Search

Abstract Background Being attached to a primary care (PC) provider is at the core of a strong primary health care system. Centralized waiting lists (CWL) for unattached patients have been implemented in eight provinces of Canada to support the attachment process. In Quebec, the Ministry of Health mandated the implementation of Primary Care Access Points (GAP) across the province to help unattached patients navigate the health system while awaiting attachment through the CWL. Several local health territories developed complementary innovations to the GAP to respond to local population needs. This paper aims to describe five organizational innovations implemented locally. Methods This multi-case qualitative study was conducted in four local health territories in the province of Quebec. Fifty-two semi-structured interviews with healthcare managers, nurses, physicians, other health professionals and administrative staff were conducted between April 2023 and April 2024. An interview guide was developed based on existing frameworks on the implementation of innovations and the evaluation of the GAP. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to develop relevant codes and themes. Logic models were built to describe the organizational innovations. Results Five organizational innovations are described. First, a multidisciplinary clinic aimed at responding to patients with mental health issues was implemented. Second, a nurse clinic was implemented to provide temporary care for patients with unstable chronic illnesses. The third innovation is a mobile proximity clinic where unattached GAP patients are first evaluated by a paramedic before receiving care from a nurse. Fourth, a pharmacist trajectory was implemented to increase engagement of community pharmacists to respond to GAP patients. The last innovation is a decentralized GAP offering in-person nursing care to unattached GAP patients. Conclusions Descriptions of these five innovations are key to inform other territories and provinces on ways to improve access for unattached patients while they are waiting to be attached. The introduction of the GAP and the organizational innovations, suggests a transition where access to PC services does not rely solely on attachment status.

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 semistructured 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.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTo 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)."ResultsThe 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.ConclusionAs a relevant first step and a complementary asset, arts-based knowledge translation holds immense potential in increasing awareness and mobilization around crucial health issues.

Abstract 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

Abstract 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.

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).

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).

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Primary Health Care (PHC) teams are an important component of the health system – particularly in terms of integrating care for vulnerable patients living with complex health and social needs. Over the last two decades, PHC teams have been implemented in different forms across Canadian provinces and territories. This article explores the health care policies that shaped the form and functions of PHC team-based care in Québec over the past 20 years (2002-2022). In Québec, the main model of multidisciplinary PHC teams – Family Medicine Groups or Groupe de médecine de famille (GMFs) – were created in 2002. In 2004, structural reforms led to the creation of local health networks (LHNs). LHNs promoted coordinated and collaborative activities between health and social services providers such as GMFs located in the same geographic regions. This was followed by another structural reform of the health system in 2015, leading to the creation of broader territorial health networks with the aim to heighten coordination and collaboration among provider organizations. Various policies have strengthened the PHC team-based model. For instance, the introduction of nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and social workers with extended scopes of practice shaped the configuration of GMFs while enhancing inter-professional collaborative practices. This article highlights important insights that could advance the understanding and creation of future PHC policy initiatives. Les équipes de premières lignes sont une composante importante du système de santé – en particulier en ce qui concerne l’intégration des services pour les patients les plus vulnérables qui ont des besoins sanitaires complexes. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, des équipes de premières lignes ont été mises en œuvre sous différentes formes dans les provinces et les territoires du Canada. Cet article explore les politiques de santé qui ont façonné la forme et le fonctionnement des équipes de premières lignes au Québec au cours des 20 dernières années (2002-2022). Au Québec, le principal modèle de première ligne – les Groupes de médecine de famille (GMF) – a été créé en 2002. Les réformes structurelles de 2004 ont conduit à la création des réseaux locaux de services (RLS). Les RLS ont favorisé des activités coordonnées de collaborations entre les établissements publics, les organisations privées, dont les GMF, et les organisations communautaires localisées sur les mêmes territoires géographiques. Cette initiative a été suivie d'une autre réforme structurelle du système de santé en 2015, qui a conduit à la création de réseaux territoriaux de santé et de services sociaux dans le but d'accroître la coordination et la collaboration entre les établissements. Diverses politiques ont renforcé le modèle d'équipe de première ligne. Par exemple, l'introduction d'infirmières praticiennes spécialisées en première ligne, de pharmaciens et de travailleurs sociaux ayant des champs de pratique élargis a façonné l'évolution du modèle des GMF tout en améliorant les pratiques de collaboration interprofessionnelles. Cet article met en évidence des idées importantes qui pourraient améliorer la compréhension et la création de futures politiques de santé de première ligne.

BackgroundThe 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. ObjectiveThe 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsThis 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. ConclusionsTo 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

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

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. Le taux d'inscription à un professionnel de la santé en première ligne au Canada est le plus bas parmi les pays de l'OCDE, ce qui soulève un important problème d'accessibilité et de continuité aux soins de première ligne. Pour répondre à cette préoccupation, sept provinces canadiennes ont mis en place des listes d'attente centralisées (LAC) pour les patients non-affiliés à un professionnel de la santé en première ligne. Les LAC ont été implantées à différents moments, et diffèrent beaucoup d'une province à l'autre. Le principal objectif des LAC est de diminuer le nombre de patients non-affiliés, mais dans certaines provinces elles peuvent également servir à surveiller les activités de la première ligne ou à prioriser les patients vulnérables. La pression sociale et d'importantes réformes des soins de première ligne ont influencé l'implantation des LAC. Le monitorage, en termes de données collectées et d'utilisation, diffère d'une province à l'autre. La comparaison interprovinciale permet l'identification des forces, faiblesses, opportunités et menaces à l'implantation et à chaque étape de la LAC : l'enregistrement, l'évaluation du patient et l'affiliation. L'importance de la surveillance afin de faciliter l'implantation, le besoin d'interventions spécifiques pour garantir l'accès pour les patients vulnérables et complexes et le manque de prestataire de soins de première ligne sont quelques exemples des problématiques des LAC communes à toutes les provinces.

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.