A shifting terrain: Understanding the perspectives of walk-in physicians on their roles amid worsening primary care access in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".