Effects of a single-entry intake system on access to outpatient visits to specialist physicians and allied health professionals: a systematic review

Improving access to vision rehabilitation care: implementation of the South East Ontario Vision Rehabilitation Service

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the South East Ontario Vision Rehabilitation Service (SOVRS), a centrally administered, regionally delivered vision rehabilitation service, on access to vision rehabilitation care.

DESIGN

Pre-implementation (n = 1196) and post-implementation (n = 414) observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients referred for low-vision assessment at the hospital-based Kingston Health Sciences Centre Vision Rehabilitation Clinic and community-based Southeastern Vision Loss Rehabilitation Ontario clinics from 2014 to 2019.

METHODS

Markers for access to care (e.g., patient rurality, diversity of referral source, distance and time travelled, and wait times) were compared before and after SOVRS implementation.

RESULTS

After SOVRS implementation, there was a significant increase (p < 0.001) in the number of rural patients seen in the community. After SOVRS implementation, the hospital-based Vision Rehabilitation Clinic site experienced a significant increase in referrals from outside of Kingston (p < 0.001) and non-eye-care clinicians (p < 0.001), a significant reduction in patient time and distance travelled (p < 0.001), a 6% decrease in median wait time for low-vision assessments, and a significant reduction in wait time between referral and first available appointment (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

SOVRS, a novel service-delivery model for vision rehabilitation care, improved the delivery of and access to vision rehabilitation care in southeast Ontario through the integration of regional resources and services.

Improving access to chronic pain care with central referral and triage: The 6-year findings from a single-entry model

Background

Despite the established efficacy of multidisciplinary chronic pain care, barriers such as inflated referral wait times and uncoordinated care further hinder patient health care access.

Aims

Here we describe the evolution of a single-entry model (SEM) for coordinating access to chronic pain care across seven hospitals in Toronto and explore the impact on patient care 6 years after implementation.

Methods

In 2017, an innovative SEM was implemented for chronic pain referrals in Toronto and surrounding areas. Referrals are received centrally, triaged by a clinical team, and assigned an appointment according to the level of urgency and the most appropriate care setting/provider. To evaluate the impact of the SEM, a retrospective analysis was undertaken to determine referral patterns, patient characteristics, and referral wait times over the past 6 years.

Results

Implementation of an SEM streamlined the number of steps in the referral process and led to a standardized referral form with common inclusion and exclusion criteria across sites. Over the 6-year period, referrals increased by 93% and the number of unique providers increased by 91%. Chronic pain service wait times were reduced from 299 (±158) days to 176 (±103) days. However, certain pain diagnoses such as chronic pelvic pain and fibromyalgia far exceed the average.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the SEM helped reduce wait times for pain conditions and standardized the referral pathway. Continued data capture efforts can help identify gaps in care to enable further health care refinement and improvement.

Evaluating Perceptions of Head and Neck Surgeons on the Role of Single-Entry Models in Managing Surgical Waitlists in Ontario: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Long surgical wait times have long plagued health systems in Canada and abroad. This backlog and associated strain on health human resources has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting surgeries of varying degrees of urgency across all surgical specialties, including head and neck surgery. Single-entry models (SEMs) are being increasingly studied as one possible strategy to help manage surgical wait times, and a growing number of health systems have implemented SEMs within departments such as otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. We sought to evaluate the views of head and neck surgeons at all 8 designated head and neck cancer centers across Ontario on the role of SEMs in managing surgical backlogs.

RESULTS

We interviewed 10 Ontario head and neck surgeons on the role of SEMs in managing wait times within the field. The following themes were elicited from interview transcripts: (1) anticipated positive impact, (2) barriers to implementation, (3) patient experience, and (4) roadmap to implementation. Participants agreed that SEMs may have utility for certain types of surgeries if implemented to address local needs. They also believe this model would have the greatest impact if employed together with other approaches, such as increasing operating room time or nursing availability.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlighted the necessity for a nuanced approach to single-entry model implementation in head and neck surgery. While participants recognized the utility of SEMs for high-volume and low-variation surgeries, participants remained divided on the optimal approach to triaging patients necessitating more complex oncologic treatments. Deliberate collaboration among stakeholder organizations and senior surgeons will be critical if SEMs are to succeed in an intricate and political healthcare environment.

