Reducing ear, nose and throat (ENT) waitlists: Implications of a referral audit.

INTRODUCTION: Many specialist waitlists in Australian hospitals are long. One reason anecdotally reported for this is poor alignment of referrals with current recommended guidelines. This paper reports the findings of an audit undertaken in 2017 for ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeon referrals submitted by primary health centres within Cape York, Australia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 54 long-wait ENT referrals were reviewed against referral criteria for ENT presentations using the Clinical Prioritization Criteria (CPC) and two routinely applied clinical primary health care guidelines; with findings reported alongside patient demography. RESULTS: All of the long wait ENT referrals in the sample were for remote living Indigenous Australians, most were children (93%). One fifth of referrals fulfilled all referral criteria and were appropriate (22%); one third required further informaiton to support the referral, either audiology or clinical history (30%); and half were inappropriate referrals (48%). CONCLUSION: Although many referral submissions did not adhere to CPC or routine guidelines, this audit enabled the identification of improvements to the referral system including the development of a checklist and flow-chart, plus patient information resources aimed at improving patient adherence. A case can be made for a new service delivery model that provides ongoing primary health education and facilitates improved ENT access. These strategies may improve ENT referral quality and decongest current ENT specialist waitlists, while offering improved primary health care management of ear presentations.

Ear, nose, and throat surgical access for remote living Indigenous children: What is the least costly model?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This costing evaluation compares three service delivery models for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery for remote living Indigenous children to improve their hearing outcomes, with the aim to identify the least costly model. METHODS: The main outcome measure presented was the incremental cost difference between the base case (Model 1) and two alternative models (Model 2, 3). The costs in 2017 Australian dollars are assessed from two viewpoints: (1) health system perspective, and (2) patients and their families including travel out-of-pocket expenses, presented separately according to the funding source. RESULTS: Findings indicate that the least costly model offered low-risk ENT surgery from a state funded hospital in a remote setting, with high use of videoconference technology: TeleHealth (Model 3) could save $3626 to $5067 per patient, compared with patients travelling to a regional centre public hospital (Model 1). A federally funded scheme which allowed groups of patients to access a direct flight charter transfer to the private hospital in regional centre (Model 2) reduced the cost by $2178 to $2711 per patient when compared with standard care (Model 1). From a societal perspective, Model 1 required out-of-pocket patient expenses, with greater time away from home, and hence appears the least preferred option. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity analyses also demonstrate that Model 3 would be the more economical model for providing ENT surgery for remote living children. By proving an accurate assessment of the true costs of delivering these important ear and hearing health services, strategic health service planners may be better informed and sufficient budgets can be allocated to provide improved service delivery. The benefits of Model 3, over Models 1 or 2, would also incorporate improvements to patient safety as a result of reducing patient travel, which should in-turn, reduce failure-to-attend rates.

An innovative approach to improve ear, nose and throat surgical access for remote living Cape York Indigenous children.

INTRODUCTION: On a background of high rates of severe otitis media (OM) with associated hearing loss, children from the Torres Strait and Cape York region requiring ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery, faced waiting times exceeding three years. After numerous clinical safety incidents were raised, indicating a failure of the current system to deliver appropriate care, the governing Hospital and Health service opted to deliver surgical care through an alternate process. ENT surgeries were performed on 16 consented children from two remote locations via the private health care system, funded by a health provider partnership. METHODS: We examined the collaboration processes alongside clinical findings from this ENT surgery. Collated patient data, included patient demographics, clinical and audiometry presentation features were reviewed and compared pre and post-operatively. Cost savings associated with the use of TeleHealth post-operatively were briefly examined. RESULTS: Surgeries were successfully completed in all 16 children. The reported mean waitlist time for ENT surgery was 1.2 years. Pre-surgery pure-tone average hearing thresholds were reported at left: 30.9 dB, right: 38.2 dB. The majority of presentations were for bilateral OM with Effusion (69%). Post-surgical follow up indicated successful clinical outcomes in 80% of patients and successful hearing outcomes in 88% of patients. Mean difference pure-tone average hearing thresholds, left: 8.4 dB and right: 11.2 dB. Furthermore, the majority of patients reported improved hearing and breathing. The use of TeleHealth for post-operative review enabled a minimum cost saving of AUD$21,664 for these 16 children. Overall, a high level of staffing resources was required to successfully coordinate this intense surgical activity. CONCLUSION: This innovative approach to a health system crisis enabled successful ENT surgical and hearing outcomes in 16 children, whose waitlisted time grossly exceeded state health recommendations. Using private health facilities funded by a health partnership, while unlikely to be a suitable model of care for routine service delivery; may be applied as an adjunct service model when blockages and delays lead to sub-standard service provision. This approach may be applicable to other health care facilities when facing extended elective surgery wait times in ENT or other specialty areas.