Designed for simplicity, used for complexity: The systemic pressures shaping walk-in clinic practices and outcomes

by Braeden A. Terpou, Lauren Lapointe-Shaw, Ruoxi Wang, Danielle Martin, Mina Tadrous, Sacha Bhatia, Jennifer Shuldiner, Simon Berthelot, Niels Thakkar, Kerry McBrien, Bahram Rahman, Aisha Lofters, J. Michael Paterson, Rita McCracken, Christine Salahub, Tara Kiran, Noah M Ivers, Laura Desveaux

Walk-in clinics (WICs), appreciated for their accessibility and convenience, have become an increasingly popular healthcare option in Ontario for patients with and without primary care enrolment. Despite their utility, WICs face criticism for delivering lower-quality care compared to comprehensive, enrolment-based primary care models. Critics argue that WICs contribute to system inefficiencies and encourage practice patterns misaligned with population health goals. This study explored physician perspectives on two key outcomes often associated with low-quality care in WICs: repeat primary care visits and potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Ontario-based family physicians (N = 19) who had experience practicing in both WICs and enrolment-based primary care. The findings highlight systemic challenges, including limited access to enrolment-based primary care and increasing healthcare demands, which have pushed WICs beyond their intended role. This misalignment has created tensions between their structure and purpose, resulting in visits that participants described as more transactional than those in primary care. These constraints—rooted in a lack of informational and relational continuity—often limited participants’ ability to provide in-depth engagement or follow-up care. Repeat visits were frequently linked to efforts to ensure continuity for complex or chronic conditions. Similarly, participants acknowledged the reality of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, attributing it to the high patient volume, desire to satisfy patient expectations, and a tendency to “err on the side of caution” when the nature of the illness is in question. The findings underscore how health system pressures and well-intended policies, such as Ontario’s primary care access bonus, can produce unintended consequences, including inequities in access and difficulties with care coordination across settings. Addressing these challenges requires reforms to better integrate WICs with the primary care system, alongside tailored training to support physician decision-making in episodic care contexts.

Primary care providers experience and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening risk communication: a descriptive cross-sectional study

Objective

To describe primary care providers’ (PCPs) experience and satisfaction with receiving risk communication documents on their patient’s breast cancer (BC) risk assessment and proposed screening action plan.

Design

Descriptive cross-sectional study.

Setting

A survey was distributed to all 763 PCPs linked to 1642 women participating in the Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I) research project in Quebec, approximately 1–4 months after the delivery of the risk communication documents. The recruitment phase took place from July 2021 to July 2022.

Participants

PCPs.

Main outcome measures

Descriptive analyses were conducted to report participants’ experiences and satisfaction with receiving risk communication. Responses to two open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis.

Results

A total of 168 PCPs answered the survey, from which 73% reported being women and 74% having more than 15 years of practice. Only 38% were familiar with the risk-based BC screening approach prior to receiving their patient risk category. A majority (86%) agreed with the screening approach and would recommend it to their patients if implemented at the population level. A majority of PCPs also reported understanding the information provided (92%) and expressed agreement with the proposed BC screening action plan (89%). Some PCPs recommended simplifying the materials, acknowledging the potential increase in workload and emphasising the need for careful planning of professional training efforts.

Conclusion

PCPs expressed positive attitudes towards a risk-based BC screening approach and were generally satisfied with the information provided. This study suggests that, if introduced in Canada in a manner similar to the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, risk-based BC screening would likely be supported by most PCPs. However, they emphasised the importance of addressing concerns such as professional training and the potential impact on workload if the approach were to be implemented at the population level. Future qualitative studies are needed to further explore the training needs of PCPs and to develop strategies for integrating this approach with the high workloads faced by PCPs.