Walk-in clinics in Ontario. An atmosphere of tension.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore family practice (FP), emergency department (ED), and walk-in clinic (WIC) physicians' perceptions and experiences regarding the effect of walk-in clinics on Ontario's health care system. DESIGN: Qualitative method of focus groups. SETTING: Hamilton, London, and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three physicians participated in nine focus groups, each with four to nine participants. Family physicians, ED physicians, and WIC physicians attended separate focus groups. METHOD: Nine focus groups were conducted in three cities in Ontario. Physicians' opinions, perceptions, and experiences regarding the role and effect of WICs on Ontario's health care system were explored. Focus groups were audiotaped and comments transcribed verbatim. The qualitative data analysis program NUD*IST was used to organize the data during sequential thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants identified two key factors contributing to the evolution of WICs: patients' expectations for convenient health care and the perceived limited availability of family physicians. Participants thought these two related factors resulted in a gap in primary care services that WICs had filled. Throughout discussions, an atmosphere of tension permeated the focus groups. Tension seemed to arise from issues of duplication, competition, standards of practice and quality of care in WICs, the effect of environmental and personal factors on physicians' practice, and the practice philosophy adopted by WIC physicians. CONCLUSION: Both FP and ED participants acknowledged their contribution to the gap in primary care services. They appeared to attribute current problems in health care delivery to the perceived deficiencies of WICs. The outcome was a marked tension among participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".