BackgroundWith 4.6 million patients who do not have a regular family physician, Canada performs poorly compared to other OECD countries in terms of attachment to a family physician. To address this issue, several provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists to coordinate supply and demand for attachment to a family physician. Although significant resources are invested in these centralized waiting lists, no studies have measured their performance. In this article, we present a performance assessment of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in Quebec, Canada.MethodsWe based our approach on the Balanced Scorecard method. A committee of decision-makers, managers, healthcare professionals, and researchers selected five indicators for the performance assessment of centralized waiting lists, including both process and outcome indicators. We analyzed and compared clinical-administrative data from 86 centralized waiting lists (GACOs) located in 14 regions in Quebec, from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014.ResultsDuring the study period, although over 150,000 patients were attached to a family physician, new requests resulted in a 30% median increase in patients on waiting lists. An inverse correlation of average strength was found between the rates of patients attached to a family physician and the proportion of vulnerable patients attached to a family physician meaning that as more patients became attached to an FP through GACOs, the proportion of vulnerable patients became smaller (r = −0.31, p < 0.005). The results showed very large performance variations both among GACOs of different regions and among those of a same region for all performance indicators.ConclusionsCentralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec seem to be achieving their twofold objective of attaching patients to a family physician and giving priority to vulnerable patients. However, the demand for attachment seems to exceed the supply and there appears to be a tension between giving priority to vulnerable patients and attaching of a large number of patients. Results also showed heterogeneity in the performance of centralized waiting lists across Quebec. Finally, our findings suggest it is critical that similar mechanisms should use available data to identify the best strategies for reducing variations and improving performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0573-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: This study documents the adoption of telehealth by various types of primary healthcare (PHC) providers working in teaching PHC clinics in Quebec during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also identifies the perceived advantages and disadvantages of telehealth. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted between May and August 2020. The e-survey was completed by 48/50 teaching primary care clinics representing 603/1,357 (44%) PHC providers. Results: Telephone use increased the most, becoming the principal virtual modality of consultation, during the pandemic. Video consultations increased, with variations by type of PHC

BackgroundHaving a regular primary care provider (i.e., family physician or nurse practitioner) is widely considered to be a prerequisite for obtaining healthcare that is timely, accessible, continuous, comprehensive, and well-coordinated with other parts of the healthcare system. Yet, 4.6 million Canadians, approximately 15% of Canada’s population, are unattached; that is, they do not have a regular primary care provider. To address the critical need for attachment, especially for more vulnerable patients, six Canadian provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. These waiting lists centralize unattached patients’ requests for a primary care provider in a given territory and match patients with providers. From the little information we have on each province’s centralized waiting list, we know the way they work varies significantly from province to province. The main objective of this study is to compare the different models of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in six provinces of Canada to each other and to available scientific knowledge to make recommendations on ways to improve their design in an effort to increase attachment of patients to a primary care provider.MethodsA logic analysis approach developed in three steps will be used. Step 1: build logic models that describe each province’s centralized waiting list through interviews with key stakeholders in each province; step 2: develop a conceptual framework, separate from the provincially informed logic models, that identifies key characteristics of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients and factors influencing their implementation through a literature review and interviews with experts; step 3: compare the logic models to the conceptual framework to make recommendations to improve centralized waiting lists in different provinces during a pan Canadian face-to-face exchange with decision-makers, clinicians and researchers.DiscussionThis study is based on an inter-provincial learning exchange approach where we propose to compare centralized waiting lists and analyze variations in strategies used to increase attachment to a regular primary care provider. Fostering inter-provincial healthcare systems connectivity to improve centralized waiting lists’ practices across Canada can lever attachment to a regular provider for timely access to continuous, comprehensive and coordinated healthcare for all Canadians and particular for those who are vulnerable.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2007-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction:Centralized waiting lists (CWLs) are one solution to reduce the problematic number of patients without a regular primary care provider. This article describes different models of CWLs for unattached patients implemented in seven Canadian provinces and identifies common issues in the implementation of these CWLs.Methods:Logic models of each province's intervention were built after a grey literature review, 42 semi-structured interviews and a validation process with key stakeholders were performed.Results:Our analysis across provinces showed variability and common features in the design of CWLs such as same main objective to attach patients to a primary care provider; implementation as a province-wide program with the exception of British Columbia; management at a regional level in most provinces; voluntary participation for providers except in two provinces where it was mandatory for providers to attach CWL patients; fairly similar registration process across the provinces; some forms of prioritization of patients either using simple criteria or assessing for vulnerability was performed in most provinces except New Brunswick.Conclusion:Despite their differences in design, CWLs implemented in seven Canadian provinces face common issues and challenges regarding provider capacity to address the demand for attachment, barriers to the attachment of more vulnerable and complex patients as well as non-standardized approaches to evaluating their effectiveness. Sharing experiences across provinces as CWLs were being implemented would have fostered learning and could have helped avoid facing similar challenges.

