Improving access for community health and sub-acute outpatient services: protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for treatment are common in outpatient and community services, Existing methods for managing access and triage to these services can lead to inequities in service delivery, inefficiencies and divert resources from frontline care. Evidence from two controlled studies indicates that an alternative to the traditional &quot;waitlist and triage&quot; model known as STAT (Specific Timely Appointments for Triage) may be successful in reducing waiting times without adversely affecting other aspects of patient care. This trial aims to test whether the model is cost effective in reducing waiting time across multiple services, and to measure the impact on service provision, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. METHODS/DESIGN: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the impact of the STAT model in 8 community health and outpatient services. The primary outcome will be waiting time from referral to first appointment. Secondary outcomes will be nature and quantity of service received (collected from all patients attending the service during the study period and health-related quality of life (AQOL-8D), patient satisfaction, health care utilisation and cost data (collected from a subgroup of patients at initial assessment and after 12&nbsp;weeks). Data will be analysed with a multiple multi-level random-effects regression model that allows for cluster effects. An economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: This paper outlines the study protocol for a fully powered prospective stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to establish whether the STAT model of access and triage can reduce waiting times applied across multiple settings, without increasing health service costs or adversely impacting on other aspects of patient care. If successful, it will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a practical model of access that can substantially reduce waiting time for outpatient and community services with subsequent benefits for both efficiency of health systems and patient care.<br /

Online detection and quantification of epidemics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Time series data are increasingly available in health care, especially for the purpose of disease surveillance. The analysis of such data has long used periodic regression models to detect outbreaks and estimate epidemic burdens. However, implementation of the method may be difficult due to lack of statistical expertise. No dedicated tool is available to perform and guide analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We developed an online computer application allowing analysis of epidemiologic time series. The system is available online at <url>http://www.u707.jussieu.fr/periodic_regression/</url>. The data is assumed to consist of a periodic baseline level and irregularly occurring epidemics. The program allows estimating the periodic baseline level and associated upper forecast limit. The latter defines a threshold for epidemic detection. The burden of an epidemic is defined as the cumulated signal in excess of the baseline estimate. The user is guided through the necessary choices for analysis. We illustrate the usage of the online epidemic analysis tool with two examples: the retrospective detection and quantification of excess pneumonia and influenza (P&I) mortality, and the prospective surveillance of gastrointestinal disease (diarrhoea).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The online application allows easy detection of special events in an epidemiologic time series and quantification of excess mortality/morbidity as a change from baseline. It should be a valuable tool for field and public health practitioners.</p

Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1,578 patients in France

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.</p