Scoping review of Australian evaluations of healthcare delivery models: are we making the most of the evidence?
Jacqueline Roseleur
A B D , Andrew Partington A C and Jonathan Karnon A
A Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia. Email: andrew.partington@flinders.edu.au; jonathan.karnon@flinders.edu.au
B School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
C Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, 3 Innovation Road, Macquarie Park, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: jackie.roseleur@flinders.edu.au
Australian Health Review 44(4) 557-562 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19188
Submitted: 20 August 2019 Accepted: 18 November 2019 Published: 30 June 2020
Abstract
Objective Healthcare delivery models describe the organisation of healthcare practitioners and other resources to provide health care for a defined patient population. The organisation of health care has a predominant effect on the receipt of timely and appropriate health care. Efforts to improve healthcare delivery should be evidence informed, and large numbers of evaluations of healthcare delivery models have been undertaken. This paper presents a scoping review of Australian evaluations of new healthcare delivery models to inform a discussion of the appropriate use of such evidence to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the Australian health system.
Methods A systematic scoping review was undertaken, following an a priori published protocol. PubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for primary comparative studies of healthcare delivery models undertaken in Australia and published between 2009 and 2018. Primary prevention studies, such as health promotion activities, were excluded.
Results Of 14 923 citations, 636 studies were included in the scoping review. Of these, 383 (60%) were randomised control trials. There were 18 clinical specialties in which over 10 evaluations were identified. Most models involved allied health practitioners or nurses.
Conclusion Evaluations of healthcare delivery models provide important evidence that can be used to improve the use of the most important and costly assets of health systems, namely the healthcare practitioners who deliver health care. A nationally coordinated system is required to support local health services to assess the local value of alternative healthcare delivery models.
What is known about the topic? The organisation and delivery of health care is continuously evolving in response to changes in the demand and supply of health care. New healthcare delivery models are often evaluated in specific locations, but it is not clear how such evidence informs the delivery of care in other locations.
What does this paper add? This paper reports the findings of a scoping review of Australian evaluations of healthcare delivery models, highlighting the large and increasing number of such evaluations that have been published in the past 10 years.
What are the implications for practitioners? Opportunities to improve health system efficiency are likely being lost due to the underuse of the available Australian evidence on new healthcare delivery models. Local health services need support to interpret such evidence in their local context, which could be provided through the development of a national framework for local evaluation.
References
[1] Braithwaite J. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement. BMJ 2018; 361 k2014| Changing how we think about healthcare improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29773537PubMed |
[2] Fradgley EA, Karnon J, Roach D, Harding K, Wilkinson-Meyers L, Chojenta C, Campbell M, Harris ML, Cumming J, Dalziel K, McDonald J, Pain T, Smiler K, Paul CL. Taking the pulse of the health services research community: a cross-sectional survey of research impact, barriers and support. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44 160–7.
| Taking the pulse of the health services research community: a cross-sectional survey of research impact, barriers and support.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30779882PubMed |
[3] NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation. Understanding the process to implement a model of care: an ACI framework. Sydney: NSW Health; 2013.
[4] Queensland Health. Changing models of care framework. Brisbane: Queensland Government; 2000.
[5] WA Health Networks. Model of care: overview and guidelines. Perth: Department of Health, Government of Western Australia; 2014.
[6] Roseleur J, Partington A, Karnon J. Evaluations of healthcare delivery models in Australia: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2020; 18 128–34.
[7] Peters MD, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available at: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL [verified 16 March 2020].
[8] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tuncalp O, Straus SE. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 467–73.
| PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30178033PubMed |
[9] Medical Board of Australia. Medical specialties and specialty fields. 2019. Available at: https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/registration/types/specialist-registration/medical-specialties-and-specialty-fields.aspx [verified 1 March 2019].
[10] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: NHMRC; 2000.
[11] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). How to compare the costs and benefits: evaluation of economic evidence. Canberra: NHMRC; 2001.
