Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures

Intervention for reducing the overuse of upper endoscopy in patients <45 years: a protocol for a stepwise intervention programme

Utilisation rates for healthcare services vary widely both within and between nations. Moreover, healthcare providers with insurance-based reimbursement systems observe an effect of social determinants of health on healthcare utilisation rates and outcomes. Even in countries with publicly funded universal healthcare such as Norway, utilisation rates for medical and surgical interventions vary between and within health regions and hospitals.Most interventions targeting overuse and high utilisation rates are based on the assumption that knowledge of areas of unwarranted variation in healthcare automatically will lead to a reduction in unwarranted variation. Recommendations regarding how to reduce this variation are often not very detailed or prominent.This paper describes a protocol for reducing the overuse of upper endoscopy in a Norwegian health region. The protocol uses a combination of digital tools and psychological methods targeting behavioural change in order to alter healthcare workers' approach to patient care.The aim of the planned intervention is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted set of interventions to reduce the overuse of upper endoscopy in patients under 45 years. A secondary aim is to evaluate the specific effect of the various parts of the intervention.

Consensus among clinicians on referrals' priority and use of digital decision-making support systems

The growing demand for referrals is a main policy concern in health systems. One approach involves the development of demand management tools in the form of clinical prioritization to regulate patient referrals from primary care to specialist care. For clinical prioritization to be effective, it is critical that general practitioners (GPs) assess patient priority in the same way as specialists. The progressive development of IT tools in clinical practice, in the form of electronic referrals support systems (e-RSS), can facilitate clinical prioritization. In this study, we tested if higher use of e-RSS or higher use of high-priority categories was associated with the degree of agreement and therefore consensus on clinical priority between GPs and specialists. We found that higher use by GPs of the e-RSS tool was positively associated with greater degree of priority agreement with specialists, while higher use of the high-priority categories was associated with lower degree of priority agreement with specialists. Furthermore, female GPs, GPs in association with others, and GPs using a specific electronic medical record showed higher agreement with specialists. Our study therefore supports the use of electronic referrals systems to improve clinical prioritization and manage the demand of specialist visits and diagnostic tests. It also shows that there is scope for reducing excessive use by GPs of high-priority categories.

AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension of programmed activity in most of the Endoscopy Units in our environment. The aim of this document is to facilitate the resumption of elective endoscopic activity in an efficient and safe manner.

Material and methods

A series of questions considered to be of clinical and logistical relevance were formulated. In order to elaborate the answers, a structured bibliographic search was carried out in the main databases and the recommendations of the main Public Health and Digestive Endoscopy institutions were reviewed. The final recommendations were agreed upon through telematic means.

Results

A total of 33 recommendations were made. The main aspects discussed are: 1) Reassessment and prioritization of the indication, 2) Restructuring of spaces, schedules and health personnel, 3) Screening for infection, 4) Hygiene measures and personal protective equipment.

Conclusion

The AEG and SEED recommend restarting endoscopic activity in a phased, safe manner, adapted to local resources and the epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introducción

La pandemia por COVID-19 ha conllevado la suspensión de la actividad programada en la mayoría de las Unidades de Endoscopia de nuestro medio. El objetivo del presente documento es facilitar el reinicio de la actividad endoscópica electiva de forma eficiente y segura.

Material y métodos

Se formuló una serie de preguntas consideradas de relevancia clínica y logística. Para la elaboración de las respuestas, se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica estructurada en las principales bases de datos y se revisaron las recomendaciones de las principales instituciones de Salud Pública y de endoscopia digestiva. Las recomendaciones finales se consensuaron por vía telemática.

Resultados

Se han elaborado un total de 33 recomendaciones. Los principales aspectos que se discuten son: 1) la reevaluación y priorización de la indicación; 2) la restructuración de espacios, agendas y del personal sanitario; 3) el cribado de la infección, y 4) las medidas de higiene y los equipos de protección individual.

Conclusión

La AEG y la SEED recomiendan reiniciar la actividad endoscópica de forma escalonada, segura, adaptada a los recursos locales y a la situación epidemiológica de la infección por SARS-CoV-2.

Priority and appropriateness of upper endoscopy out-patient referrals: Two-period comparison in an open-access unit

BACKGROUND

In the early 2000s we introduced a prioritization model for referrals based on involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists.

AIMS

Assess the application of that model of prioritisation, comparing gastroscopies performed 8 years apart, with respect to priority level, appropriateness and relevant endoscopic findings (REFs).

METHODS

The studies included 247 and 354 out-patients, who had undergone gastroscopy in 2006 and in 2014, respectively. To reduce interspecialists variability, both studies were performed by the same specialist as investigator.

