Impact and outcome evaluation of HealthPathways: a scoping review of published methodologies
Sameera Senanayake
1 6 , Bridget Abell 1 , Monica Novick 2 , Helen Exley 3 , Wendy Dolejs 4 , Kylie Hutchinson 4 , Steven McPhail 1 5 , Sanjeewa Kularatna 1
1 Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Brisbane, Qld 4059, Australia.
2 Wellbeing South Australia, Level 8, 11 Hindmarsh Square, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
3 Health Integration and Coordination, Country South Australia PHN, 30 Tanunda Rd, Nuriootpa, SA 5355, Australia.
4 Adelaide PHN, 1/22 Henley Beach Road, Mile End, SA 5031, Australia.
5 Clinical Informatics Directorate, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Qld 4102, Australia.
6 Corresponding author. Email: s2.senanayake@qut.edu.au
Journal of Primary Health Care 13(3) 260-273 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC21067
Published: 21 September 2021
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2021 This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The HealthPathways programme is an online health information system used mainly in primary health care to promote a consistent and integrated approach to patient care.
AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a scoping review of the methodologies used in published impact and outcomes evaluations of HealthPathways programmes.
METHODS: The review included qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods evaluations of the impact or outcome of HealthPathways. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched. Seven programme aims were identified in the impact and outcome evaluation: (1) increased awareness and use of HealthPathways; (2) general practitioners are supported to adopt best practice, patient-centred care; (3) increased appropriate use of resources and services; (4) improved quality of referrals; (5) enhanced consistent care and management of health conditions; (6) improved patient journeys through the local health system; and (7) reduction in health-care cost and increased value for money.
RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the final review; 15 were research papers and six were reports. ‘Increased awareness and use of HealthPathways’ was the most frequent programme aim evaluated (n = 12). Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, as well as prospective and retrospective data collections, have been adopted to evaluate the impact and outcome of HealthPathways.
DISCUSSION: Assessing the impacts and outcomes of HealthPathways may be challenging due to limitations in primary data and the interconnectedness of change across the measured aims. Each aim may therefore require specific methodologies sensitive enough to capture the impact that HealthPathways are making over time.
KEYwords: HealthPathways; evaluation; care pathways.
References
[1] Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust. 2012; 197 100–5.| CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22794056PubMed |
[2] Gray JS, Swan JR, Lynch MA, et al. Hunter and New England HealthPathways: a 4-year journey of integrated care. Aust Health Rev. 2018; 42 66–71.
| Hunter and New England HealthPathways: a 4-year journey of integrated care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28214475PubMed |
[3] Clarke A, Blundell N, Forde I, et al. Can guidelines improve referral to elective surgical specialties for adults? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2010; 19 187–94.
| Can guidelines improve referral to elective surgical specialties for adults? A systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Brennan N, Mattick K, Ellis T. The Map of Medicine: a review of evidence for its impact on healthcare. Health Info Libr J. 2011; 28 93–100.
| The Map of Medicine: a review of evidence for its impact on healthcare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21564492PubMed |
[5] Lee XJ, Blythe R, Choudhury AAK, et al. Review of methods and study designs of evaluations related to clinical pathways. Aust Health Rev. 2019; 43 448–56.
| Review of methods and study designs of evaluations related to clinical pathways.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30089529PubMed |
[6] HealthPathways Community. What is HealthPathways? New Zealand: HealthPathways Community, Canterbury District Health Board, and Streamliners NZ. Christchurch: Streamliners NZ Ltd; 2020. [cited 2020 October 5]. Available from: https://www.healthpathwayscommunity.org/About
[7] Scriven M. Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. Am J Eval. 1998; 19 57–70.
| Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Hunter & New England HealthPathways Evaluation Steering Committee. Evaluation of Hunter & New England HealthPathways Australia: Hunter New England Local Health District. Hunter New England: Hunter & New England HealthPathways Evaluation Steering Committee; 2014 [cited 2020 October 5]. Available from: https://researchbibliography.streamliners.co.nz/bibliography/PZT2A2BQ/download/2GG94CYU
[9] Blythe R, Lee X, Kularatna S. HealthPathways: An economic analysis of the impact of primary care pathways in Mackay, Queensland. Brisbane: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI); 2019. [cited 2020 October 10]. Available from: http://www.aushsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Mackay-HealthPathways-Final-Report.pdf
[10] HealthPathways South Australia. Evaluation Phase 1: Implementation. Mile End: HealthPathways South Australia; 2019.
