Dataset Information

The Impact of a New Triage and Booking System on Renal Clinic Wait Times.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prolonged wait times are known barriers to accessing nephrology care for patients needing more urgent specialist services. Improved process and standardized triage systems are known to minimize wait times of urgent or semi-urgent care in health care disciplines. In Central Zone (CZ) renal clinic, mean wait times for urgent (P1) and semi-urgent (P2) referrals were prolonged before 2014. We also observed prolonged wait times for elective (P3-P5) categories. Improving wait times was identified as an access to care quality improvement focus in CZ renal clinic of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA).

Objectives

To describe our new referral process and new triage system, and to examine their effect on number of referrals wait-listed and mean wait times.

Design

A quasi-experimental design was used.

Setting

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Participants

Patients referred to Central Zone Renal Clinic between 2012 and 2018.

Measurements

A time series of referral counts and wait times for each triage category were measured before our interventions and after implementing our interventions.

Methods

We reviewed our referral processes to identify gaps leading to prolonged wait times. On January 1, 2014, we implemented new administrative procedures: pretriage (standardized referral information form and staff training), triage (standardized clinic intake criteria and new triage guidelines), posttriage (protecting clinic spots for urgent and semi-urgent referrals, wait-list maintenance, and increasing new referral clinic capacity). Data were collected prospectively. Descriptive analysis on mean wait times was done using run charts.

Results

A 33% reduction in total number of referrals wait-listed was observed over 4.5 years after intervention. Descriptive analysis of the urgent and semi-urgent categories (P1 and P2) revealed a significant shift of mean wait times on run charts after the interventions. Target wait time was achieved in 94% of P1 category and 78% of P2 category.

Limitations

This type of study design does not exclude confounding variables influencing results. We did not explore stakeholder satisfaction or whether the new referral process presented barriers to resending referrals that had insufficient triage data. The long-term sustainability of adding demand-responsive surge clinics and opportunity cost were not assessed. Our referral process and triage system have not been externally validated and may not be applicable in settings without wait-lists or settings that use electronic, telephone or telemedicine consults.

Conclusion

Our selective intake of referrals with adequate triage information and referrals needing nephrology consult as defined by our clinic intake criteria reduced number of referrals wait-listed. We saw improved wait times for urgent and semi-urgent referrals with these categories now falling within target wait times for the vast majority of patients. The work of this improvement initiative continues especially for the lower-risk triage categories.

Trial registration

Not applicable as this was a Quality improvement initiative.

SUBMITTER: Poyah PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7271271 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Impact of a New Triage and Booking System on Renal Clinic Wait Times.

Poyah Penelope S PS Quraishi Tabassum Ata TA

Canadian journal of kidney health and disease 20200602

<h4>Background</h4>Prolonged wait times are known barriers to accessing nephrology care for patients needing more urgent specialist services. Improved process and standardized triage systems are known to minimize wait times of urgent or semi-urgent care in health care disciplines. In Central Zone (CZ) renal clinic, mean wait times for urgent (P1) and semi-urgent (P2) referrals were prolonged before 2014. We also observed prolonged wait times for elective (P3-P5) categories. Improving wait times ...[more]

PMID: 32547773

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOutpatient clinics lack infrastructure to easily measure and understand patient wait times. Our objective was to design a low-cost, portable passive real time locating system within an outpatient clinic setting to measure patient wait times and patient-provider interactions.Materials and methodsDirect observation was used to determine workflow in an outpatient glaucoma clinic at the University of Michigan. We used off-the shelf, antenna-integrated ultra-high frequency (UHF) RFID readers (ThingMagic, Astra-Ex, Woburn, MA) and UHF re-useable passive RFID tags (Zebra Impinj Monza 4QT, Seattle, WA). We designed a custom RFID management application in the Java programming language that was equipped with 'live' device administration to collect time and location data from patients and providers. These hardware choices enabled low cost system installation. Hidden Markov Modeling (HMM) was used to smooth patient and provider location data. Location data were validated against direct observations and EHR evaluation.ResultsThe HMM smoothed RFID system data accurately predicted patient location 80.6% of the time and provider location 79.1% of the time, compared to direct observation locations, an improvement over the raw RFID location data (65.0% and 77.9% accurate, respectively). Patient process time was on average 42.8 min (SD = 27.5) and wait time was 47.9 min (SD = 33.1). The installation and recurring capital costs of the system are approximately 10% of available commercially-supplied patient/provider tracking systems.DiscussionPassive RFID time study systems can enable real-time localization of people in clinic, facilitating continuous capture of patient wait times and patient-provider interactions. The system must be tailored to the clinic to accurately reflect patient and provider movement.ConclusionsCapturing wait time data continuously and passively can empower continuous clinical quality improvement initiatives to enhance the patient experience.

