Olisemeke B, Chen Y F, Hemming K, Girling A
Radiology Department, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK,
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Dec;27(6):751-78. doi: 10.1007/s10278-014-9706-z.
We reviewed the literature for the impact of service delivery initiatives (SDIs) on patients' waiting times within radiology departments. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, INSPEC and The Cochrane Library for relevant articles published between 1995 and February, 2013. The Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias on studies that met specified design criteria. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The types of SDI implemented included extended scope practice (ESP, three studies), quality management (12 studies), productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs, 29 studies), multiple interventions (11 studies), outsourcing and pay-for-performance (one study each). The uncontrolled pre- and post-intervention and the post-intervention designs were used in 54 (95%) of the studies. The reporting quality was poor: many of the studies did not test and/or report the statistical significance of their results. The studies were highly heterogeneous, therefore meta-analysis was inappropriate. The following type of SDIs showed promising results: extended scope practice; quality management methodologies including Six Sigma, Lean methodology, and continuous quality improvement; productivity-enhancing technologies including speech recognition reporting, teleradiology and computerised physician order entry systems. We have suggested improved study design and the mapping of the definitions of patient waiting times in radiology to generic timelines as a starting point for moving towards a situation where it becomes less restrictive to compare and/or pool the results of future studies in a meta-analysis.
我们查阅了文献,以了解服务提供举措(SDIs)对放射科患者候诊时间的影响。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、INSPEC和考克兰图书馆,查找1995年至2013年2月期间发表的相关文章。使用考克兰EPOC偏倚风险工具评估符合特定设计标准的研究的偏倚风险。57项研究符合纳入标准。实施的SDI类型包括扩大业务范围实践(ESP,3项研究)、质量管理(12项研究)、提高生产力技术(PETs,29项研究)、多种干预措施(11项研究)、外包和绩效薪酬(各1项研究)。54项(95%)研究采用了非对照干预前后设计和干预后设计。报告质量较差:许多研究未检验和/或报告其结果的统计学显著性。这些研究具有高度异质性,因此不适合进行荟萃分析。以下类型的SDIs显示出有前景的结果:扩大业务范围实践;包括六西格玛、精益方法和持续质量改进在内的质量管理方法;包括语音识别报告、远程放射学和计算机化医师医嘱录入系统在内的提高生产力技术。我们建议改进研究设计,并将放射科患者候诊时间的定义映射到通用时间轴,以此作为迈向在荟萃分析中比较和/或汇总未来研究结果限制更少的情况的起点。