"Technology has allowed us to do a lot more but it's not necessarily the panacea for everybody": Family physician perspectives on virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian primary care practices rapidly adapted to provide care virtually. Most family physicians lacked prior training or expertise with virtual care. In the absence of formal guidance, they made individual decisions about in-person versus remote care based on clinical judgement, their longitudinal relationships with patients, and personal risk assessments. Our objective was to explore Canadian family physicians' perspectives on the strengths and limitations of virtual care implementation for their patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the integration of virtual care into broader primary care practice.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with family physicians working in four Canadian jurisdictions (Vancouver Coastal health region, British Columbia; Southwestern Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and Eastern Health region, Newfoundland and Labrador). We analyzed interview data using a structured applied thematic approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 68 family physicians and identified four distinct themes during our analysis related to experiences with and perspectives on virtual care: (1) changes in access to primary care; (2) quality and efficacy of care provided virtually; (3) patient and provider comfort with virtual modalities; and (4) necessary supports for virtual care moving forward.

CONCLUSIONS

The move to virtual care enhanced access to care for select patients and was helpful for family physicians to better manage their panels. However, virtual care also created access challenges for some patients (e.g., people who are underhoused or living in areas without good phone or internet access) and for some types of care (e.g., care that required access to medical devices). Family physicians are optimistic about the ongoing integration of virtual care into broader primary care delivery, but guidance, regulations, and infrastructure investments are needed to ensure equitable access and to maximize quality of care.

Efficacy of Palivizumab Immunoprophylaxis for Reducing Severe RSV Outcomes in Children with Immunodeficiencies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Palivizumab is recommended for prevention of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in immunocompromised children, despite a lack of strong supporting evidence. The recent approval of substitute RSV-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against RSV, offers an opportunity to synthesize the most current evidence supporting the palivizumab standard of care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of palivizumab in preventing acute respiratory tract infection- or RSV-related hospitalization, or mortality in immunocompromised children.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE for published clinical studies that investigated outcomes of palivizumab use in children. We included clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. The primary outcomes were RSV-related or respiratory viral infection-related hospitalizations, or RSV-related mortality. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021248619) and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

From the 1993 records, six studies were eligible and included, for a total of 625 immunocompromised children with an heterogeneous composition of primary and acquired immunodeficiencies enrolled from palivizumab programs. There were no intervention studies. None of the studies included a control group. RSV hospitalizations were infrequent (0%-3.1% of children). Most children included received palivizumab, although one study (n = 56) did not specify how many received palivizumab. RSV mortality was neither observed, in three studies, nor reported, in three other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supporting the use of palivizumab for prevention of severe RSV disease in immunocompromised children remains extremely limited and appears insufficient to justify prioritizing this intervention as the current standard of care over alternative interventions.