Reducing waiting times for sleep apnoea hypopnoea syndrome and snoring using a questionnaire and home oximetry: results of a second audit cycle

Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures

BACKGROUND

Long waiting times for elective healthcare procedures may cause distress among patients, may have adverse health consequences and may be perceived as inappropriate delivery and planning of health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing waiting times for elective care, both diagnostic and therapeutic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ABI Inform, the Canadian Research Index, the Science, Social Sciences and Humanities Citation Indexes, a series of databases via Proquest: Dissertations & Theses (including UK & Ireland), EconLit, PAIS (Public Affairs International), Political Science Collection, Nursing Collection, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. We sought related reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). We searched trial registries, as well as grey literature sites and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) designs that met EPOC minimum criteria and evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention aimed at reducing waiting times for any type of elective procedure. We considered studies reporting one or more of the following outcomes: number or proportion of participants whose waiting times were above or below a specific time threshold, or participants' mean or median waiting times. Comparators could include any type of active intervention or standard practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from, and assessed risk of bias of, each included study, using a standardised form and the EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. They classified interventions as follows: interventions aimed at (1) rationing and/or prioritising demand, (2) expanding capacity, or (3) restructuring the intake assessment/referral process.For RCTs when available, we reported preintervention and postintervention values of outcome for intervention and control groups, and we calculated the absolute change from baseline or the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). We reanalysed ITS studies that had been inappropriately analysed using segmented time-series regression, and obtained estimates for regression coefficients corresponding to two standardised effect sizes: change in level and change in slope.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met our inclusion criteria: three RCTs and five ITS studies involving a total of 135 general practices/primary care clinics, seven hospitals and one outpatient clinic. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of interventions, elective procedures and clinical conditions; this made meta-analysis unfeasible.One ITS study evaluating prioritisation of demand through a system for streamlining elective surgery services reduced the number of semi-urgent participants waiting longer than the recommended time (< 90 days) by 28 participants/mo, while no effects were found for urgent (< 30 days) versus non-urgent participants (< 365 days).Interventions aimed at restructuring the intake assessment/referral process were evaluated in seven studies. Four studies (two RCTs and two ITSs) evaluated open access, or direct booking/referral: One RCT, which showed that open access to laparoscopic sterilisation reduced waiting times, had very high attrition (87%); the other RCT showed that open access to investigative services reduced waiting times (30%) for participants with lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS) but had no effect on waiting times for participants with microscopic haematuria. In one ITS study, same-day scheduling for paediatric health clinic appointments reduced waiting times (direct reduction of 25.2 days, and thereafter a decrease of 3.03 days per month), while another ITS study showed no effect of a direct booking system on proportions of participants receiving a colposcopy appointment within the recommended time. One RCT and one ITS showed no effect of distant consultancy (instant photography for dermatological conditions and telemedicine for ear nose throat (ENT) conditions) on waiting times; another ITS study showed no effect of a pooled waiting list on the number of participants waiting for uncomplicated spinal surgery.Overall quality of the evidence for all outcomes, assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool, ranged from low to very low.We found no studies evaluating interventions to increase capacity or to ration demand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As only a handful of low-quality studies are presently available, we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions in reducing waiting times. However, interventions involving the provision of more accessible services (open access or direct booking/referral) show some promise.

Assessment of predictive ability of Epworth scoring in screening of patients with sleep apnoea

METHOD

Numerous studies have considered the benefits, and the disadvantages, of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Following an extensive literature review, we found that the evidence was inconclusive as regards the diagnostic efficacy of Epworth scoring for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. We undertook a retrospective study of 343 patients who underwent a sleep assessment over a 10-year period at the Monklands Hospital.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

A total of 238 patients did not have sleep apnoea whereas 105 patients did. The mean Epworth score in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome was 10.94 (95 per cent confidence interval 9.46-11.42), and in the non-apnoeic group it was 7.73 (95 per cent confidence interval 7.04-8.41). Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the predictive ability of Epworth scoring. The scores only explained 7-10 per cent of the variation in the probability of occurrence of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. The odds ratio for Epworth scoring was 1.118, and only 69 per cent of cases were correctly classified by the Scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review suggested that the Epworth Sleepiness Scale is associated with a low effect size and/or low predictive value when correlated or regressed on the Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index or Respiratory Disturbance Index, thus limiting its value as a screening test. Our study concluded that the Epworth Scale is only marginally useful in predicting the occurrence of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. We believe that every patient with a direct or witnessed history of sleep apnoea with obstructive symptoms have some form of sleep assessment.

Evidence‐based re‐engineering: re‐engineering the evidence

PURPOSE

Business process redesign (BPR) is used to implement organizational transformations towards more customer-focused and cost-effective care. Ideally, these innovations should be carefully described and evaluated so that "best practices" can be re-applied. To investigate this, available evidence was collected on patient care redesign projects.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The Ebsco Business Source Premier, Embase and Medline databases were searched. Studies on innovations related to re-engineering patient care that used before-after design as minimum prerequisites were selected. General characteristics, logistic parameters and other outcome measures to determine the objectives and results and interventions used were looked at.

FINDINGS

A total of 86 studies that conformed to the criteria were found: a minority mentioned measurable parameters in their objectives. In the majority of studies, multiple interventions were combined within single studies, making it impossible to compare the effects of individual interventions. Only three randomized controlled trials were found. Furthermore, inconsistencies were noted between the study objectives and the reported results. Many more issues were reported in the results than were mentioned in the study aims. It would appear that publications were hard to find owing to a lack of specific MeSH headings. Nearly 7,500 abstracts were scanned and from these it was concluded that clear and univocal research methods, terms and reporting guidelines are advisable and must be developed in order to learn and benefit from BPR innovations in health care organizations.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This appears to be the first time available evidence about redesign projects in hospitals has been systematically collected and assessed.