BackgroundAccess to primary healthcare is an important social determinant of health and having a regular general practitioner (GP) has been shown to improve access. In Canada, socio-economically disadvantaged patients are more likely to be unattached (i.e. not have a regular GP). In the province of Quebec, where over 30% of the population is unattached, centralized waiting lists were implemented to help patients find a GP. Our objectives were to examine the association between social and material deprivation and 1) likelihood of attachment, and 2) wait time for attachment to a GP through centralized waiting lists.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in five local health networks in Quebec, Canada, using clinical administrative data of patients attached to a GP between June 2013 and May 2015 (n = 24, 958 patients) and patients remaining on the waiting list as of May 2015 (n = 49, 901), using clinical administrative data. Social and material area deprivation indexes were used as proxies for patients’ socio-economic status. Multiple regressions were carried out to assess the association between deprivation indexes and 1) likelihood of attachment to a GP and 2) wait time for attachment. Analyses controlled for sex, age, local health network and variables related to health needs.ResultsPatients from materially medium, disadvantaged and very disadvantaged areas were underrepresented on the centralized waiting lists, while patients from socially disadvantaged and very disadvantaged areas were overrepresented. Patients from very materially advantaged and advantaged areas were less likely to be attached to a GP than patients from very disadvantaged areas. With the exception of patients from socially disadvantaged areas, all other categories of social deprivation were more likely to be attached to a GP compared to patients from very disadvantaged areas. We found a pro-rich gradient in wait time for attachment to a GP, with patients from more materially advantaged areas waiting less than those from disadvantaged areas.ConclusionOur findings suggest that there are socio-economic inequities in attachment to a GP through centralized waiting lists. Policy makers should take these findings into consideration to adjust centralized waiting list processes to avoid further exacerbation of health inequities.

No abstract

Canada has the lowest rate of attachment to primary care providers among OECD countries, which makes access and continuity of care problematic. To address this important issue, seven Canadian provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists (CWLs) for unattached patients in primary care. Introduced at different times, no two provinces' CWLs are exactly alike. The main goal of these CWLs is to reduce the number of unattached patients. In some provinces, CWLs also serve to monitor primary care activity or prioritize vulnerable patients. Societal pressure and broader primary care reform influenced the implementation of the CWLs in each province. Monitoring, in terms of data collected and purpose, differs between provinces. The interprovincial comparison enables identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats during implementation and at each step of the CWLs: registration, patient assessment and attachment. Common issues with CWLs across provinces include the importance of monitoring to facilitate implementation, the need for specific measures to ensure access for vulnerable and complex patients, and the shortage of primary care providers.Attaching Patients In Primary Care Through Centralized Waiting Lists Breton et al. Key Messages• CWLs have been implemented in seven Canadian provinces to attach patients to a primary care provider, with large variations between provinces in the design and management of CWLs.

Background COVID-19 catalyzed a rapid and substantial reorganization of primary care, accelerating the spread of existing strategies and fostering a proliferation of innovations. Access to primary care is an essential component of a healthcare system, particularly during a pandemic. We describe organizational innovations aiming to improve access to primary care and related contextual changes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in two Canadian provinces, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Methods We conducted a multiple case study based on 63 semi-structured interviews (n = 33 in Quebec, n = 30 in Nova Scotia) conducted between October 2020 and May 2021 and 71 documents from both jurisdictions. We recruited a diverse range of provincial and regional stakeholders (e.g., policy-makers, decision-makers, family physicians, nurses) involved in reorganizing primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic using purposeful sampling (e.g., based on role, region). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted in NVivo12. Emerging results were discussed by team members to identify salient themes and organized into logic models. Results We identified and analyzed six organizational innovations. Four of these – centralized public online booking systems, centralized access centers for unattached patients, interim primary care clinics for unattached patients, and a community connector to health and social services for older adults – pre-dated COVID-19 but were accelerated by the pandemic context. The remaining two innovations were created to specifically address pandemic-related needs: COVID-19 hotlines and COVID-dedicated primary healthcare clinics. Innovation spread and proliferation was influenced by several factors, such as a strengthened sense of community amongst providers, decreased patient demand at the beginning of the first wave, renewed policy and provider interest in population-wide access (versus attachment of patients only), suspended performance targets (e.g., continuity ≥80%) in Quebec, modality of care delivery, modified fee codes, and greater regional flexibility to implement tailored innovations. Conclusion COVID-19 accelerated the uptake and creation of organizational innovations to potentially improve access to primary healthcare, removing, at least temporarily, certain longstanding barriers. Many stakeholders believed this reorganization would have positive impacts on access to primary care after the pandemic. Further studies should analyze the effectiveness and sustainability of innovations adapted, developed, and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.