Background In 2004, the Québec government implemented an important reform of the healthcare system. The reform was based on the creation of new organisations called Health Services and Social Centres (HSSC), which were formed by merging several healthcare organisations. Upon their creation, each HSSC received the legal mandate to establish and lead a Local Health Network (LHN) with different partners within their territory. This mandate promotes a 'population-based approach' based to the responsibility for the population of a local territory. Objective The aim of this paper is to illustrate and discuss how primary healthcare organisations (PHC) are involved in mandated LHNs in Québec. For illustration, we describe four examples that facilitate a better understanding of these integrated relationships. Results The development of the LHNs and the different collaboration relationships are described through four examples: (1) improving PHC services within the LHN - an example of new PHC models; (2) improving access to specialists and diagnostic tests for family physicians working in the community - an example of centralised access to specialists services; (3) improving chronic-disease-related services for the population of the LHN - an example of a Diabetes Centre; and (4) improving access to family physicians for the population of the LHN - an example of the centralised waiting list for unattached patients. Conclusion From these examples, we can see that the implementation of large-scale reform involves incorporating actors at all levels in the system, and facilitates collaboration between healthcare organisations, family physicians and the community. These examples suggest that the reform provided room for multiple innovations. The planning and organisation of health services became more focused on the population of a local territory. The LHN allows a territorial vision of these planning and organisational processes to develop. LHN also seems a valuable lever when all the stakeholders are involved and when the different organisations serve the community by providing acute care and chronic care, while taking into account the social, medical and nursing fields.

In Quebec, several primary care physicians have made the transition to the advanced access model to address the crisis of limited access to primary care. The objectives are to describe the implementation of the advanced access model, as perceived by the first family physicians; to analyze the factors influencing the implementation of its principles; and to document the physicians' perceptions of its effects on their practice, colleagues and patients. Qualitative methods were used to explore, through semi-structured interviews, the experiences of 21 family physicians who had made the transition to advanced access. Of the 21 physicians, 16 succeeded in adopting all five advanced access principles to varying degrees. Core implementation issues revolved around the dynamics of collaboration between physicians, nurses and other colleagues. Secretaries' functions, in particular, had to be expanded. Facilitating factors were mainly related to the physicians' leadership and the professional resources available in the organizations. Impediments related to resource availability and team functioning were also encountered. This is the first exploratory study to examine the factors influencing the adoption of the advanced access model conducted with early-adopter family physicians. The lessons drawn will inform discussions on scaling up to other settings experiencing the same problems. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Advanced access is an organizational model that has shown promise in improving timely access to primary care. In Quebec, it has recently been introduced in several family medicine units (FMUs) with a teaching mission. The objectives of this paper are to analyze the principles of advanced access implemented in FMUs and to identify which factors influenced their implementation. Methods A multiple case study of four purposefully selected FMUs was conducted. Data included document analysis and 40 semistructured interviews with health professionals and staff. Cross-case comparison and thematic analysis were performed. Results Three out of four FMUs implemented the key principles of advanced access at various levels. One scheduling pattern was observed: 90% of open appointment slots over three- to four-week periods and 10% of prebooked appointments. Structural and organizational factors facilitated the implementation: training of staff to support change, collective leadership, and openness to change. Conversely, family physicians practicing in multiple clinical settings, lack of team resources, turnover of clerical staff, rotation of medical residents, and management capacity were reported as major barriers to implementing the model. Conclusion Our results call for multilevel implementation strategies to improve the design of the advanced access model in academic teaching settings.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to help answer two persistent calls in the literature: the first asks to strengthen the understanding of medical collaboration across levels of healthcare delivery; the second one requests paying more attention to the individual experience of different forms of professional work. Accordingly, the study was guided by the following research question: How do family physicians and specialists working at different levels of healthcare delivery enact their professional identity when interacting in their situated clinical contexts? Methodology: This was a multiple interpretive case study in which, based on Giddens’ ideas, professional identity was viewed as a dynamic structural element of social life recursively related to professionals’ collaborative actions through sensemaking processes. The study involved 57 participants. Face-to-face individual semi-structured interviews and organizational documents were the main sources of data. Deductive-inductive thematic analysis was adopted as strategy for data analysis. Findings: Three prevailing physicians’ identity roles were elicited: medical expert, care coordinator, and team member. These professional identities, not mutually exclusive, were instantiated in three specific modalities of collaboration: quasi-inexistent, restrained, and extended. The entanglement of a particular identity role and a specific collaborative practice became meaningful through a complex net of organizational and institutional features, and patients’ nosological profiles.