Project description:Internationally, emergency departments are struggling with crowding and its associated morbidity, mortality, and decreased patient and health-care worker satisfaction. The objective was to evaluate the addition of a MDRNSTAT (Physician (MD)-Nurse (RN) Supplementary Team At Triage) on emergency department patient flow and quality of care.Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. From 131 weekday shifts (8:00-14:30) during a 26-week period, we randomized 65 days (3173 visits) to the intervention cluster with a MDRNSTAT presence, and 66 days (3163 visits) to the nurse-only triage control cluster. The primary outcome was emergency department length-of-stay (EDLOS) for patients managed and discharged only by the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included EDLOS for patients initially seen by the emergency department, and subsequently consulted and admitted, patients reaching government-mandated thresholds, time to initial physician assessment, left-without being seen rate, time to investigation, and measurement of harm.The intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, high acuity patients was 4:05 [95th% CI: 3:58 to 4:15] versus 4:29 [95th% CI: 4:19-4:38] during comparator shifts. The intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, low acuity patients was 1:55 [95th% CI: 1:48 to 2:05] versus 2:08 [95th% CI: 2:02-2:14]. The intervention's median physician initial assessment time was 0:55 [95th% CI: 0:53 to 0:58] versus 1:21 [95th% CI: 1:18 to 1:25]. The intervention's left-without-being-seen rate was 1.5% versus 2.2% for the control (p = 0.06). The MDRNSTAT subgroup analysis resulted in significant decreases in median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted high (4:01 [95th% CI: 3:43-4:16]) and low acuity patients (1:10 95th% CI: 0:58-1:19]), as well as physician initial assessment time (0:25 [95th% CI: 0:23-0:26]). No patients returned to the emergency department after being discharged by the MDRNSTAT at triage.The intervention reduced delays and left-without-being-seen rate without increased return visits or jeopardizing urgent care of severely ill patients.NCT00991471 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:ObjectivesMany chronic eye conditions are managed within public hospital ophthalmology clinics resulting in encumbered wait lists. Integrated care schemes can increase system capacity. In order to direct implementation of a public hospital-based integrated eye care model, this study aims to evaluate the quality of referrals for new patients through information content, assess triage decisions of newly referred patients and evaluate the consistency of referral content for new patients referred multiple times.DesignA retrospective and prospective review of all referral forms for new patients referred to a public hospital ophthalmology clinic between January 2016 and September 2017, and September 2017 and August 2018, respectively.SettingA referral-only public hospital ophthalmology clinic in metropolitan Sydney, Australia.Participants418 new patients on existing non-urgent wait lists waiting to be allocated an initial appointment, and 528 patients who were newly referred.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the information content of referrals for new patients. The secondary outcomes were triage outcomes for new incoming referrals, and the number of new patients with multiple referrals.ResultsOf the wait-listed referrals, 0.2% were complete in referral content compared with 9.8% of new incoming referrals (p<0.001). Of new incoming referrals, 56.7% were triaged to a non-urgent clinic. Multiple referrals were received for 49 patients, with no change in the amount of referral content.ConclusionsMost referrals were incomplete in content, leading to triage based on limited clinical information. Some new patients were referred multiple times with their second referral containing a similar amount of content as their first. Lengthy wait lists could be prevented by improving administrative processes and communication between the referral centre and referrers. The future implementation of an integrated eye care model at the study setting could sustainably cut wait lists for patients with chronic eye conditions.

Project description:ImportanceConcerns have been raised about the adequacy of health care access among patients cared for within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.ObjectivesTo determine wait times for new patients receiving care at VA medical centers and compare wait times in the VA medical centers with wait times in the private sector (PS).Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted of new appointment wait times for primary care, dermatology, cardiology, or orthopedics at VA medical centers in 15 major metropolitan areas in 2014 and 2017. Comparison data from the PS came from a published survey that used a secret shopper survey approach. Secondary analyses evaluated the change in overall and unique patients seen in the entire VA system and patient satisfaction survey measures of care access between 2014 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was patient wait time. Wait times in the VA were determined directly from patient scheduling. Wait times in the PS were as reported in Merritt Hawkins surveys using the secret shopper method.ResultsCompared with the PS, overall mean VA wait times for new appointments in 2014 were similar (mean [SD] wait time, 18.7 [7.9] days PS vs 22.5 [7.3] days VA; P = .20). Department of Veterans Affairs wait times in 2014 were similar to those in the PS across specialties and regions. In 2017, overall wait times for new appointments in the VA were shorter than in the PS (mean [SD], 17.7 [5.9] vs 29.8 [16.6] days; P < .001). This was true in primary care (mean [SD], 20.0 [10.4] vs 40.7 [35.0] days; P = .005), dermatology (mean [SD], 15.6 [12.2] vs 32.6 [16.5] days; P < .001), and cardiology (mean [SD], 15.3 [12.6] vs 22.8 [10.1] days; P = .04). Wait times for orthopedics remained longer in the VA than the PS (mean [SD], 20.9 [13.3] vs 12.4 [5.5] days; P = .01), although wait time improved significantly between 2014 and 2017 in the VA for orthopedics while wait times in the PS did not change (change in mean wait times, increased 1.5 days vs decreased 5.4 days; P = .02). Secondary analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of unique patients seen and appointment encounters in the VA between 2014 and 2017 (4 996 564 to 5 118 446, and 16 476 461 to 17 331 538, respectively), and patient satisfaction measures of access also improved (satisfaction scores increased by 1.4%, 3.0%, and 4.0% for specialty care, routine primary care, and urgent primary care, P < .05).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough wait times in the VA and PS appeared to be similar in 2014, there have been interval improvements in VA wait times since then, while wait times in the PS appear to be static. These findings suggest that access to care within the VA has improved over time.

Dataset Information

The Impact of a New Triage and Booking System on Renal Clinic Wait Times.

Background

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Measurements

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

The Impact of a New Triage and Booking System on Renal Clinic Wait Times.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets