 |
| Age, yr, mean‡ | 43.7 | 47.9 | 48.4 | 50.0 |
| Female, %‡ | 68.0 | 59.0 | 58.9 | 54.2 |
| Insured in Ontario, % | 95.3 | 99.8 | 99.9 | 100.0 |
| > 1 visit in previous year, %‡ | 87.0 | 84.8 | 80.0 | 76.2 |
| Chronic diseases | ||||
| No. of chronic diseases per patient, mean‡ | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.44 |
| Hypertension, %§ | 19.1 | 21.0 | 24.5 | 24.6 |
| Diabetes mellitus, % | 7.8 | 6.6 | 7.6 | 8.6 |
| Coronary artery disease, %§ | 4.8 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 8.8 |
| Congestive heart failure, % | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| ≥ 1 chronic disease, %§ | 23.2 | 25.2 | 28.6 | 29.6 |
| Contextual factor | n = 35 | n = 35 | n = 35 | n = 32 |
| < 10 km to hospital, % | 71.4 | 85.3 | 94.1 | 86.7 |
| Rurality index¶ ≥ 4, %§ | 68.6 | 51.4 | 85.7 | 87.5 |
| Family physician profile | n = 108 | n = 58 | n = 80 | n = 42 |
| No. of years since graduation, mean‡ | 19.2 | 22.3 | 22.6 | 28.5 |
| Presence of ≥ 1 female family physician,** %‡ | 85.3 | 48.5 | 48.6 | 25.0 |
| Foreign trained, %†† | 9.3 | 17.2 | 2.5 | 14.3 |
| College of Family Physicians of Canada certification, % | 79.4 | 84.5 | 77.9 | 67.5 |
| Organizational structure | n = 35 | n = 35 | n = 35 | n = 32 |
| No. of nurses per FTE family physician, mean‡ | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Panel size < 1600 patients per FTE family physician, %‡ | 84.8 | 48.4 | 58.1 | 42.9 |
| Booking interval for routine visit, min, mean‡ | 24.8 | 12.9 | 13.9 | 13.6 |
| Staffing | ||||
| Solo practice, %§ | 0 | 25.7 | 37.1 | 37.5 |
| Presence of nurse-practitioner(s), %‡ | 100.0 | 8.6 | 31.0 | 18.8 |
| No. of nurses, mean‡ | 2.7 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Information technology‡‡ | ||||
| Electronic health records, %§ | 28.6 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 43.8 |
| Electronic system for patient scheduling, %§ | 97.1 | 62.9 | 71.4 | 68.8 |
| Electronic reminder system for recommended patient care (e.g., screening), %†† | 25.7 | 14.3 | 45.7 | 28.1 |
| Electronic interface to external laboratory/diagnostic imaging, %§ | 45.7 | 14.3 | 51.4 | 40.6 |
Note: CI = confidence interval, FTE = full-time equivalent.
Characteristics shown were obtained from chart data, provider survey data and organizational survey data and used in the analyses.
The four models are known by their financing arrangement: salaried (community health centre), fee for service (fee-for-service practices), new capitation model (family health networks) and established capitation model (health services organizations). See Table 1 for more information.
Characteristic was significantly different (p < 0.001) across the models; χ2 or F test (analysis of variance [ANOVA]), as appropriate.
Characteristic is significantly different (p < 0.01) across the models; χ2 or F test (ANOVA), as appropriate.
Rurality index is based on the Rurality Index of Ontario and ranges from 0–100.
The presence of a female family physician could only be determined from the respondents. Since at least 50% of the providers were required to participate, it is likely that some practices in which not all providers participated were wrongly coded as not having a female family physician.
Characteristic is significantly (p < 0.05) different across the models; χ2 test or F test (ANOVA), as appropriate.
For information technology factors, practices were asked to report whether the practice site had implemented, to any extent, each of the technologies listed.