The average panel for family physicians dropped from about 2400 to about 1800 patients from 2013 to 2022. Likely reasons for this decline: 1) fewer people seeking primary care, and 2) fewer people receiving their care through a long-term continuity relationship with a primary care clinician.

Underinvestment in primary care and erosion of the primary care physician workforce are resulting in patients across the US experiencing growing difficulty in obtaining access to primary care. Compounding this access problem, we find that the average patient panel size among US family physicians may have decreased by 25% over the past decade (2013 to 2022). Reversing the decline in access to primary care in the face of decreasing panel sizes requires both better supporting family physicians to manage larger panels, such as by expanding primary care teams, and substantially increasing the supply of family physicians.

BACKGROUND: Considering the challenges of the referral system in the family physician program and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the performance of the relevant ministry\'s programs, it is necessary to assess the performance of the referral system. This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the performance of the family physician referral system before and during COVID-19 in Golestan province.
METHODS: The present repeated cross-sectional study was conducted on secondary data Recorded of 786,603 cases referred and cared by family physicians (including information on physicians\' and midwives\' visits, percentage of prescriptions and other information) in Golestan province from 2017 to 2022 in a census and retrospective manner. Data were collected using the reference ratio checklist and analyzed with SPSS 23 software at a significance level of less than 0.05.
RESULTS: Referral to 10 types of medical specialties and 10 indicators of family physicians referral before and during COVID-19 were investigated. The highest and lowest percentages of referrals by family physicians were belonged to the surgical (17.6%) and infectious (2%) specialists before COVID-19, and internal medicine (15.07%) and urology (3%) specialists during COVID-19, respectively. Referral due to physician\'s diagnosis increased by 19.3% compared to before Covid-19, target group increased by 0.86%, care decreased by 2.69% and reverse referral decreased by 36.1%. The amount of population covered by rural insurance, the amount of visits to midwives, the percentage of electronic appointments in the post-Covid-19 years have changed significantly compared to before.it (P-Value < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on family physician referral indicators, such as the process of referral to specialists, drug prescriptions, insurance coverage, one-time service population, and patient care, which can be used to eliminate the weaknesses and Strengthening the strengths of the programs being implemented in the face of possible pandemics is very useful and effective and can be used in the country. Finally, the results obtained from this research provide evidence to discuss the importance of the family physicians care and referral system in the face of special conditions for quality control in health policies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the healthcare system, leading to the rapid evolution and implementation of telemedicine (TM). TM has the potential to improve the quality of primary health care and increase accessibility for the population. However, its use may represent challenges for older people, as they may have distinct needs from the general population due to age-related changes in perceptual, motor, and cognitive capacities. We, thus, aimed to identify potential facilitators and barriers to TM use in primary care for older adults and develop recommendations accordingly.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the challenges associated with TM use among older adults and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary care practice. Interviews were conducted with 29 older adults, and three focus groups involving HCPs from four McGill family medicine sites were organized. Employing a hybrid codebook thematic analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identified facilitators and barriers affecting the optimal use of TM by older adults and HCPs. We synthesized the results from semi-structured interviews and focus groups. These findings were then presented during a deliberative dialogue with eight participants, including family physicians, nurses, a social worker, and a government-level TM expert, to validate our results. The purpose was to gather feedback, identify and refine actionable recommendations. Subsequently, we utilized a thematic analysis using the same codebook to synthesize findings from the deliberative dialogue.
RESULTS: Participants agreed that TM contributed to maintaining the continuity of care and was particularly convenient when there was an existing or established patient-physician relationship or for addressing minor health issues. TM was found to be beneficial for people with limited mobility, reducing their exposure to potentially high-risk environments. However, participants expressed concerns about the lack of visual contact, causing essential details to be overlooked. Additionally, issues related to miscommunication due to language or hearing barriers were identified. HCPs perceived that most older adults did not consider phone consultations a medical act. Participants were open to a hybrid approach, combining in-person consultations and TM, based on their specific health conditions. Building upon these results, we formulated seven key recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both older adults and HCPs consider TM a good alternative for accessing healthcare services. To improve the effective use of TM, it\'s crucial to advocate for a hybrid approach that integrates both in-person and virtual methods. This approach should actively encourage and support individuals in becoming familiar with technological tools.

BACKGROUND: Given that mental health problems in adolescence may have lifelong impacts, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in identifying and managing these issues is important. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may offer solutions to the current challenges involved in mental health care. We therefore explored PCPs\' challenges in addressing adolescents\' mental health, along with their attitudes towards using AI to assist them in their tasks.
METHODS: We used purposeful sampling to recruit PCPs for a virtual Focus Group (FG). The virtual FG lasted 75 minutes and was moderated by two facilitators. A life transcription was produced by an online meeting software. Transcribed data was cleaned, followed by a priori and inductive coding and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We reached out to 35 potential participants via email. Seven agreed to participate, and ultimately four took part in the FG. PCPs perceived that AI systems have the potential to be cost-effective, credible, and useful in collecting large amounts of patients\' data, and relatively credible. They envisioned AI assisting with tasks such as diagnoses and establishing treatment plans. However, they feared that reliance on AI might result in a loss of clinical competency. PCPs wanted AI systems to be user-friendly, and they were willing to assist in achieving this goal if it was within their scope of practice and they were compensated for their contribution. They stressed a need for regulatory bodies to deal with medicolegal and ethical aspects of AI and clear guidelines to reduce or eliminate the potential of patient harm.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the groundwork for assessing PCPs\' perceptions of AI systems\' features and characteristics, potential applications, possible negative aspects, and requirements for using them. A future study of adolescents\' perspectives on integrating AI into mental healthcare might contribute a fuller understanding of the potential of AI for this population.

