Through the big top: An exploratory study of circus-based artistic knowledge translation in rural healthcare services, Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The conventional methods and strategies used for knowledge translation (KT) in academic research often fall short in effectively reaching stakeholders, such as citizens, practitioners, and decision makers, especially concerning complex healthcare issues. In response, a growing number of scholars have been embracing arts-based knowledge translation (ABKT) to target a more diverse audience with varying backgrounds and expectations. Despite the increased interest, utilization, and literature on arts-based knowledge translation over the past three decades, no studies have directly compared traditional knowledge translation with arts-based knowledge translation methods. Thus, our study aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of an arts-based knowledge translation intervention-a circus show-with two traditional knowledge translation interventions (webinar and research report) in terms of awareness, accessibility, engagement, advocacy/policy influence, and enjoyment. METHODS: To conduct this exploratory convergent mixed method study, we randomly assigned 162 participants to one of the three interventions. All three knowledge translation methods were used to translate the same research project: "Rural Emergency 360: Mobilization of decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and citizens to improve healthcare and services in Quebec's rural emergency departments (UR360)." RESULTS: The findings revealed that the circus show outperformed the webinar and research report in terms of accessibility and enjoyment, while being equally effective in raising awareness, increasing engagement, and influencing advocacy/policy. Each intervention strategy demonstrates its unique array of strengths and weaknesses, with the circus show catering to a diverse audience, while the webinar and research report target more informed participants. These outcomes underscore the innovative and inclusive attributes of Arts-Based Knowledge translation, showcasing its capacity to facilitate researchers' engagement with a wider array of stakeholders across diverse contexts. CONCLUSION: As a relevant first step and a complementary asset, arts-based knowledge translation holds immense potential in increasing awareness and mobilization around crucial health issues.

Telephone outreach by volunteer navigators: a theory-based evaluation of an intervention to improve access to appropriate primary care.

BACKGROUND: A pilot intervention in a participatory research programme in Québec, Canada, used telephone outreach by volunteer patient navigators to help unattached persons from deprived neighbourhoods attach successfully to a family doctor newly-assigned to them from a centralized waiting list. According to our theory-based program logic model we evaluated the extent to which the volunteer navigator outreach helped patients reach and engage with their newly-assigned primary care team, have a positive healthcare experience, develop an enduring doctor-patient relationship, and reduce forgone care and emergency room use. METHOD: For the mixed-method evaluation, indicators were developed for all domains in the logic model and measured in a telephone-administered patient survey at baseline and three months later to determine if there was a significant difference. Interviews with a subsample of 13 survey respondents explored the mechanisms and nuances of intended effects. RESULTS: Five active volunteers provided the service to 108 persons, of whom 60 agreed to participate in the evaluation. All surveyed participants attended the first visit, where 90% attached successfully to the new doctor. Indicators of abilities to access healthcare increased statistically significantly as did ability to explain health needs to professionals. The telephone outreach predisposed patients to have a positive first visit and have trust in their new care team, establishing a basis for an enduring relationship. Patient-reported access difficulties, forgone care and use of hospital emergency rooms decreased dramatically after patients attached to their new doctors. CONCLUSIONS: As per the logic model, telephone outreach by volunteer navigators significantly increased patients' abilities to seek, reach and engage with care and helped them attach successfully to newly-assigned family doctors. This light-touch intervention may have promise to achieve of the intended policy goals for the centralized waiting list to increase population access to appropriate primary care and reduce forgone care.

Strategies used throughout the scaling-up process of eConsult - Multiple case study of four Canadian Provinces.

BACKGROUND: eConsult is a model of asynchronous communication connecting primary care providers to specialists to discuss patient care. This study aims to analyze the scaling-up process and identify strategies used to support scaling-up efforts in four provinces in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study with four cases (ON, QC, MB, NL). Data collection methods included document review (n = 93), meeting observations (n = 65) and semi-structured interviews (n = 40). Each case was analyzed based on Milat's framework. RESULTS: The first scaling-up phase was marked by the rigorous evaluation of eConsult pilot projects and the publication of over 90 scientific papers. In the second phase, provinces implemented provincial multi-stakeholder committees, institutionalized the evaluation, and produced documents detailing the scaling-up plan. During the third phase, efforts were made to lead proofs of concept, obtain the endorsement of national and provincial organizations, and mobilize alternate sources of funding. The last phase was mainly observed in Ontario, where the creation of a provincial governance structure and strategies were put in place to monitor the service and manage changes. CONCLUSIONS: Various strategies need to be used throughout the scaling-up process. The process remains challenging and lengthy because health systems lack clear processes to support innovation scaling-up.

