Long Waiting Times for Elective Hospital Care - Breaking the Vicious Circle by Abandoning Prioritisation.

BACKGROUND: Policies assigning low-priority patients treatment delays for care, in order to make room for patients of higher priority arriving later, are common in secondary healthcare services today. Alternatively, each new patient could be granted the first available appointment. We aimed to investigate whether prioritisation can be part of the reason why waiting times for care are often long, and to describe how departments can improve their waiting situation by changing away from prioritisation. METHODS: We used patient flow data from 2015 at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. In Dynaplan Smia, Dynaplan AS, dynamic simulations were used to compare how waiting time, size and shape of the waiting list, and capacity utilisation developed with and without prioritisation. Simulations were started from the actual waiting list at the beginning of 2015, and from an empty waiting list (simulating a new department with no initial patient backlog). RESULTS: From an empty waiting list and with capacity equal to demand, waiting times were built 7 times longer when prioritising than when not. Prioritisation also led to poor resource utilisation and short-lived effects of extra capacity. Departments where prioritisation is causing long waits can improve their situation by temporarily bringing capacity above demand and introducing "first come, first served" instead of prioritisation. CONCLUSION: A poor appointment allocation policy can build long waiting times, even when capacity is sufficient to meet demand. By bringing waiting times down and going away from prioritisation, the waiting list size and average waiting times at the studied department could be maintained almost 90% below the current level - without requiring permanent change in the capacity/demand ratio.

Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC): work participation and functional status at 12 months post-treatment.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are associated with substantial functional impairment. Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), the Norwegian adaptation of IAPT is currently piloted across Norway, as a means to improve access to evidence-based care for adults with anxiety disorders (including subthreshold cases) and minor to moderate depression. The aims of the current paper were to examine the change in work status and functional status from pre- to post-treatment and 12 months post-treatment among clients at the first 12 PMHC pilot sites, and whether degree of change differed across sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: A prospective cohort design was used, including working age clients receiving treatment between October 2014 and December 2016 (n = 1446, participation rate = 61%). Work status and functional status were self-reported, the latter by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Changes in work status and WSAS score were examined through multilevel models based on maximum likelihood estimation. Likelihood ratio tests were performed to determine whether the interaction between time and the respective background variables were statistically significant. RESULTS: A substantial increase in regular work participation was observed from pre- to post-treatment, which further had increased at 12 months post-treatment. The increase was driven by a corresponding reduction in proportion of clients working and receiving benefits (OR 0.38 [0.29-0.50] baseline to final treatment, OR = 0.19 [0.12-0.32] final treatment to 12-months post-treatment), while no statistically significant change was observed in proportion out of work. Large improvement (ES = - 0.89) in WSAS score was observed from pre- to post treatment. WSAS score at 12 months post-treatment remained at the post-treatment level. CONCLUSIONS: Previous research has shown substantial symptom improvement among clients receiving treatment in PMHC. The current findings indicate that PMHC might also be able to aid adults struggling with mild to moderate anxiety and depression in returning to usual level of functioning. The degree to which the observed improvements are attributable to the treatment need nonetheless to be confirmed in a trial including a control group and with more complete follow-up data from registries.

Effectiveness of Prompt Mental Health Care, the Norwegian Version of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The innovative treatment model Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) and its Norwegian adaptation, Prompt Mental Health Care (PMHC), have been evaluated by cohort studies only. Albeit yielding promising results, the extent to which these are attributable to the treatment thus remains unsettled. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of the PMHC treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) at 6-month follow-up. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with parallel assignment was performed in two PMHC sites (Sandnes and Kristiansand) and enrolled clients between November 9, 2015 and August 31, 2017. Participants were 681 adults (aged ≥18 years) considered for admission to PMHC due to anxiety and/or mild to moderate depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] scores above cutoff). These were randomly assigned (70:30 ratio; n = 463 to PMHC, n = 218 to TAU) with simple randomization within each site with no further constraints. The main outcomes were recovery rates and changes in symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) between baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome data were available for 73/67% in PMHC/TAU. Sensitivity analyses based on observed patterns of missingness were also conducted. Secondary outcomes were work participation, functional status, health-related quality of life, and mental well-being. RESULTS: A reliable recovery rate of 58.5% was observed in the PMHC group and of 31.9% in the TAU group, equaling a between-group effect size of 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.85, p < 0.001). The differences in degree of improvement between PMHC and TAU yielded an effect size of -0.88 (95% CI -1.23 to -0.43, p < 0.001) for PHQ-9 and -0.60 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.30, p < 0.001) for GAD-7 in favor of PMHC. All sensitivity analyses pointed in the same direction, with small variations in point estimates. Findings were slightly more robust for depressive than anxiety symptoms. PMHC was also more effective than TAU in improving all secondary outcomes, except for work participation (z = 0.415, p = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: The PMHC treatment was substantially more effective than TAU in alleviating the burden of anxiety and depression. This adaptation of IAPT is considered a viable supplement to existing health services to increase access to effective treatment for adults who suffer from anxiety and mild to moderate depression. A potential effect on work participation needs further examination.