This study aimed to identify publicly reported access characteristics for episodic primary care in BC and provided a clinic-level comparison between walk-in clinics and UPCCs.

Walk-in clinics are non-hospital-based primary care facilities that are designed to operate without appointments and provide increased healthcare access with extended hours. Urgent and Primary Care Centres (UPCCs) were introduced to British Columbia (BC) in 2018 as an additional primary care resource that provided urgent, but not emergent care during extended hours.

This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from all walk-in clinics and UPCCs in BC. A structured data collection form was used to record access characteristics from clinic websites, including business hours, weekend availability, attachment to a longitudinal family practice, and provision of virtual services.

In total, 268 clinics were included in the analysis (243 walk-in clinics, 25 UPCCs). Of those, 225 walk-in clinics (92.6%) and two UPCCs (8.0%) were attached to a longitudinal family practice. Only 153 (63%) walk-in clinics offered weekend services, compared to 24 (96%) of UPCCs. Walk-in clinics offered the majority (8,968.6/ 78.4%) of their service hours between 08:00 and 17:00, Monday to Friday. UPCCs offered the majority (889.3/ 53.7%) of their service hours after 17:00.

Most walk-in clinics were associated with a longitudinal family practice and provided the majority of clinic services during typical business hours. More research that includes patient characteristics and care outcomes, analyzed at the clinic level, may be useful to support the optimization of episodic primary healthcare delivery.

Belgium has a problem with inappropriate use of emergency services. The government installed the number 1733 for out-of-hours care. Through a dry run test, we learned that 30% of all calls were allocated to the protocol ‘unclear problem’. In only 11.9% of all cases, there was an unclear problem.

The study aimed to determine whether the adjusted protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ led to a safer and more efficient referral and to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the primary care protocols (PCPs). The study ran in cross-sectional design involving patients, General Practitioner Cooperatives and telephone operators. A random sample of calls to 1733 and patient referrals were assessed on efficiency and safety.

During 6 months in 2018, 11 622 calls to 1733 were registered. Seven hundred fifty-six of them were allocated to ‘unwell for no clear reason’, and a random sample of 180 calls was audited. To evaluate the PCPs, 202 calls were audited. The efficiency and safety of the protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ improved, and safety levels for under- and over-triage were not exceeded. The GP’s judged that 9/10 of all patient encounters were correctly referred.

This study demonstrated that the 1733-telephone triage system for out-of-hours care is successful if protocols, flow charts and emergency levels are well defined, monitored and operators are trained.