Centralized Intake Models and Recommendations for Their Use in Non-Acute Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review

Centralized intake [CI] or single-entry models are utilized in health systems to facilitate service access by reducing waiting times. This scoping review aims to consolidate the Literature on CI service models to identify their characteristics and rationales for their use, as well as contexts in which they are used and challenges and benefits in implementing them. The review also aims to offer some lessons learned from the Literature and to make recommendations for its implementation in non-acute mental health services. The findings show that CI is mostly considered when there is increased demand for services and clients are required to navigate multiple services that operate individually. Successful models have meaningfully engaged all stakeholders from the outset and the telephone is the most common mode of intake. Recommendations are made for planning and preparation, for elements of the model, and for setting up the service network. When successfully implemented, CI has been shown to improve access and increase demand for services. However, if CI is not supported by a network of service providers who offer care that is acceptable to clients, the purpose of its implementation could be lost.

Perceptions of Ontario health system leaders on single-entry models for managing the COVID-19 elective surgery backlog: an interpretive descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing challenges with respect to access to elective surgery across Canada, and a single-entry model (SEM) approach has been proposed as an equitable and efficient method to help manage the backlog. With Ontario's recent investment in centralized surgical wait-list management, we sought to understand the views of health system leaders on the role of SEMs in managing the elective surgery backlog.

METHODS

We used the qualitative method of interpretive description to explore participant perspectives and identify practical strategies for policy-makers, administrators and clinical leaders. We conducted semistructured interviews with health system leaders from across Ontario on Zoom between March and June 2021. We used snowball and purposive sampling. Inclusion criteria included Ontario health care leaders, fluent in English or French, in positions relevant to managing the elective surgery backlog. Exclusion criteria were individuals who work outside Ontario, or do not hold relevant roles.

RESULTS

Our interviews with 10 health system leaders - including hospital chief executive officers, surgeons, administrators and policy experts - resulted in 5 emergent domains: perceptions of the backlog, operationalizing and financing SEMs, barriers, facilitators, and equity and patient factors. All participants emphasized the need for clinical leaders to champion SEMs and the utility of SEMs in managing wait-lists for high-volume, low-acuity, low-complexity and low-variation surgeries.

INTERPRETATION

Although SEMs are no panacea, the participants in our study stated that they believe SEMs can improve quality and reduce variability in wait times when SEMs are designed to address local needs and are implemented with buy-in from champions. Health care leaders should consider SEMs for improving surgical backlog management in their local jurisdictions.

Specialist wait time reporting using family physicians' electronic medical record data: a mixed method study of feasibility and clinical utility

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of Canadian adult patients wait longer than four weeks to see a specialist after referral from primary care. Access to accurate wait time information may help primary care physicians choose the timeliest specialist to address a patient's specific needs. We conducted a mixed-methods study to assess if primary to specialist care wait times can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMR), analyzed the wait time information, and used focus groups and interviews to assess the potential clinical utility of the wait time information.

METHODS

Two family practices were recruited to examine primary care physician to specialist wait times between January 2016 and December 2017, using EMR data. The primary outcome was the median wait time from physician referral to specialist appointment for each specialty service. Secondary outcomes included the physician and patient characteristics associated with wait times as well as qualitative analyses of physician interviews about the resulting wait time reports.

RESULTS

Wait time data can be extracted from the primary care EMR and converted to a report format for family physicians and specialists to review. After data cleaning, there were 7141 referrals included from 4967 unique patients. The 5 most common specialties referred to were Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Ear Nose and Throat, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology. Half of the patients were seen by a specialist within 42 days, 75% seen within 80 days and all patients within 760 days. There were significant differences in wait times by specialty, for younger patients, and those with urgently labelled medical situations. Overall, wait time reports were perceived by clinicians to be important since they could help family physicians decide how to triage referrals and might lead to system improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Wait time information from primary to specialist care can aid in decision-making around specialist referrals, identify bottlenecks, and help with system planning. This mixed method study is a starting point to review the importance of providing wait time data for both family physicians, specialists and local health systems. Future work can be directed towards developing wait time reporting functionality and evaluating if wait time information will help increase system efficiency and/or improve provider and patient satisfaction.