RESULTS

In both years, most patients were assigned low-priority referral by PCPs (78.6% and 75.1% respectively). The agreement PCPs versus specialist on referral priority was moderate in 2006 (0.60, Landis-Koch scale 0.41-0.60) and high in 2014 (0.81, Landis-Koch scale 0.81-1.00). In both years we observed a similar rate of inappropriateness: 27.5% and 27.1%, respectively. Due to multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) for REF increased when: (i) very high-priority referral versus nopriority referral was indicated (8.813 OR, p = 0.0012), (ii) referral followed the guidelines (9.29 OR, p<0.0001), and (iii) agreement of priority occurred (1.911 OR, p = 0.0308).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted that the issues of low-priority referrals should be addressed in order to discontinue gastroscopy overusing and reduce related operational costs.

A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care

BACKGROUND

Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies.

CONCLUSION

The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Evaluation of a rheumatology patient prioritization triage system

PURPOSE

Patient triage systems have been used to prioritize referred patients to facilitate timely treatment of acutely ill patients, but there is limited data to support the effectiveness of these systems as implemented in the clinic setting. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a specialty provider triage system.

DATA SOURCES

A prospective study design was conducted (N = 103) to compare the pre- and postappointment provider-assigned, prioritization system acuity scores. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), paired t-test, and the Bland-Altman plotting method were used to summarize and analyze the data.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICC between the pre- and postappointment acuity scores was 0.50 (p < .001) with no significant difference between the average means (t = -1.17; p = .24). The Bland-Altman plot suggests scores were typically within the limits of agreement. Our findings suggest the specialty provider triage system was effective at accurately classifying rheumatologic patient acuity in this sample.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When resources are limited and delayed evaluations and treatments result in negative health outcomes, the use of triage systems is likely an effective strategy to reduce the impact of limited provider availability relative to patient census.

What is the evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist non-emergency care? A systematic review and logic model synthesis

Background

Demand management describes any method used to monitor, direct or regulate patient referrals. Several strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions targeting primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Objective

This research aimed to conduct an inclusive systematic review and logic model synthesis in order to better understand factors impacting on the effectiveness of interventions targeting referral between primary and secondary medical health care.

Design

The approach combined systematic review with logic modelling synthesis techniques to develop an evidence-based framework of factors influencing the pathway between interventions and system-wide changes.

Setting

Primary health care.

Main outcome measures

Referral from primary to secondary care.

Review methods

Systematic searches were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. Quality of individual studies was appraised, with consideration of overall strength of evidence. A narrative synthesis and logic model summary of the data was completed.

Results

From a database of 8327 unique papers, 290 were included in the review. The intervention studies were grouped into four categories of education interventions (n = 50); process change interventions (n = 49); system change interventions (n = 38); and patient-focused interventions (n = 3). Effectiveness was assessed variously in these papers; however, there was a gap regarding the mechanisms whereby these interventions lead to demand management impacts. The findings suggest that, although individual-level interventions may be popular, the stronger evidence relates only to peer-review and feedback interventions. Process change interventions appeared to be more effective when the change resulted in the specialist being provided with more or better quality information about the patient. System changes including the community provision of specialist services by general practitioners, outreach provision by specialists and the return of inappropriate referrals appeared to have evidence of effect. The pathway whereby interventions might lead to service-wide impact was complex, with multiple factors potentially acting as barriers or facilitators to the change process. Factors related, first, to the doctor (including knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and previous experiences of a service), second, to the patient (including condition and social factors) and, third, to the influence of the doctor–patient relationship. We also identified a number of potentially influential factors at a local level, such as perceived waiting times and the availability of a specialist. These elements are key factors in the pathway between an intervention and intended demand management outcomes influencing both applicability and effectiveness.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the complexity of the referral process and multiple elements that will impact on intervention outcomes and applicability to a local area. Any interventions seeking to change referral practice need to address factors relating to the individual practitioner, the patient and also the situation in which the referral is taking place. These conclusions apply especially to referral management in a UK context where this whole range of factors/issues lies well within the remit of the NHS. This work highlights that intermediate outcomes are important in the referral pathway. It is recommended that researchers include measure of these intermediate outcomes in their evaluation of intervention effectiveness in order to determine where blocks to or facilitators of system-wide impact may be occurring.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004037.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

An EFQM excellence model for integrated healthcare governance

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to account for a ten-year experience with the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model implemented in the Trento Healthcare Trust.

Design/methodology/approach

– Since 2000, the EFQM Excellence Model provided an overarching framework to streamline business process governance, to support and improve its enablers and results. From 2000 to 2009, staff performed four internal (self) and four external EFQM-based assessments that provided guidance for an integrated management system. Over the years, key controls and assurances improved service quality through business planning, learning and practice cycles.

Findings

– Rising assessment ratings and improving results characterized the journey. The average self-assessment score (on a 1,000 points scale) was 290 in 2001, which increased to 610 in 2008. Since 2006, the Trust has been Recognized for Excellence (four stars). The organization improved significantly on customer satisfaction, people results and key service delivery and outcomes.