Evaluation of the implementation of single points of access for unattached patients in primary care and their effects: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Attachment to a primary care provider is an important component of primary care as it facilitates access. In Québec, Canada, attachment to a family physician is a concern. To address unattached patients' barriers to accessing primary care, the Ministry of Health and Social Services mandated Québec's 18 administrative regions to implement single points of access for unattached patients (Guichets d'accès première ligne (GAPs)) that aim to better orient patients towards the most appropriate services to meet their needs. The objectives of this study are to (1) analyse the implementation of GAPs, (2) measure the effects of GAPs on performance indicators and (3) assess unattached patients' experiences of navigation, access and service utilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A longitudinal mixed-methods case study design will be conducted. Objective 1. Implementation will be analysed through semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, observations of key meetings and document analysis. Objective 2. GAP effects on indicators will be measured using performance dashboards produced using clinical and administrative data. Objective 3. Unattached patients' experiences will be assessed using a self-administered electronic questionnaire. Findings for each case will be interpreted and presented using a joint display, a visual tool for integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Intercase analyses will be conducted highlighting the similarities and differences across cases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (# 475314) and the Fonds de Soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux (# 5-2-01) and was approved by the CISSS de la Montérégie-Centre Ethics Committee (MP-04-2023-716).

Scaling-Up eConsult: Promising Strategies to Address Enabling Factors in Four Jurisdictions in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective healthcare innovations are often not scaled up beyond their initial local context. Lack of practical knowledge on how to move from local innovations to large-system improvement hinders innovation and learning capacity in health systems. Studying scale-up processes can lead to a better understanding of how to facilitate the scale-up of interventions. eConsult is a digital health innovation that aims to connect primary care professionals with specialists through an asynchronous electronic consultation. The recent implementation of eConsult in the public health systems of four Canadian jurisdictions provides a unique opportunity to identify different enabling strategies and related factors that promote the scaling up of eConsult across jurisdictions. METHODS: We conducted a narrative case study in four Canadian provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Newfoundland & Labrador, over a 3-year period (2018-2021). We observed provincial eConsult committee meetings (n=65) and national eConsult forums (n=3), and we reviewed internal documents (n=93). We conducted semi-structured interviews with key actors in each jurisdiction (eg, researchers, primary care professionals, specialists, policy-makers, and patient partners) (n=40). We conducted thematic analysis guided by the literature on factors and strategies used to scale up innovations. RESULTS: We identified a total of 31 strategies related to six key enabling factors to scaling up eConsult, including: (1) multi-actor engagement; (2) relative advantage; (3) knowledge transfer; (4) strong evidence base; (5) physician leadership; and (6) resource acquisition (eg, human, material, and financial resources). More commonly used strategies, such as leveraging research infrastructure and bringing together various actors, were used to address multiple enabling factors. CONCLUSION: Actors used various strategies to scale up eConsult within their respective contexts, and these helped address six key factors that seemed to be essential to the scale-up of eConsult.

