Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of practices across primary care funding models

From: Delivery of primary health care to persons who are socio-economically disadvantaged: does the organizational delivery model matter?

 

Primary care model†

 

Salaried

Fee for service

New capitation

Established capitation

Characteristic*

n = 856

n = 849

n = 827

n = 752

Patient profile

Age, yr, mean^

44

48

48

50

Female, %^

68

59

59

54

Insured in Ontario, %

95.3

99.8

99.9

100

> 1 visit in previous year, %^

87

85

80

76

Chronic diseases

No. of chronic diseases per patient, mean^

0.33

0.35

0.40

0.44

Hypertension, %§

19

21

25

25

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

25

29

30

Contextual factor

n = 35

n = 35

n = 35

n = 32

< 10 km to hospital, %

71

85

94

87

Rurality index¶ ≥ 4, %§

69

51

86

88

Family physician profile

n = 108

n = 58

n = 80

n = 42

No. of years since graduation, mean^

19

22

23

29

Presence of ≥ 1 female family physician, **%^

85

49

49

25

Foreign trained, %††

9.3

17.2

2.5

14.3

College of Family Physicians of Canada certification, %

79

85

78

68

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, %^

85

48

58

43

Booking interval for routine visit, min, mean^

25

13

14

14

Staffing

Solo practice, %§

0

26

37

38

Presence of nurse-practitioner(s), %^

100

8.6

31

18.8

No. of nurses, mean^

2.7

0.6

2.0

1.1

Information technology ^^

    

Electronic health records, %§

29

14

57

44

Electronic system for patient scheduling, %§

97

63

71

69

Electronic reminder system for recommended patient care (e.g., screening), %††

26

14

46

28

Electronic interface to external laboratory/diagnostic imaging, %§

46

14

51

41

  1. Reprinted from: Dahrouge S, Hogg WE, Russell G, Tuna M, Geneau R, Muldoon LK, Kristjansson E, Fletcher J: Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices. CMAJ 2012, 184(2):E135-E143. © Canadian Medical Association 2012. This work is protected by copyright and the making of this copy was with the permission of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (http://www.cmaj.ca) and Access Copyright. Any alteration of its content or further copying in any form whatsoever is strictly prohibited unless otherwise permitted by law.
  2. Note: CI = confidence interval, FTE = full-time equivalent.
  3. *Characteristics shown were obtained from chart data, provider survey data and organizational survey data and used in the analyses.
  4. †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.
  5. ^Characteristic is significantly different (p < 0.001) across the models; c2 or F test (analysis of variance [ANOVA]), as appropriate.
  6. §Characteristic is significantly different (p < 0.01) across the models; c2 or F test (ANOVA), as appropriate.
  7. ¶Rurality index is based on the Rurality Index of Ontario and ranges from 0–100.
  8. **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.
  9. ††Characteristic is significantly (p < 0.05) different across the models; c2 test or F test (ANOVA), as appropriate.
  10. ^^For information technology factors, practices were asked to report whether the practice site had implemented, to any extent, each of the technologies listed.