Suppr超能文献

优先考虑医疗服务提供模式,以建立更具可持续性的卫生系统:对澳大利亚卫生政策、临床实践和管理、学术和消费者利益相关者的德尔菲研究。

Prioritising models of healthcare service delivery for a more sustainable health system: a Delphi study of Australian health policy, clinical practice and management, academic and consumer stakeholders.

机构信息

Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, 4 Drysdale Street, Malvern, Vic. 3144, Australia. Email:

Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, Qld 4226, Australia. Email:

出版信息

Aust Health Rev. 2021 Aug;45(4):425-432. doi: 10.1071/AH20160.

Abstract

Objectives Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in developed countries. A recent scoping review identified several alternative healthcare delivery models with the potential to improve health system sustainability. Our objective was to obtain input and consensus from an expert Delphi panel about which alternative models they considered most promising for increasing value in healthcare delivery in Australia and to contribute to shaping a research agenda in the field. Methods The panel first reviewed a list of 84 models obtained through the preceding scoping review and contributed additional ideas in an open round. In a subsequent scoring round, the panel rated the priority of each model in terms of its potential to improve health care sustainability in Australia. Consensus was assumed when ≥50% of the panel rated a model as (very) high priority (consensus on high priority) or as not a priority or low priority (consensus on low priority). Results Eighty-two of 149 invited participants (55%) representing all Australian states/territories and wide expertise completed round one; 71 completed round two. Consensus on high priority was achieved for 59 alternative models; 14 were rated as (very) high priority by ≥70% of the panel. Top priorities included improving medical service provision in aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for people with chronic conditions and providing tailored early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient care. No consensus was reached on 47 models, but no model was deemed low priority. Conclusions Input from an expert stakeholder panel identified healthcare delivery models not previously synthesised in systematic reviews that are a priority to investigate. Strong consensus exists among stakeholders regarding which models require the most urgent attention in terms of (cost-)effectiveness research. These findings contribute to shaping a research agenda on healthcare delivery models and where stakeholder engagement in Australia is likely to be high. What is known about the topic? Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in high-income countries worldwide. A recent scoping review of systematic reviews identified a substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of models of healthcare service delivery that can inform health system improvements. Given the large number of systematic reviews available on numerous models of care, a method for gaining consensus on the models of highest priority for implementation (where evidence demonstrates this will lead to beneficial effects and resource savings) or for further research (where evidence about effects is uncertain) in the Australian context is warranted. What does this paper add? This paper describes a method for reaching consensus on high-priority alternative models of service delivery in Australia. Stakeholders with leadership roles in health policy and government organisations, hospital and primary care networks, academic institutions and consumer advocacy organisations were asked to identify and rate alternative models based on their knowledge of the healthcare system. We reached consensus among ≥70% of stakeholders that improving medical care in residential aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for patients with a range of chronic conditions and providing early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient stay for people with a range of conditions are of highest priority for further investigation. What are the implications for practitioners? Decision makers seeking to optimise the efficiency and sustainability of healthcare service delivery in Australia could consider the alternative models rated as high priority by the expert stakeholder panel in this Delphi study. These models reflect the most promising alternatives for increasing value in the delivery of health care in Australia based on stakeholders' knowledge of the health system. Although they indicate areas where stakeholder engagement is likely to be high, further research is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of some of these models.

摘要

目的

在发达国家,医疗支出正以不可持续的速度增长。最近的一项范围界定综述确定了几种有潜力提高卫生系统可持续性的替代医疗服务模式。我们的目的是从专家德尔菲小组获得意见和共识,了解他们认为哪些替代模式最有希望提高澳大利亚医疗服务的价值,并为该领域的研究议程提供参考。

方法

专家组首先审查了通过先前的范围界定综述获得的 84 种模式列表,并在开放轮次中提出了其他想法。在随后的评分轮次中,专家组根据每种模式改善澳大利亚医疗保健可持续性的潜力对每种模式的优先级进行了评分。当≥50%的小组成员认为某种模式(非常)高优先级(高优先级达成共识)或不是优先级或低优先级(低优先级达成共识)时,即认为达成了共识。

结果

149 名受邀参与者中的 82 名(55%)代表澳大利亚所有州/地区和广泛的专业知识完成了第一轮;71 人完成了第二轮。59 种替代模式达成了高优先级共识;70%以上的专家组将 14 种模式评为(非常)高优先级。优先事项包括改善养老院的医疗服务提供、为患有慢性疾病的人提供单一点多学科护理以及提供量身定制的提前出院和家庭住院而不是住院治疗。47 种模式没有达成共识,但没有一种模式被认为是低优先级。

结论

利益相关方小组的意见确定了以前在系统评价中没有综合的医疗服务模式,这些模式是需要优先调查的。利益相关方就哪些模式在(成本)效益研究方面最需要迫切关注达成了强烈共识。这些发现有助于制定医疗服务模式的研究议程,并表明澳大利亚的利益相关方参与度可能很高。

关于这个主题,已知的是什么?

在全球高收入国家,医疗支出正以不可持续的速度增长。最近对系统评价的范围界定综述确定了大量关于广泛的医疗服务提供模式的证据,这些证据可以为改善卫生系统提供信息。鉴于有大量关于许多护理模式的系统评价,需要一种方法来就澳大利亚实施(证据表明这将带来有益效果和资源节省)或进一步研究(证据不确定)的最高优先级模型达成共识。

这篇论文增加了什么?

本文描述了一种在澳大利亚就替代服务提供模式达成共识的方法。具有卫生政策和政府组织、医院和初级保健网络、学术机构和消费者权益组织领导作用的利益相关者被要求根据他们对医疗体系的了解,确定和评估替代模式。我们在≥70%的利益相关者中达成共识,认为改善养老院的医疗服务、为患有各种慢性疾病的患者提供单点多学科护理以及为患有各种疾病的患者提供提前出院和家庭住院而不是住院治疗是进一步调查的重中之重。

这对从业人员有什么影响?

寻求优化澳大利亚医疗服务提供效率和可持续性的决策者可以考虑专家组在这项德尔福研究中评定为高优先级的替代模式。这些模式反映了根据利益相关者对卫生系统的了解,在澳大利亚提供医疗保健方面增加价值的最有前途的替代方案。尽管它们表明了利益相关者参与度可能很高的领域,但仍需要进一步研究来证明这些模式中的一些模式的有效性和成本效益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验