Walk-in clinics: patient expectations and family physician availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For over two decades, there has been controversy over the role and impact of walk-in clinics on primary health care. This study evaluates the providers' perspective on this topic. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of family physicians, emergency physicians and walk-in clinic physicians regarding the impact of walk-in clinics on Ontario's health care system. METHODS: The qualitative method of focus groups was used in this study. There were nine focus groups, each consisting of 4-9 participants, with a total of 63 physicians. The different practitioners (family physicians, emergency physicians, walk-in clinic physicians) attended separate focus groups. The focus groups explored the physicians' perceptions and experiences regarding the role and impact of walk-in clinics on Ontario's health care system. The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The qualitative data analysis program NUD*IST was used to organize the data during the sequential thematic analysis. RESULTS: Factors contributing to the growth and evolution of walk-in clinics in Ontario were identified. These included a perceived increase in patients' expectations for convenient health care and a perceived decrease in the availability of family physicians. These factors created a gap in primary care which was filled by walk-in clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' recommendations for narrowing this gap included an increase in both physician and patient accountability and changes to the current structure of primary health care delivery. These recommendations would either integrate walk-in clinics into the health care system or result in their elimination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".