'Snapshot in time': a cross-sectional study exploring stakeholder experiences with environmental scans in health services delivery research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe stakeholder characteristics and perspectives about experiences, challenges and information needs related to the use of environmental scans (ESs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A web-based survey platform was used to disseminate an online survey to stakeholders who had experience with conducting ESs in a health services delivery context (eg, researchers, policy makers, practitioners). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. The survey was disseminated internationally, was available in English and French, and remained open for 6 weeks (15 October to 30 November 2022). ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and experiences of stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-text questions. RESULTS: Of 47 participants who responded to the survey, 94% were from Canada, 4% from the USA and 2% from Australia. Respondents represented academic institutions (57%), health agency/government (32%) and non-government organisations or agencies (11%). Three themes were identified: (a) having a sense of value and utility; (b) experiencing uncertainty and confusion; and (c) seeking guidance. The data suggest stakeholders found value and utility in ESs and conducted them for varied purposes including to: (a) enhance knowledge, understanding and learning about the current landscape or state of various features of health services delivery (eg, programmes, practices, policies, services, best practices); (b) expose needs, service barriers, challenges, gaps, threats, opportunities; (c) help guide action for planning, policy and programme development; and (d) inform recommendations and decision-making. Stakeholders also experienced conceptual, methodological and practical barriers when conducting ESs, and expressed a need for methodological guidance delivered through published guidelines, checklists and other means. CONCLUSION: ESs have value and utility for addressing health services delivery concerns, but conceptual and methodological challenges exist. Further research is needed to help advance the ES as a distinct design that provides a systematic approach to planning and conducting ESs.

Prioritization of patients access to outpatient augmentative and alternative communication services in Quebec: a decision tool.

PURPOSE: A large number of people living with a chronic disability wait a long time to access publicly funded rehabilitation services such as Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) services, and there is no standardized tool to prioritize these patients. We aimed to develop a prioritization tool to improve the organization and access to the care for this population. METHODS: In this sequential mixed methods study, we began with a qualitative phase in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 stakeholders including patients, their caregivers, and AAC service providers in Quebec City, Canada to gather their ideas about prioritization criteria. Then, during a half-day consensus group meeting with stakeholders, using a consensus-seeking technique (i.e. Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts), we reached consensus on the most important prioritization criteria. These criteria informed the quantitative phase in which used an electronic questionnaire to collect stakeholders' views regarding the relative weights for each of the selected criteria. We analyzed these data using a hybrid quantitative method called group based fuzzy analytical hierarchy process, to obtain the importance weights of the selected eight criteria. RESULTS: Analyses of the interviews revealed 48 criteria. Collectively, the stakeholders reached consensus on eight criteria, and through the electronic questionnaire they defined the selected criteria's importance weights. The selected eight prioritization criteria and their importance weights are: person's safety (weight: 0.274), risks development potential (weight: 0.144), psychological well-being (weight: 0.140), physical well-being (weight: 0.124), life prognosis (weight: 0.106), possible impact on social environment (weight: 0.085), interpersonal relationships (weight: 0.073), and responsibilities and social role (weight: 0.054). CONCLUSION: In this study, we co-developed a prioritization decision tool with the key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in rehabilitation settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILIATIONStudies in Canada have shown that people in Canada with a need for rehabilitation services are not receiving publicly available services in a timely manner.There is no standardized tool for the prioritization of AAC patients.In this mixed methods study, we co-developed a prioritization tool with key stakeholders for prioritization of patients who are referred to AAC services in a rehabilitation center in Quebec, Canada.

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of a patient prioritization tool in two specialized rehabilitation programs.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Prioritization tools aim to manage access to care by ranking patients equitably in waiting lists based on determined criteria. Patient prioritization has been studied in a wide variety of clinical health services, including rehabilitation contexts. We created a web-based patient prioritization tool (PPT) with the participation of stakeholders in two rehabilitation programs, which we aim to implement into clinical practice. Successful implementation of such innovation can be influenced by a variety of determinants. The goal of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a PPT in rehabilitation programs. METHODS: We used two questionnaires and conducted two focus groups among service providers from two rehabilitation programs. We used descriptive statistics to report results of the questionnaires and qualitative content analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Key facilitators are the flexibility and relative advantage of the tool to improve clinical practices and produce beneficial outcomes for patients. Main barriers are the lack of training, financial support and human resources to sustain the implementation process. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that highlights organizational, individual and innovation levels facilitators and barriers for the implementation of a prioritization tool from service providers' perspective.

A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.

BACKGROUND: Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. RESULTS: We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. CONCLUSIONS: This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.

Acceptability of older patients' self-assessment in the Emergency Department (ACCEPTED)-a randomised cross-over pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: patient self-assessment using electronic tablet could improve the quality of assessment of older Emergency Department(ED) patients. However, the acceptability of this practice remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: to compare the acceptability of self-assessment using a tablet in the ED to a standard assessment by a research assistant (RA), according to seniors and their caregivers. DESIGN: randomised crossover pilot study. SETTING: The Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus (CHU de Québec-Université Laval) (2018/05-2018/07). SUBJECTS: (1) ED patients aged ≥65, (2) their caregiver, if present. METHODS: participants' frailty, cognitive and functional status were assessed with the Clinical Frailty scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Older American Resources and Services scale and patients self-assessed using a tablet. Test administration order was randomised. The primary outcome, acceptability, was measured using the Treatment Acceptability and Preferences (TAP) scale. Descriptive analyses were performed for sociodemographic variables. TAP scores were adjusted using multivariate linear regression. Thematic content analysis was performed for qualitative data. RESULTS: sixty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 75.5 ± 8.0 and 55.2% were women. Adjusted TAP scores for RA evaluation and patient self-assessment were 2.36 and 2.20, respectively (P = 0.08). Patients aged ≥85 showed a difference between the TAP scores (P < 0.05). Qualitative data indicates that this might be attributed to the use of technology. Data from nine caregivers showed a 2.42 mean TAP score for RA evaluation and 2.44 for self-assessment. CONCLUSIONS: our results show that older patients believe self-assessment in the ED using an electronic tablet as acceptable as a standard evaluation by a research assistant. Patients aged ≥85 find this practice less acceptable.

Patient prioritization tools and their effectiveness in non-emergency healthcare services: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists should be managed as fairly as possible to ensure that patients with greater or more urgent needs receive services first. Patient prioritization refers to the process of ranking referrals in a certain order based on various criteria with the aim of improving fairness and equity in the delivery of care. Despite the widespread use of patient prioritization tools (PPTs) in healthcare services, the existing literature on this subject has mainly focused on emergency settings. Evidence has not been synthesized with respect to all the non-emergency services. METHODS: This review aims to perform a systematic synthesis of published evidence concerning (1) prioritization tools' characteristics, (2) their metrological properties, and (3) their effect measures across non-emergency services. Five electronic databases will be searched (Cochrane Library, Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Eligibility criteria guiding data selection will be (1) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods empirical studies; (2) patient prioritization in any non-emergency setting; and (3) discussing characteristic, metrological properties, or effect measures. Data will be sought to report tool's format, description, population, setting, purpose, criteria, developer, metrological properties, and outcome measures. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. Data will be synthesized with sequential exploratory design method. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess the quality of articles included in the review. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide much-needed knowledge regarding patient prioritization tools. The results will benefit clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers by giving them a better understanding of the methods used to prioritize patients in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.