Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services.

BACKGROUND: Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. METHODS: A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. RESULTS: The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.

The Efficiency of Increasing the Capacity of Physiotherapy Screening Clinics or Traditional Medical Services to Address Unmet Demand in Orthopaedic Outpatients: A Practical Application of Discrete Event Simulation with Dynamic Queuing.

BACKGROUND: Hospital outpatient orthopaedic services traditionally rely on medical specialists to assess all new patients to determine appropriate care. This has resulted in significant delays in service provision. In response, Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinics and Multidisciplinary Services (OPSC) have been introduced to assess and co-ordinate care for semi- and non-urgent patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiency of delivering increased semi- and non-urgent orthopaedic outpatient services through: (1) additional OPSC services; (2) additional traditional orthopaedic medical services with added surgical resources (TOMS + Surg); or (3) additional TOMS without added surgical resources (TOMS - Surg). METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using discrete event simulation (DES) with dynamic queuing (DQ) was used to predict the cost effectiveness, throughput, queuing times, and resource utilisation, associated with introducing additional OPSC or TOMS ± Surg versus usual care. RESULTS: The introduction of additional OPSC or TOMS (±surgery) would be considered cost effective in Australia. However, OPSC was the most cost-effective option. Increasing the capacity of current OPSC services is an efficient way to improve patient throughput and waiting times without exceeding current surgical resources. An OPSC capacity increase of ~100 patients per month appears cost effective (A$8546 per quality-adjusted life-year) and results in a high level of OPSC utilisation (98 %). CONCLUSION: Increasing OPSC capacity to manage semi- and non-urgent patients would be cost effective, improve throughput, and reduce waiting times without exceeding current surgical resources. Unlike Markov cohort modelling, microsimulation, or DES without DQ, employing DES-DQ in situations where capacity constraints predominate provides valuable additional information beyond cost effectiveness to guide resource allocation decisions.