Background The advanced access (AA) model has attracted much interest across Canada and worldwide as a means of ensuring timely access to health care. While nurses contribute significantly to improving access in primary healthcare, little is known about the practice changes involved in this innovative model. This study explores the experience of nurse practitioners and registered nurses with implementation of the AA model, and identifies factors that facilitate or impede change. Methods We used a longitudinal qualitative approach, nested within a multiple case study conducted in four university family medicine groups in Quebec that were early adopters of AA. We conducted semi-structured interviews with two types of purposively selected nurses: nurse practitioners (NPs) (n = 6) and registered nurses (RNs) (n = 5). Each nurse was interviewed twice over a 14-month period. One NP was replaced by another during the second interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on two principles of AA and the Niezen & Mathijssen Network Model (2014). Results Over time, RNs were not able to review the appointment system according to the AA philosophy. Half of NPs managed to operate according to AA. Regarding collaborative practice, RNs were still struggling to participate in team-based care. NPs were providing independent and collaborative patient care in both consultative and joint practice, and were assuming leadership in managing patients with acute and chronic diseases. Thematic analysis revealed influential factors at the institutional, organizational, professional, individual and patient level, which acted mainly as facilitators for NPs and barriers for RNs. These factors were: 1) policy and legislation; 2) organizational policy support (leadership and strategies to support nurses’ practice change); facility and employment arrangements (supply and availability of human resources); Inter-professional collegiality; 3) professional boundaries; 4) knowledge and capabilities; and 5) patient perceptions. Conclusions Our findings suggest that healthcare decision-makers and organizations need to redefine the boundaries of each category of nursing practice within AA, and create an optimal professional and organizational context that supports practice transformation. They highlight the need to structure teamwork efficiently, and integrate and maximize nurses’ capacities within the team throughout AA implementation in order to reduce waiting times.

Background: Timely access in primary health care is one of the key issues facing health systems. Among many interventions developed around the world, advanced access is the most highly recommended intervention designed specifically to improve timely access in primary care settings. Based on greater accessibility linked with patients' relational continuity and informational continuity with a primary care professional or team, this organizational model aims to ensure that patients obtain access to healthcare services at a time and date convenient for them when needed regardless of urgency of demand. Its implementation requires a major organizational change based on reorganizing the practices of all the administrative staff and health professionals. In recent years, advanced access has largely been implemented in primary care organizations. However, despite its wide dissemination, we observe considerable variation in the implementation of the five guiding principles of this model across organizations, as well as among professionals working within the same organization. The main objective of this study is to assess the variation in the implementation of the five guiding principles of advanced access in teaching primary healthcare clinics across Quebec and to better understand the influence of the contextual factors on this variation and on outcomes. Methods: This study will be based on an explanatory sequential design that includes 1) a quantitative survey conducted in 47 teaching primary healthcare clinics, and 2) a multiple case study using mixed data, contrasted cases (n = 4), representing various implementation profiles and geographical contexts. For each case, semistructured interviews and focus group will be conducted with professionals and patients. Impact analyses will also be conducted in the four selected clinics using data retrieved from the electronic medical records. Discussion: This study is important in social and political context marked by accessibility issues to primary care services. This research is highly relevant in a context of massive media coverage on timely access to primary healthcare and a large-scale implementation of advanced access across Quebec. This study will likely generate useful lessons and support evidence-based practices to refine and adapt the advanced access model to ensure successful implementation in various clinical contexts facing different challenges.

Background: The advanced access (AA) model is a highly recommended innovation to improve timely access to primary healthcare. Despite that many studies have shown positive impacts for healthcare professionals, and for patients, implementing this model in clinics with a teaching mission for family medicine residents poses specific challenges. Objective: To identify these challenges within these clinics, as well as potential strategies to address them. Design: The authors adopted a qualitative multiple case study design, collected data in 2016 using semi-structured interviews (N = 40) with healthcare professionals and clerical staff in four family medicine units in Quebec, and performed a thematic analysis. They validated results through a discussion workshop, involving many family physicians and residents practicing in different regions Results: Five challenges emerged from the data: 1) choosing, organizing residents’ patient; 2) managing and balancing residents’ appointment schedules; 3) balancing timely access with relational continuity; 4) understanding the AA model; 5) establishing collaborative practices with other health professionals. Several promising strategies were suggested to address these challenges, including clearly defining residents’ patient panels; adopting a team-based care approach; incorporating the model into academic curriculum and clinical training; proactive and ongoing education of health professionals, residents, and patients; involving residents in the change process and in adjustment strategies. Conclusions: To meet the challenges of implementing AA, decision-makers should consider exposing residents to AA during academic training and clinical internships, involving them in team work on arrival, engaging them as key actors in the implementation and in intra- and inter-professional collaborative models.

No abstract