Search

Background: In Canada, the demand for mental health care exceeds the provision of services. This exploratory study aimed to assess the feasibility and impact of a new service delivery model for psychological consultations in primary care settings: the Single-Session Intervention (SSI), inspired by Advanced Access (AA) principles for appointment scheduling. The specific objectives were to examine whether the SSI increases accessibility to psychological consultations, to measure the effects of the intervention on different self-reported measures, and to assess users' consultation experiences. Methods: Participants were recruited in a University Family Medicine Group in Quebec (Canada), and the SSI was delivered by the on-site psychologist. No referral or formal diagnosis was needed to attend, and participants could promptly obtain an appointment. Participants rated the intensity of their problem, their level of psychological distress and their well-being, before and after the SSI. They also rated their satisfaction with their consultation experience. There was a follow-up 4 to 6 weeks later. Results: Of the N = 69 participants who received SSI, 91% were able to obtain an appointment in less than 7 working days. The number of patients who were able to benefit from a psychological consultation was about 7 times higher after the implementation of SSI compared to previous years, when a traditional model of service delivery was in place. After SSI, participants felt that the intensity of their problem and psychological distress were lower, and that their well-being was increased, as indicated by significant pre-post test clinical measures (p < 0.0001). The observed effects seemed to be sustained at follow-up. Moreover, 51% of participants said that one session was sufficient to help them with their problem. Participants rated SSI as a highly satisfying and helpful consultation experience (92,9% overall satisfaction). Conclusions: SSI, offered in a timely manner, could be an innovative and cost-effective intervention to provide mental health services on a large scale in primary healthcare. Further research is needed to replicate the results, but these preliminary data seem to indicate that psychological distress may be quickly addressed by SSI, thereby preventing further deteriorations in patients' mental health. Trial Registration: 2019–393, 26 March 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With 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. Methods: We 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. Results: During 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. Conclusions: Centralized 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In coming years, patient-reported data are expected to play a more prominent role in ensuring early and efficient detection of healthcare system dysfunctions, developing interventions and evaluating their effects on health outcomes, and monitoring quality of care from the patient's perspective. The concept of responsiveness relates to patient-reported experience measures that focus on the system's response to service users' legitimate expectations. We explored this concept in an effort to address unresolved issues related to measuring and interpreting patient experience. Our objectives in this study were to report on patients' perceptions of cancer services responsiveness and to identify patient characteristics and organizational attributes that are potential determinants of a positive patient-reported experience.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 1379 cancer patients in nine participating ambulatory cancer clinics in hospitals across the province of Quebec, Canada. They were invited to complete the Cancer Services Responsiveness tool, a 19-item questionnaire evaluating patients' perceptions of the responsiveness of cancer services. Sociodemographic data and self-reported clinical and organizational data were collected. Descriptive statistical analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed.Results: The patients surveyed generally perceived cancer services as highly responsive. The individual determinants of overall responsiveness found to be significant were self-assessed health status, age, and education level; organizational determinants were academic affiliation and geographic location of the clinic.Discussion: Responsiveness refers to distinctive indicators of healthcare quality focused on patient-provider interactions and presents a complementary picture to other patient-reported experience measures. The identified determinants of patients' positive experience with cancer services provide valuable information to guide care providers in targeting quality improvements.Conclusions: Finally, our results suggest these determinants should be further studied to eliminate confounders and produce usable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: North American patients are experiencing difficulties in securing affiliations with family physicians. Centralized waiting lists are increasingly being used in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to improve access. In 2011, the Canadian province of Quebec introduced new financial incentives for family physicians' enrolment of orphan patients through centralized waiting lists, the Guichet d'accès aux clientèles orphelines, with higher payments for vulnerable patients. This study analyzed whether any significant changes were observed in the numbers of patient enrolments with family physicians' after the introduction of the new financial incentives. Prior to then, financial incentives had been offered for enrolment of vulnerable patients only and there were no incentives for enrolling non-vulnerable patients. After 2011, financial incentives were also offered for enrolment of non-vulnerable patients, while those for enrolment of vulnerable patients were doubled. Methods: A longitudinal quantitative analysis spanning a five-year period (2008-2013) was performed using administrative databases covering all patients enrolled with family physicians through centralized waiting lists in the province of Quebec (n = 494,697 patients). Mixed regression models for repeated-measures were used. Results: The number of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists more than quadrupled after the changes in financial incentives. Most of this increase involved non-vulnerable patients. After the changes, 70% of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists were non-vulnerable patients, most of whom had been referred to the centralized waiting lists by the physician who enrolled them, without first being registered in those lists or having to wait because of their priority level. Conclusion: Centralized waiting lists linked to financial incentives increased the number of family physicians' patient enrolments. However, although vulnerable patients were supposed to be given precedence, physicians favoured enrolment of healthier patients over those with greater health needs and higher assessed priority. These results suggest that introducing financial incentives without appropriate [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]