Suppr超能文献

门诊服务创新调查:一项混合方法快速评估

Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.

作者信息

Sherlaw-Johnson Chris, Georghiou Theo, Reed Sarah, Hutchings Rachel, Appleby John, Bagri Stuti, Crellin Nadia, Kumpunen Stephanie, Lobont Cyril, Negus Jenny, Ng Pei Li, Oung Camille, Spencer Jonathan, Ramsay Angus

机构信息

Research and Policy, The Nuffield Trust, London, UK.

Patient and Public Representative.

出版信息

Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep;12(38):1-162. doi: 10.3310/VGQD4611.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.

OBJECTIVES

To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.

METHODS

The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.

RESULTS

Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.

LIMITATIONS

The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

摘要

背景

在门诊服务中,人们正在推行各种各样的创新举措,以更好地管理医疗服务并减少不必要的预约。患者自主随访是研究最少的创新举措之一,它允许患者在有需要时自行预约,而非遵循标准时间表。

目的

利用国家常规医院数据,确定近年来英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)内实施的门诊服务创新举措。对患者自主随访的实施情况及影响开展快速的混合方法评估。

方法

该项目按四个连续的工作流程开展:(1)对门诊创新举措进行快速的范围界定审查;(2)应用指标饱和法扫描国家患者层面的数据,以确定潜在成功的地方干预措施;(3)对工作流程2中确定的医院进行访谈;(4)对患者自主随访进行快速的混合方法评估。对患者自主随访的评估包括证据审查、对5家NHS急症信托机构的36名临床和运营人员进行访谈、与13家NHS急症信托机构的工作人员举办研讨会、对4名患者进行访谈、分析国家和地方数据以及制定评估指南。

结果

通过指标饱和法,我们确定了9项随访至首次就诊比率有显著变化的服务。在接受访谈的3个地点中,2个对数据结果提出质疑,1个将变化归因于临床评估服务。患者自主随访模式在医院和临床专科之间差异很大,在患者选择、患者监测和出院方式上有很大程度的差异。实施的成功取决于几个因素,例如临床状况、工作人员能力和信息技术系统。通过对国家数据的分析,我们发现,在29个专科中有15个专科,更多地采用患者自主随访与较低的门诊就诊频率相关,在7个专科中与较高的门诊就诊频率相关。4个专科与患者自主随访率上升相关的急诊就诊频率较低。工作人员和我们访谈的少数患者认为患者自主随访是一项积极的干预措施,尽管对个别工作人员的角色和工作量有不同影响。各地点和服务机构对患者自主随访进行自身评估很重要。为此,我们制定了一份评估指南,以支持信托机构进行数据收集和采用相关方法。

局限性

患者自主随访评估受到缺乏患者层面数据的影响,这些数据能显示谁处于患者自主随访路径上。鉴于各地点和工作人员面临的压力,与地方服务机构的合作也具有挑战性。患者招募率较低,这影响了直接了解患者体验的能力。

结论

该研究为不断演变的国家门诊转型政策和地方实践提供了有用的见解。患者自主随访通常被视为对工作人员和患者的一项积极干预措施,但对个体结果、健康不平等、更广泛的患者体验、工作量和能力的影响仍不确定。

未来研究

进一步的研究应包括患者层面的分析,以确定接受患者自主随访的个体患者的临床结果和健康不平等情况,以及对患者体验进行更广泛的调查。

研究注册

本研究已在研究注册处注册(UIN:researchregistry8864)。

资金来源

本奖项由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会保健交付研究项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:16/138/17),并全文发表于《卫生与社会保健交付研究》;第12卷,第38期。有关更多奖项信息,请参见NIHR资金与奖项网站。

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