Strategies to reduce waiting times in outpatient rehabilitation services for adults with physical disabilities: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying effective strategies to reduce waiting times is a crucial issue in many areas of health services. Long waiting times for rehabilitation services have been associated with numerous adverse effects in people with disabilities. The main objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to assess the effectiveness of service redesign strategies to reduce waiting times in outpatient rehabilitation services for adults with physical disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) from their inception until May 2021. We identified studies with comparative data evaluating the effect of rehabilitation services redesign strategies on reducing waiting times. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Nineteen articles including various settings and populations met the selection criteria. They covered physiotherapy (n = 11), occupational therapy (n = 2), prosthetics (n = 1), exercise physiology (n = 1) and multidisciplinary (n = 4) services. The methodological quality varied (n = 10 high quality, n = 6 medium, n = 3 low); common flaws being missing information on the pre-redesign setting and characteristics of the populations. Seven articles assessed access processes or referral management strategies (e.g. self-referral), four focused on extending/modifying the roles of service providers (e.g. to triage) and eight changed the model of care delivery (e.g. mode of intervention). The different redesign strategies had positive effects on waiting times in outpatient rehabilitation services. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the positive effects of many service redesign strategies. These findings suggest that there are several effective strategies to choose from to reduce waiting times and help better respond to the needs of persons experiencing physical disabilities.

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.