Clinician and patient perspectives of a new model of triage in a community rehabilitation program that reduced waiting time: a qualitative analysis
Katherine E. Harding A B E , Nicholas F. Taylor A B , Birgitte Bowers C , Maree Stafford D and Sandra G. Leggat AA La Trobe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vic. 3086, Australia. Email: n.taylor@latrobe.edu.au, s.leggat@latrobe.edu.au
B Allied Health Research Office, Eastern Health, Level 2, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia.
C Health Independence Unit, Eastern Health, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia. Email: birgitte.bowers@easternhealth.edu.au
D Ambulatory and Community Services Program, Eastern Health, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia. Email: maree.stafford@easternhealth.org.au
E Corresponding author. Email: katherine.harding@easternhealth.org.au
Australian Health Review 37(3) 324-330 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13033
Submitted: 13 August 2012 Accepted: 12 February 2013 Published: 17 May 2013
Abstract
Background A trial of a new model of triage (Specific and Timely Appointments for Triage: STAT) at a community rehabilitation program (CRP) reduced the mean time to first appointment from 17.5 to 10.0 days. However, quantitative findings reveal little about the impact of the system on those who used it. We aimed to explore the experiences of patients and clinicians following the introduction of STAT.
Method Qualitative study within a convergent mixed-methods design applied to a controlled before and after trial at a CRP. Semi-structured interviews (n = 32) were conducted with clinicians who experienced the change to STAT, patients admitted to the CRP using STAT and patients who attended rehabilitation via a triaged wait list at another site.
Results Clinicians reported shorter waiting times, more flexibility and increased efficiency with STAT, and noted the importance of effective change management. Patients reported a more efficient and consistent pathway to rehabilitation with STAT. Waiting had negative consequences for some patients at the triaged wait list site.
Conclusions The qualitative data provide context to the quantitative results by showing that the changes that reduced waiting times were also well accepted and perceived to be beneficial by both patients and clinicians.
What is known about the topic? Triage systems are widely used but can contribute to inefficiencies in health care. An alternative method of triage (STAT) using early allocation to face-to-face appointments has been shown to reduce waiting times in a community rehabilitation service.
What does this paper add? This paper explains and adds important context to the quantitative findings by exploring the perceptions of the staff and patients who experienced both the existing and alternative models of triage.
What are the implications for practitioners? The STAT model was well received by staff and patients, suggesting that this simple intervention was a feasible and effective method of reducing waiting times for community rehabilitation, and may be applicable to other services that share similar features.
References
[1] Rotstein D, Alter D. Where does the waiting list begin? A short review of the dynamics and organization of modern waiting lists. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62 3157–60.| Where does the waiting list begin? A short review of the dynamics and organization of modern waiting lists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16377045PubMed |
[2] Murray M, Berwick DM. Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care. JAMA 2003; 289 1035–40.
| Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12597760PubMed |
[3] Kenis P. Waiting lists in Dutch healthcare: an analysis from an organization theoretical perspective. J Health Organ Manag 2006; 20 294–308.
| Waiting lists in Dutch healthcare: an analysis from an organization theoretical perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16921814PubMed |
[4] Creaton A, Liew D, Knott J, Wright M. Interrater reliability of the Australasian Triage Scale for mental health patients. Emerg Med Australas 2008; 20 468–74.
| Interrater reliability of the Australasian Triage Scale for mental health patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19125824PubMed |
[5] MacCormick AD, Parry BR. Judgment analysis of surgeons’ prioritization of patients for elective general surgery. Med Decis Making 2006; 26 255–64.
| Judgment analysis of surgeons’ prioritization of patients for elective general surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16751324PubMed |
[6] Harding K, Taylor N, Shaw-Stuart L. Triaging patients for allied health services: a systematic review of the literature. Br J Occup Ther 2009; 72 153–62.
[7] Harding KE, Taylor NF, Leggat SG, Stafford M. The effect of triage on waiting time for community rehabilitation services: a prospective cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 441–5.
| The effect of triage on waiting time for community rehabilitation services: a prospective cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22244686PubMed |
[8] Kreindler SA. Watching your wait: evidence-informed strategies for reducing health care wait times. Qual Manag Health Care 2008; 17 128–35.
| 18425026PubMed |
[9] Harding KE, Taylor NF, Leggat SG, Stafford M, Bowers B. A new approach to triage reduces waiting time for community rehabilitation services: a controlled before and after trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94 23–32.
| 22926459PubMed |
[10] Draper M, Hill S. Feasibility of national benchmarking of patient satisfaction with Australian hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care 1996; 8 457–66.
| Feasibility of national benchmarking of patient satisfaction with Australian hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7jsFKhtQ%3D%3D&md5=b05648e08e98e223b514fe315cac7f3cCAS | 9117199PubMed |
[11] Wagner EH, Aiello Bowles E, Greene S, Tuzzio L, Wiese C, Kirlin B, et al The quality of cancer patient experience: perspectives of patients, family members, providers and experts. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19 484–9.
| The quality of cancer patient experience: perspectives of patients, family members, providers and experts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21127109PubMed |
[12] Moos R, Schaefer J. Evaluating health care work settings: a holistic conceptual framework. Psychol Health 1987; 1 97–122.
| Evaluating health care work settings: a holistic conceptual framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Johnson R, Onwuegbuzie J, Turner L. Towards a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 2007; 1 112–33.
| Towards a definition of mixed methods research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin B, et al An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17 178–81.
| An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1czlsFGrsA%3D%3D&md5=ac0cb284f5084233c554cc9c5bbd2c24CAS | 18519623PubMed |
[15] Cresswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications; 2011.
[16] Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320 50–2.
| Assessing quality in qualitative research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FosV2itg%3D%3D&md5=2ee808cf615e888ea9005b66883809ebCAS | 10617534PubMed |
[17] Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 3rd edn. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press; 2009.
[18] Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320 114–6.
| Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FptVOgug%3D%3D&md5=78d7e0f6b60fa4444603dff71ff2c398CAS | 10625273PubMed |
[19] Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes and theory. Health Serv Res 2007; 42 1758–72.
| Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes and theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17286625PubMed |
[20] Lynch ME, Campbell F, Clark A, Dunbar M, Goldstein D, Peng P, et al A systematic review on the effect of waiting for treatment for chronic pain. Pain 2008; 136 97–116.
| A systematic review on the effect of waiting for treatment for chronic pain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17707589PubMed |
[21] Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DRF, Knol DL, Bijnen AB, Van der Wal G. Waiting for elective general surgery: impact on health related quality of life and psychosocial consequences. BMC Public Health 2007; 7 164
| Waiting for elective general surgery: impact on health related quality of life and psychosocial consequences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2srgslCntw%3D%3D&md5=63747d160ca8daea178965c0655a60ebCAS | 17640382PubMed | 17640382PubMed |
[22] Masso M, McCarthy G. Literature review to identify factors that support implementation of evidence-based practice in residential aged care. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2009; 7 145–56.
| Literature review to identify factors that support implementation of evidence-based practice in residential aged care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21631854PubMed | 21631854PubMed |
[23] Fernandez S, Rainey H. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Adm Rev 2006; 66 168–76.
| Managing successful organizational change in the public sector.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, et al Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11 174–80.
| Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38nosFKnsA%3D%3D&md5=718ad6ba5e116b3ea612f847870f4087CAS | 12448812PubMed | 12448812PubMed |