The \'Mastering your Fellowship\' series provides examples of the question format encountered in the written and clinical examinations for the Fellowship of the College of Family Physicians of South Africa (FCFP [SA]) examination. The series is aimed at helping family medicine registrars prepare for this examination. Model answers are available online.

BACKGROUND:  Family medicine has trained specialist family physicians in South Africa since 2008, but not investigated their career pathways. The study aimed to determine the career pathways of newly qualified family physicians between 2008 and 2022.
METHODS:  A cross-sectional descriptive survey of all 186 family physicians via an electronic questionnaire.
RESULTS:  Response rate was 44.6% (83/186). Overall, 9.6% emigrated, 10.8% were no longer practising, and 79.5% were still practising in South Africa. Of the latter, 14.5% were in the private sector, 55.4% in the public sector and 9.6% in both. Of those in the public sector, 33.7% were in specialist family physician posts, 12% in medical officer posts, 4.8% in managerial positions and 4.8% in academic positions. Issues relating to safety and security were important to those working in both sectors and relationships with colleagues in the clinical team, to those in the public sector. Overall, participants practised near or within their province of training and were not equitably distributed.
CONCLUSIONS:  Only a third of graduates were in specialist family physician posts in the public sector. Attention needs to be given to retaining more graduates in such posts to achieve the goals of the national position paper. The proportion in the private sector was lower than expected. The reasons for no longer practising medicine should be further explored.Contribution: This is the first study on the career pathways of family physicians in South Africa since the new speciality was created. Understanding these pathways will assist with human resources for health planning.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians (FPs) served as the the initial point of contact for patients potentially infected with the virus, necessitating frequent updates to treatment protocols. However, practices also faced organizational challenges in providing care to other patients who also needed their medical attention. The pressure on FPs increased and affected their well-being. The international PRICOV-19 study, titled \"Primary care in times of COVID-19 pandemic,\" investigated how FPs functioned during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article examines the correlation between various organizational and structural COVID-19-related variables and the well-being of FPs in Slovenia.
METHODS: Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire was distributed to 1040 Slovenian FPs and 218 family medicine (FM) trainees. Part of the questionnaire assessed the cooperation and well-being of FPs. The Mayo Clinic Well-being Index was used for the assessment. FP\'s well-being was also assessed descriptively by asking open-ended questions about maintaining mental health during the pandemic. Potential factors associated with FPs\' well-being were identified using a multivariate linear regression method.
RESULTS: The final sample comprised 191 participants (response rate 14.1%). The mean value ± standard deviation of the Mayo Well-being Index was 3.3 ± 2.6 points. The FPs with the poorest well-being had 5-15 years of work experience and worked in a practice where work could not be distributed in the absence of a co-worker without compromising the well-being of colleagues. Physical activity was identified as the most common method of maintaining mental health among FPs.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that targeted interventions are needed to support FPs mid-career, increase resilience in practice, promote strong team dynamics, and prioritise physical activity in healthcare. Addressing these aspects can contribute to the well-being of individual FPs and the overall health of the healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: Procedures are manual technical skills clinicians perform for their patients. Family physicians (FPs) acquire these skills during residency; most are undertaken in outpatient settings. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study to describe the extent to which FPs perform the core procedures recommended by the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) and how this might have changed over time.
METHODS: The CAFM recommended a list of procedures all FP residents should perform competently after graduation. We modified this list for Medicare beneficiaries to enable matching with Current Procedural Terminology codes. We probed Medicare Part B databases for modified CAFM procedure claims submitted by FPs in 2021 and how these claims changed from 2014 to 2021.
RESULTS: In 2021, there were 904,278 modified CAFM procedures filed by 9,410 FPs in the outpatient setting. All procedures were clustered with respect to organ system (eg, musculoskeletal, skin, pulmonary). Beginning in 2014 and continuously through 2021, there was a 33% decrease in outpatient procedures filed and a 36% decrease in the number of FPs filing them.
CONCLUSIONS: Office-based procedures are integral to a primary care physician\'s role, although the activity is rarely analyzed. At a time when the Medicare population is growing, the number of available FPs and the number of procedures they perform are not. This decrease might result from the changing scope of FP practice, new referral patterns, task shifting, and/or increased delegation to physician associates and nurse practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined demographic, practice, and area-level characteristics associated with family physicians\' (FP) provision of maternity care.
METHODS: Using the American Board of Family Medicine Certification examination application survey data, we investigated the relationship between FPs\' maternity care service provision and (1) demographic (gender, years in practice, race/ethnicity), (2) practice characteristics (size, ownership, rurality), and (3) county-level factors (percentage of reproductive-age women, the number of obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) and certified nurse midwives (CNMs) per 100,000 reproductive-age women). We performed summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Of the 59,903 FPs in the sample, 7.5% provided maternity care. FPs practicing in rural were 2.5 times more likely to provide maternity care than those practicing in urban areas. FPs in academic (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-5.1) and safety-net settings (OR 1.9, 1.7-2.1) had greater odds of providing maternity care. FPs in the bottom quintile with no or fewer OBGYNs and CNMs had a higher likelihood of maternity care provision (OR 2.1, 1.8-2.3) than those in the top quintile, with more OBGYNs and CNMs.
CONCLUSIONS: FPs in high-needs areas, such as rural and safety net settings, and areas with fewer CNMs or OBGYNs are more likely to provide maternity care, demonstrating the importance of FPs in meeting the needs of women with limited maternity care access. Our study findings highlight the importance of considering the contributions of FPs to maternity care as the organizations prioritize resource allocation to areas of highest need.