Prioritization of patients access to outpatient augmentative and alternative communication services in Quebec: a decision tool.

PURPOSE: A large number of people living with a chronic disability wait a long time to access publicly funded rehabilitation services such as Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) services, and there is no standardized tool to prioritize these patients. We aimed to develop a prioritization tool to improve the organization and access to the care for this population. METHODS: In this sequential mixed methods study, we began with a qualitative phase in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 stakeholders including patients, their caregivers, and AAC service providers in Quebec City, Canada to gather their ideas about prioritization criteria. Then, during a half-day consensus group meeting with stakeholders, using a consensus-seeking technique (i.e. Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts), we reached consensus on the most important prioritization criteria. These criteria informed the quantitative phase in which used an electronic questionnaire to collect stakeholders' views regarding the relative weights for each of the selected criteria. We analyzed these data using a hybrid quantitative method called group based fuzzy analytical hierarchy process, to obtain the importance weights of the selected eight criteria. RESULTS: Analyses of the interviews revealed 48 criteria. Collectively, the stakeholders reached consensus on eight criteria, and through the electronic questionnaire they defined the selected criteria's importance weights. The selected eight prioritization criteria and their importance weights are: person's safety (weight: 0.274), risks development potential (weight: 0.144), psychological well-being (weight: 0.140), physical well-being (weight: 0.124), life prognosis (weight: 0.106), possible impact on social environment (weight: 0.085), interpersonal relationships (weight: 0.073), and responsibilities and social role (weight: 0.054). CONCLUSION: In this study, we co-developed a prioritization decision tool with the key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in rehabilitation settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILIATIONStudies in Canada have shown that people in Canada with a need for rehabilitation services are not receiving publicly available services in a timely manner.There is no standardized tool for the prioritization of AAC patients.In this mixed methods study, we co-developed a prioritization tool with key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in a rehabilitation center in Quebec, Canada.

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of a patient prioritization tool in two specialized rehabilitation programs.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Prioritization tools aim to manage access to care by ranking patients equitably in waiting lists based on determined criteria. Patient prioritization has been studied in a wide variety of clinical health services, including rehabilitation contexts. We created a web-based patient prioritization tool (PPT) with the participation of stakeholders in two rehabilitation programs, which we aim to implement into clinical practice. Successful implementation of such innovation can be influenced by a variety of determinants. The goal of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a PPT in rehabilitation programs. METHODS: We used two questionnaires and conducted two focus groups among service providers from two rehabilitation programs. We used descriptive statistics to report results of the questionnaires and qualitative content analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Key facilitators are the flexibility and relative advantage of the tool to improve clinical practices and produce beneficial outcomes for patients. Main barriers are the lack of training, financial support and human resources to sustain the implementation process. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that highlights organizational, individual and innovation levels facilitators and barriers for the implementation of a prioritization tool from service providers' perspective.

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. RESULTS: We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. CONCLUSIONS: This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.

Patient prioritization tools and their effectiveness in non-emergency healthcare services: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists should be managed as fairly as possible to ensure that patients with greater or more urgent needs receive services first. Patient prioritization refers to the process of ranking referrals in a certain order based on various criteria with the aim of improving fairness and equity in the delivery of care. Despite the widespread use of patient prioritization tools (PPTs) in healthcare services, the existing literature on this subject has mainly focused on emergency settings. Evidence has not been synthesized with respect to all the non-emergency services. METHODS: This review aims to perform a systematic synthesis of published evidence concerning (1) prioritization tools' characteristics, (2) their metrological properties, and (3) their effect measures across non-emergency services. Five electronic databases will be searched (Cochrane Library, Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Eligibility criteria guiding data selection will be (1) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods empirical studies; (2) patient prioritization in any non-emergency setting; and (3) discussing characteristic, metrological properties, or effect measures. Data will be sought to report tool's format, description, population, setting, purpose, criteria, developer, metrological properties, and outcome measures. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. Data will be synthesized with sequential exploratory design method. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess the quality of articles included in the review. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide much-needed knowledge regarding patient prioritization tools. The results will benefit clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers by giving them a better understanding of the methods used to prioritize patients in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.