Practical implications

– The EFQM Model can act as an effective tool to meet governance demands and promote system-level results. The approach to integrated governance discussed here may support similar change processes in comparable organizations.

Originality/value

– The paper describes a unique experience when implementing EFQM within a large Italian healthcare system, which had a broader reach and lasted longer than any experience in Italian healthcare.

Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence

BACKGROUND

Demand management defines any method used to monitor, direct, or regulate patient referrals. Strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions that target primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

AIM

To review the international evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHOD

Iterative, systematic searches of published and unpublished sources public health, health management, management, and grey literature databases from health care and other industries were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. A narrative synthesis of the data was completed to structure the evidence into groups of similar interventions.

RESULTS

The searches generated 8327 unique results, of which 140 studies were included. Interventions were grouped into four intervention categories: GP education (n = 50); process change (n = 49); system change (n = 38); and patient-focused (n = 3). It is clear that there is no 'magic bullet' to managing demand for secondary care services: although some groups of interventions may have greater potential for development, given the existing evidence that they can be effective in specific contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

To tackle demand management of primary care services, the focus cannot be on primary care alone; a whole-systems approach is needed because the introduction of interventions in primary care is often just the starting point of the referral process. In addition, more research is needed to develop and evaluate interventions that acknowledge the role of the patient in the referral decision.

Wait watchers: the application of a waiting list active management program in ambulatory care

OBJECTIVE

This study describes and evaluates the application of a waiting list management program in ambulatory care.

DESIGN

Waiting list active management survey (telephone call and further contact); before and after controlled trial.

SETTING

Local Health Trust in Veneto Region (North-East of Italy) in 2008-09.

PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred and one people on a 554 waiting list for C Class ambulatory care diagnostic and/or clinical investigations (electrocardiography plus cardiology ambulatory consultation, eye ambulatory consultation, carotid vessels Eco-color-Doppler, legs Eco-color-Doppler or colonoscopy, respectively).

INTERVENTION

Active list management program consisting of a telephonic interview on 21 items to evaluate socioeconomic features, self-perceived health status, social support, referral physician, accessibility and patients' satisfaction. A controlled before-and-after study was performed to evaluate anonymously the overall impact on patients' self-perceived quality of care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The rate of patients with deteriorating healthcare conditions; rate of dropout; interviewed degree of satisfaction about the initiative; overall impact on citizens' perceived quality of care.

RESULTS

95.4% patients evaluated the initiative as useful. After the intervention, patients more likely to have been targeted with the program showed a statistically significant increase in self-reported quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive impact of the program on some dimensions of ambulatory care quality (health status, satisfaction, willingness to remain in the queue), thus confirming the outstanding value of 'not to leave people alone' and 'not to leave them feeling themselves alone' in healthcare delivery.

Triage of referrals to outpatient hepatology services: an ineffective tool to prioritise patients?

Background. Appropriate and uniform prioritisation (‘triaging’) of outpatient referrals is critical to good patient outcomes, equity of access to services and efficient use of resources. Objective. To determine whether there is uniformity in the allocation of triage categories for hepatology outpatient referrals at public hospitals in Queensland. Methods. A series of 10 recent hepatology referrals were de-identified for both patient and referring clinician details and sent to nine gastroenterology or hepatology centres throughout Queensland. Consultant gastroenterologists and hepatologists (n = 25) were asked to triage the referrals using the process in place in their centre. Responses were de-identified and analysed. Each case was reviewed and allocated an ‘agreed triage category’ based upon the majority view of respondents. Results. Nineteen responses were received. There was substantial variation amongst consultants in the allocation of triage categories. Although almost two-thirds of respondents agreed with the majority view in 60–80% of cases, none agreed with the majority for every case and some agreed in as few as 50% cases. Disagreement with the majority view of an appropriate triage category was not associated with geography or specialist experience. Conclusions. Variability in triage categorisation suggests that similar cases may be allocated different priorities by those responsible for determining the urgency of outpatient review. This has implications for equity of access to treatment. The development of triage guidelines and formal training in their implementation, along with periodic audits of triage practices in different centres, may reduce variability. What is known about the topic? Outpatient clinic appointments are allocated within categories according to ‘agreed’ clinical urgency. The process of triaging referrals seeks to prioritise referrals based on the severity of patients’ conditions and the potential for improving outcomes. At present there are no statewide guidelines or training for the triaging process in hepatology and no recommendations for who should take responsibility for prioritising referrals. What does the paper add? In Queensland, gastroenterologists (including hepatologists) triage hepatology cases differently and most likely interpret and weight clinical information provided in the referral differently. Disagreement with the majority view of an appropriate triage category is not associated with geography or specialist experience. What are the implications for practitioners? Variability in triage categorisation suggests that similar cases may be allocated different priorities by those responsible for determining the urgency of outpatient review. This has implications for equity of access to treatment. The development of triage guidelines and formal training in their implementation, along with periodic audits of triage practices in different centres, may reduce variability.