Exploring the implementation and underlying mechanisms of centralized referral systems to access specialized health services in Quebec

BACKGROUND

In 2016, Quebec, a Canadian province, implemented a program to improve access to specialized health services (Accès priorisé aux services spécialisés (APSS)), which includes single regional access points for processing requests to such services via primary care (Centre de répartition des demandes de services (CRDS)). Family physicians fill out and submit requests for initial consultations with specialists using a standardized form with predefined prioritization levels according to listed reasons for consultations, which is then sent to the centralized referral system (the CRDS) where consultations with specialists are assigned. We 1) described the APSS-CRDS program in three Quebec regions using logic models; 2) compared similarities and differences in the components and processes of the APSS-CRDS models; and 3) explored contextual factors influencing the models' similarities and differences.

METHODS

We relied on a qualitative study to develop logic models of the implemented APSS-CRDS program in three regions. Semi-structured interviews with health administrators (n = 9) were conducted. The interviews were analysed using a framework analysis approach according to the APSS-CRDS's components included in the initially designed program, Mitchell and Lewis (2003)'s logic model framework, and Chaudoir and colleagues (2013)'s framework on contextual factors' influence on an innovation's implementation.

RESULTS

Findings show the APSS-CRDS program's regional variability in the implementation of its components, including its structure (centralized/decentralized), human resources involved in implementation and operation, processes to obtain specialists' availability and assess/relay requests, as well as monitoring methods. Variability may be explained by contextual factors' influence, like ministerial and medical associations' involvement, collaborations, the context's implementation readiness, physician practice characteristics, and the program's adaptability.

INTERPRETATION

Findings are useful to inform decision-makers on the design of programs like the APSS-CRDS, which aim to improve access to specialists, the essential components for the design of these types of interventions, and how contextual factors may influence program implementation. Variability in program design is important to consider as it may influence anticipated effects, a next step for the research team. Results may also inform stakeholders should they wish to implement similar programs to increase access to specialized health services via primary care.

Pre-operative wait times in high-grade non-endometrioid endometrial cancer: Do surgical delays impact patient survival?

OBJECTIVE

Practice guidelines advocating for regionalization of endometrial cancer surgery to gynecologic oncologists practicing in designated gynecologic oncology centres were published in Ontario in June 2013. Our objectives were to determine whether this policy affected surgical wait times, and whether longer wait time to surgery is a predictor of survival in high grade endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a population-based retrospective cohort study, which included patients diagnosed with high-grade non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who had a hysterectomy between 2003 and 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with a spline function was used to model the relationship between surgical wait time and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We identified 3518 patients who underwent hysterectomy for high-grade non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Patients who had surgery with a gynecologic oncologist had a median surgical wait time from diagnosis to hysterectomy of 53 days compared to 57 days pre-regionalization (p = 0.0007), and from first gynecologic oncology consultation to hysterectomy of 29 days compared to 32 days pre-regionalization (p = 0.0006). Survival was inferior for patients who had surgery within 14 days of diagnosis (HR death 2.7 for 1-7 days, 95% CI 1.61-4.51, and HR death 1.96 for 8-14 days, 95% CI 1.50-2.57), reflective of disease severity. Decreased survival occurred with surgical wait times of more than 45 days from the patient's first gynecologic oncology appointment (HR death 1.19 for 46-60 days, 95% CI 1.04-1.36, and HR death 1.42 for 61-75 days, 95% CI 1.11-1.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Regionalization of surgery for high-grade endometrial cancer has not had an impact on surgical wait times. Patients who have surgery more than 45 days after surgical consultation have reduced survival.