Improved access to and continuity of primary care after attachment to a family physician: longitudinal cohort study on centralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Having a regular family physician is associated with many benefits. Formal attachment - an administrative patient-family physician agreement - is a popular feature in primary care, intended to improve access to and continuity of care with a family physician. However, little evidence exists about its effectiveness. In Quebec, Canada, where over 20% of the population is unattached, centralized waiting lists help attach patients. This provides a unique opportunity to observe the influence of attachment in previously unattached patients. The aim was to evaluate changes in access to and continuity of primary care associated with attachment to a family physician through Quebec's centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational longitudinal population cohort study, using medical services billing data from public health insurance in the province of Québec, Canada. We included patients attached through centralized waiting lists for unattached patients between 2012 and 2014 (n = 410,140). Our study was informed by Aday and Andersen's framework for the study of access to health services. We compared outcomes during four 12-month periods: two periods before and two periods after attachment, with T0-2 years as the reference period. Outcome measures were number of primary care visits and Bice-Boxerman Concentration of Care Index at the physician and practice level (for patients with ≥2 visits in a given period). We included age, sex, region remoteness, medical vulnerability, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as covariates in regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The number of primary care visits increased by 103% in the first post attachment year and 29% in the second year (p < 0.001). The odds of having all primary care visits concentrated with a single physician increased by 53% in the first year and 22% (p < 0.001) in the second year after attachment. At the practice level, the odds of perfect concentration of care increased by 19% (p < 0.001) and 15% (p < 0.001) respectively, in first and second year after attachment. CONCLUSION: Our results show an increase in patients' number of primary care visits and concentration of care at the family physician and practice level after attachment to a family physician. This suggests that attachment may help improve access to and continuity of primary care.

COVID-19 - an opportunity to improve access to primary care through organizational innovations? A qualitative multiple case study in Quebec and Nova Scotia (Canada).

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.

Evaluation of a Dragons' Den-inspired symposium to spread primary health care innovations in Quebec, Canada: a mixed-methods study using quality-improvement e-surveys.

BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2017, the Quebec College of Family Physicians held an innovation symposium inspired by the television show Dragons' Den, at which innovators pitched their innovations to Dragon-Facilitators (i.e., decision-makers) and academic family medicine clinical leads. We evaluated the effects of the symposium on the spread of primary health care innovations. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the symposium. We collected data related to Rogers' innovation-decision process using 3 quality-improvement e-surveys (distributed between May 2017 and February 2018). The first survey evaluated spread outputs (innovation discovery, intention to spread, improvements) and was sent to all participants immediately after the symposium. The second evaluated short-term spread outcomes (follow-ups, successes, barriers) and was sent to innovators 3 months after the symposium. The third evaluated medium-term spread outcomes (spread, perceived impact) and was sent to innovators and clinical leads 9 months after the symposium. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, content analysis and joint display. RESULTS: Fifty-one innovators, 66 clinical leads (representing 42 clinics) and 37 Dragon-Facilitators attended the symposium. The response rates for the surveys were 61% (82/134) for the immediate post-symposium survey of all participants; 68% (21/31) for the 3-month survey of innovators; and 49% (48/97) for the 9-month survey of clinical leads and innovators. Immediately after the symposium, clinical leads and Dragon-Facilitators reported a high likelihood of adopting an innovation (mean ± standard deviation 8.02 ± 1.63 on a 10-point Likert scale) and 87% (53/61) agreed that they had discovered innovations at the symposium. Nearly all innovators (95%, 20/21) intended to follow up with potential adopters. After 3 months, 62% (13/21) of innovators had followed up in some way. After 9 months, 72% of clinical leads (18/25) had implemented at least 1 innovation, and 52% of innovators (12/23) had spread or were in the process of spreading innovations. INTERPRETATION: The innovation symposium supported participants in achieving the early stages of spreading primary health care innovations. Replicating such symposia may help spread other health care innovations.

CUP study: protocol for a comparative analysis of centralised waitlist effectiveness, policies and innovations for connecting unattached patients to primary care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Access to a primary care provider is a key component of high-functioning healthcare systems. In Canada, 15% of patients do not have a regular primary care provider and are classified as 'unattached'. In an effort to link unattached patients with a provider, seven Canadian provinces implemented centralised waitlists (CWLs). The effectiveness of CWLs in attaching patients to regular primary care providers is unknown. Factors influencing CWLs effectiveness, particularly across jurisdictional contexts, have yet to be confirmed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods case study will be conducted across three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Québec and Nova Scotia. Quantitatively, CWL data will be linked to administrative and provider billing data to assess the rates of patient attachment over time and delay of attachment, stratified by demographics and compared with select indicators of health service utilisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with policymakers, patients, and primary care providers to elicit narratives regarding the administration, use, and access of CWLs. An analysis of policy documents will be used to identify contextual factors affecting CWL effectiveness. Stakeholder dialogues will be facilitated to uncover causal pathways and identify strategies for improving patient attachment to primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct this study has been granted in Ontario (Queens University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, file number 6028052; Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, project 116591; University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, protocol number 40335), Québec (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie, project number 2020-3446) and Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, file number 1024979).