[12] Mortimer D, Bosch M, McKenzie JE, Turner S, Chau M, Ponsford JL, Knott JC, Gruen RL, Green SE. Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments. Implement Sci 2018; 13 147
| Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30518430PubMed |
[13] Wallis M, Marsden E, Taylor A, Craswell A, Broadbent M, Barnett A, Nguyen KH, Johnston C, Glenwright A, Crilly J. The geriatric emergency department intervention model of care: a pragmatic trial. BMC Geriatr 2018; 18 297
| The geriatric emergency department intervention model of care: a pragmatic trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30509204PubMed |
[14] McKenzie N, Williams TA, Ho KM, Inoue M, Bailey P, Celenza A, Fatovich D, Jenkins I, Finn J. Direct transport to a PCI-capable hospital is associated with improved survival after adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of medical aetiology. Resuscitation 2018; 128 76–82.
| Direct transport to a PCI-capable hospital is associated with improved survival after adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of medical aetiology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29729284PubMed |
[15] Braitberg G, Gerdtz M, Harding S, Pincus S, Thompson M, Knott J. Behavioural assessment unit improves outcomes for patients with complex psychosocial needs. Emerg Med Australas 2018; 30 353–8.
| Behavioural assessment unit improves outcomes for patients with complex psychosocial needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29219242PubMed |
[16] Harding P, Walter K, Page C, Shaw B, Phan U, Terrill D. Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy final report. Melbourne: Department of Health & Human Services, State Government Victoria; 2015.
[17] Aspex Consulting. Evaluation of urgent care centres pilot. Sydney: NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation; 2014.
[18] Meacock R. Methods for the economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: principal challenges and recommendations. Health Econ Policy Law 2019; 14 119–34.
| Methods for the economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: principal challenges and recommendations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29673412PubMed |
[19] Sutton M, Garfield-Birkbeck S, Martin G, Meacock R, Morris S, Sculpher M, Street A, Watson SI, Lilford RJ. Economic analysis of service and delivery interventions in health care. Health Serv Deliv Res 2018; 6
| Economic analysis of service and delivery interventions in health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[20] Scrivens E. Accreditation and the regulation of quality in health services. In: Saltman RB, Busse R, Mossialos E, editors. Regulating entrepreneurial behaviour in European health care systems. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press; 2002. pp. 91–105.
[21] The National Health Information and Performance Principal Committee. The Australian health performance framework. Canberra: COAG Health Council; 2017.
[22] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The third Australian atlas of healthcare variation. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2018.
[23] CSIRO Futures. Future of health: shifting Australia’s focus from illness treatment to health and wellbeing management. Canberra: CSIRO; 2018.
[24] Palliative Care Australia. The economic value of palliative care and end-of-life care. Griffith: Palliative Care Australia; 2017.
[25] Duckett S, Griffiths K. Perils of place: identifying hotspots of health inequalities. Melbourne: Grattan Institute; 2016.
[26] Agency for Clinical Innovation. Models of care. 2020. Available at: https://www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/resources/models-of-care [verified 5 July 2019].
[27] Agency for Clinical Innovation. Management of people with acute low back pain: model of care. Sydney: NSW Health; 2016.
[28] Searles A, Gleeson M, Reeves P, Jorm C, Leeder S, Karnon J, Hiscock H, Skouteris H, Daly M, NSW Regional Health Partners. The local level evaluation of healthcare in Australia: Health Systems Improvement and Sustainability (HSIS) national initiative. Australian Health Research Alliance; 2019. Available at: https://nswregionalhealthpartners.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NSWRHP-Local-Level-Evaluation-of-Healthcare-in-Australia-FINAL.pdf [verified 16 March 2020].
[29] Harris C, Garrubba M, Melder A, Voutier C, Waller C, King R, Ramsey W. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: developing, implementing and evaluating an evidence dissemination service in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18 151
| Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: developing, implementing and evaluating an evidence dissemination service in a local healthcare setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29499702PubMed |
[30] Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci 2016; 11 33
| PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27013464PubMed |
[31] Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to ‘evidence-informed’ policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med 2005; 2 e166
| Pathways to ‘evidence-informed’ policy and practice: a framework for action.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15913387PubMed |
[32] Medical Research Future Fund. Australian medical research and innovation priorities 2018–2020. Canberra: Australian Government; 2018.
[33] Council of Australian Governments. Heads of agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on public hospital funding and health reform. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments; 2018.
[34] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Health expenditure Australia 2016–17. Canberra: AIHW; 2018.