Telehealth in Primary Healthcare: A Portrait of its Rapid Implementation during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

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 provider: between 2% and 16% reported using it "sometimes." The main perceived advantages of telehealth were minimizing the patient's need to travel, improved efficiency and reduction in infection transmission risk. The main disadvantages were the lack of physical exam and difficulties connecting with some patients. CONCLUSION: The variation in telehealth adoption by type of PHC provider may inform strategies to maximize the potential of telehealth and help create guidelines for its use in more normal times.

Problems in Coordinating and Accessing Primary Care for Attached and Unattached Patients Exacerbated During the COVID-19 Pandemic Year (the PUPPY Study): Protocol for a Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care in Canada, with many walk-in clinics and family practices initially closing or being perceived as inaccessible; pharmacies remaining open with restrictions on patient interactions; rapid uptake of virtual care; and reduced referrals for lab tests, diagnostics, and specialist care. OBJECTIVE: The PUPPY Study (Problems in Coordinating and Accessing Primary Care for Attached and Unattached Patients Exacerbated During the COVID-19 Pandemic Year) seeks to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the quadruple aims of primary care, with particular focus on the effects on patients without attachment to a regular provider and those with chronic health conditions. METHODS: The PUPPY study builds on an existing research program exploring patients' access and attachment to a primary care practice, pivoted to adapt to the emerging COVID-19 context. We intend to undertake a longitudinal mixed methods study to understand critical gaps in primary care access and coordination, as well as compare prepandemic and postpandemic data across 3 Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia). Multiple data sources will be used such as a policy review; qualitative interviews with primary care policymakers, providers (ie, family physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists), and patients (N=120); and medication prescriptions and health care billing data. RESULTS: This study has received funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Funding Opportunity Grant. Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted in Ontario (Queens Health Sciences & Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, file 6028052; Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, project 116591; University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, protocol 40335) in November 2020, Québec (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie, project 2020-3446) in December 2020, and Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, file 1024979) in August 2020. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care systems, with particular focus on the issues of patient's attachment and access to primary care. Through a multistakeholder, cross-jurisdictional approach, the findings of the PUPPY study will inform the strengthening of primary care during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as have implications for future policy and practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29984.

Designing centralized waiting lists for attachment to a primary care provider: Considerations from a logic analysis.

Access to a regular primary care provider is essential to quality care. In Canada, where 15 % of patients are unattached (i.e., without a regular provider), centralized waiting lists (CWLs) help attach patients to a primary care provider (family physician or nurse practitioner). Previous studies reveal mechanisms needed for CWLs to work, but focus mostly on CWLs for specialized health care. We aim to better understand how to design CWLs for unattached patients in primary care. In this study, a logic analysis compares empirical evidence from a qualitative case study of CWLs for unattached patients in seven Canadian provinces to programme theory derived from a realist review on CWLs. Data is analyzed using context-intervention-mechanism-outcome configurations. Results identify mechanisms involved in three components of CWL design: patient registration, patient prioritization, and patient assignment to a provider for attachment. CWL programme theory is revised to integrate mechanisms specific to primary care, where patients, rather than referring providers, are responsible for registering on the CWL, where prioritization must consider a broad range of conditions and characteristics, and where long-term acceptability of attachment is important. The study provides new insight into mechanisms that enable CWLs for unattached patients to work.

Typology of organizational innovation components: building blocks to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND: Achieving equity of access to primary healthcare requires organizations to implement innovations tailored to the specific needs and abilities of vulnerable populations. However, designing pro-vulnerable innovations is challenging without knowledge of the range of possible innovations tailored to vulnerable populations' needs. To better support decision-makers, we aimed to develop a typology of pro-vulnerable organizational innovation components - akin to "building blocks" that could be combined in different ways into new complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to improve access to primary healthcare. METHODS: To develop the typology, we used data from a previously conducted a) scoping review (2000-2014, searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, citation tracking, n = 90 articles selected), and b) environmental scan (2014, online survey via social networks, n = 240 innovations). We conducted a typological analysis of the data. Our initial typology yielded 48 components, classified according to accessibility dimensions from the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework. The initial typology was then field-tested for relevance and usability by health system stakeholders and refined from 2014 to 2018 (e.g., combined similar components, excluded non-organizational components). RESULTS: The selected articles (n = 90 studies) and survey responses (n = 240 innovations) were mostly from the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. Innovations targeted populations with various vulnerabilities (e.g., low income, chronic illness, Indigenous, homeless, migrants, refugees, ethnic minorities, uninsured, marginalized groups, mental illness, etc.). Our final typology had 18 components of organizational innovations, which principally addressed Availability & Accommodation (7/18), Approachability (6/18), and Acceptability (3/18). Components included navigation & information, community health worker, one-stop-shop, case management, group visits, defraying costs, primary healthcare brokerage, etc. CONCLUSIONS: This typology offers a comprehensive menu of potential components that can help inform the design of pro-vulnerable organizational innovations. Component classification according to the accessibility dimensions of the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework is useful to help target access needs. Components can be combined into complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to meet the access needs of vulnerable populations in specific contexts.

How the design and implementation of centralized waiting lists influence their use and effect on access to healthcare - A realist review.

CONTEXT: Many health systems have centralized waiting lists (CWLs), but there is limited evidence on CWL effectiveness and how to design and implement them. AIM: To understand how CWLs' design and implementation influence their use and effect on access to healthcare. METHODS: We conducted a realist review (n = 21 articles), extracting context-intervention-mechanism-outcome configurations to identify demi-regularities (i.e., recurring patterns of how CWLs work). RESULTS: In implementing non-mandatory CWLs, acceptability to providers influences their uptake of the CWL. CWL eligibility criteria that are unclear or conflict with providers' role or judgement may result in inequities in patient registration. In CWLs that prioritize patients, providers must perceive the criteria as clear and appropriate to assess patients' level of need; otherwise, prioritization may be inconsistent. During patients' assignment to service providers, providers may select less-complex patients to obtain CWLs rewards or avoid penalties; or may select patients for other policies with stronger incentives, disregarding the established patient order and leading to inequities and limited effectiveness. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need to consider provider behaviours in the four sequential CWL design components: CWL implementation, patient registration, patient prioritization and patient assignment to providers. Otherwise, CWLs may result in limited effects on access or lead to inequities in access to services.

Improving delivery of care in rural emergency departments: a qualitative pilot study mobilizing health professionals, decision-makers and citizens in Baie-Saint-Paul and the Magdalen Islands, Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) in rural and remote areas face challenges in delivering accessible, high quality and efficient services. The objective of this pilot study was to test the feasibility and relevance of the selected approach and to explore challenges and solutions to improve delivery of care in selected EDs. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory multiple case study in two rural EDs in Québec, Canada. A survey filled out by the head nurse for each ED provided a descriptive statistical portrait. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ED health professionals, decision-makers and citizens (n = 68) and analyzed inductively and thematically. RESULTS: The two EDs differed with regards to number of annual visits, inter-facility transfers and wait time. Stakeholders stressed the influence of context on ED challenges and solutions, related to: 1) governance and management (e.g. lack of representation, poor efficiency, ill-adapted standards); 2) health services organization (e.g. limited access to primary healthcare and long-term care, challenges with transfers); 3) resources (e.g. lack of infrastructure, limited access to specialists, difficult staff recruitment/retention); 4) and professional practice (e.g. isolation, large scope, maintaining competencies with low case volumes, need for continuing education, teamwork and protocols). There was a general agreement between stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the feasibility and relevance of mobilizing stakeholders to identify context-specific challenges and solutions. It confirms the importance of undertaking a larger study to improve the delivery of care in rural EDs.

Scaling up eConsult for access to specialists in primary healthcare across four Canadian provinces: study protocol of a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Canada has been referred to as the land of 'perpetual pilot projects'. Effective innovations often remain small in scale, with limited impact on health systems. Several innovations have been developed in Canada to tackle important challenges such as poor access to services and excessive wait times - one of the most promising innovations that has been piloted is eConsult, which is a model of asynchronous communication that allows primary care providers to electronically consult with specialists regarding their patients' medical issues. eConsult pilot projects have been shown to reduce wait times for specialist care, prevent unnecessary referrals and reduce health system costs. eConsult has been spread throughout Ontario as well as to certain regions in Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our aim is to understand and support the scale-up process of eConsult in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our specific objectives are to (1) describe the main components of eConsult relevant to the scale-up process in each province; (2) understand the eConsult scale-up process in each province and compare across provinces; (3) identify policy issues and strategies to scaling up eConsult in each province; and (4) foster cross-level and cross-jurisdictional learning on scaling up eConsult. METHODS: We will conduct a qualitative multiple case study to investigate the scaling up of eConsult in four Canadian provinces using a grey literature review, key stakeholder interviews (10 interviews/province), non-participant observations, focus groups and deliberative dialogues. We will identify the main components of eConsult to be scaled up using logic models (obj. 1). Scaling up processes will be analysed using strategies adapted from process research (obj. 2). Policy issues and strategies to scale-up eConsult will be analysed thematically (obj. 3). Finally, a symposium will foster pan-Canadian learning on the process of scaling up eConsult (obj. 4). DISCUSSION: This study will likely increase learning and support evidence-based policy-making across participating provinces and may improve the capacity for a pan-Canadian scale-up of eConsult, including in provinces where eConsult has not yet been implemented. This work is essential to inform how similar innovations can reshape our health systems in the evolving information age.

Explaining variation of implementation outcomes of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients.

PURPOSE: Centralized waiting lists (CWLs) for patient attachment to a primary care provider have been implemented across Canada, including Quebec. Little is known about the implementation of CWLs and the factors that influence implementation outcomes of such primary care innovations. The purpose of this paper is to explain variations in the outcomes of implementation by analyzing the characteristics of CWLs and contextual factors that influence their implementation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A multiple qualitative case study was conducted. Four contrasting CWLs were purposefully selected: two relatively high-performing and two relatively low-performing cases with regard to process indicators. Data collected between 2015 and 2016 drew on three sources: 26 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, 22 documents and field notes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to identify, through a cross-case comparison of ratings, constructs that distinguish high from low-performing cases. FINDINGS: Five constructs distinguished high from low-performing cases: three related to the inner setting: network and communications; leadership engagement; available resources; one from innovation characteristics: adaptability with regard to registration, evaluation of priority and attachment to a family physician; and, one associated with process domain: engaging. Other constructs exerted influence on implementation (e.g. outer setting, individual characteristics), but did not distinguish high and low-performing cases. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first in-depth analysis of CWL implementation. Results suggest important factors that might be useful in efforts to continuously improve implementation performance of CWLs and similar innovations.

Area deprivation and attachment to a general practitioner through centralized waiting lists: a cross-sectional study in Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Access 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Patients 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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.

Family Physicians Attaching New Patients From Centralized Waiting Lists: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: In response to more than 15% of Canadians not having a family physician, 7 provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the association between family physicians' characteristics and their participation in centralized waiting lists. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study using administrative data in 5 local health networks in Quebec, between 2013 and 2015. All physicians who had attached at least 1 patient were included (n = 580). Multivariate linear regressions for the number of patients and proportion of vulnerable patients attached per physician were performed. RESULTS: Physicians with more than 20 years of experience represented more than half of those who had participated in the centralized waiting lists and physicians in traditional primary care models represented more than 40%. Physicians' number of years of practice, primary care model, local health network, and the number of physicians participating in the centralized waiting lists per clinic influenced physicians' participation. Physicians with 0 to 4 years of experience and those practicing in network clinics were found to attach more patients. Practicing in a Centre Locaux de Services Communautaires (local community service center) was associated with attaching 19% more vulnerable patients compared with practicing in a Family Medicine Unit (teaching unit). CONCLUSION: Centralized waiting lists seem to be used by early career physicians to build up their patient panels. However, because of the large number of them participating in the centralized waiting lists, physicians with more experience and those practicing in traditional models of primary care might be of interest for future measures to decrease the number of patients waiting for attachment in centralized waiting lists.

Centralized Waiting Lists for Unattached Patients in Primary Care: Learning from an Intervention Implemented in Seven Canadian Provinces.

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.