[11] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. 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 |
[12] Alison Boughey Consulting. HealthPathways: An evaluation of its implementation in five Australian Medicare Locals. Forrest: Alison Boughey Consulting; 2014. [cited 2020 October 10]. Available from: http://www.alisonbougheyconsulting.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Alison-Boughey-Consulting-AML-Alliance-HealthPathways-evaluation-final-report.pdf
[13] Wiggers J, O’Dea I, Gray J, et al. Evaluation of Hunter & New England HealthPathways Phase 2 Report. Hunter New England: Hunter & New England HealthPathways Evaluation Steering Committee; 2015. [cited 2020 October 10]. Available from: https://researchbibliography.streamliners.co.nz/bibliography/PZT2A2BQ/download/2GG94CYU
[14] Huckel Schneider C. Evaluating HealthPathways Sydney: adopting a system-wide perspective to capture the complexity of development, implementation and impact. Camperdown: University of Sydney; 2018. [cited 2020 October 11]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/18139
[15] Chow JS, Gonzalez-Arce VE, Tam CWM, et al. HealthPathways implementation on type 2 diabetes. J Integr Care. 2019; 27 153–62.
| HealthPathways implementation on type 2 diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Lind KE, Jorgensen M, Stowers C, Brookes M. HealthPathways: a detailed analysis of utilisation trends in the northern Sydney region. Aust J Prim Health. 2020; 26 338–43.
| HealthPathways: a detailed analysis of utilisation trends in the northern Sydney region.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32611479PubMed |
[17] McGeoch G, McGeoch P, Shand B. Is HealthPathways effective? An online survey of hospital clinicians, general practitioners and practice nurses. N Z Med J. 2015; 128 36–46.
| 25662377PubMed |
[18] Rahman MS. The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: a literature review. J Educ Learn. 2017; 6 102–12.
| The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: a literature review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Maidlow SC, Ardagh M, Callender R, Thomas O. Addition of explicit guidance to acute pancreatitis guidelines increases compliance with amylase measurement recommendations. N Z Med J. 2019; 132 81–8.
| 30703782PubMed |
[20] Epton MJ, Kelly PT, Shand BI, et al. Development and outcomes of a primary care-based sleep assessment service in Canterbury, New Zealand. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017; 27 26
| Development and outcomes of a primary care-based sleep assessment service in Canterbury, New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28424459PubMed |
[21] Goddard-Nash A, Makate M, Varhol R, et al. Evaluation of HealthPathways: An appraisal of usage, experiences and opinions of health care professionals in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Health Rev. 2020; 44 590–600.
| 32693906PubMed |
[22] Gill SD, Mansfield S, McLeod M, et al. HealthPathways improving access to care. Aust Health Rev. 2019; 43 207–16.
| HealthPathways improving access to care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29415799PubMed |
[23] Akehurst J, Sattar Z, Gordon I, Ling J. Implementing online evidence-based care pathways: A mixed-methods study across primary and secondary care. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 e022991
| Implementing online evidence-based care pathways: A mixed-methods study across primary and secondary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30598485PubMed |
[24] Reyneke A, Jaye C, Stokes T. Local clinical pathways: from ‘good ideas’ to ‘practicality’ for general practitioners. J Prim Health Care. 2018; 10 215–23.
| Local clinical pathways: from ‘good ideas’ to ‘practicality’ for general practitioners.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31039936PubMed |
[25] Stravens M, Short J, Johnson K, et al. Management of postmenopausal bleeding by general practitioners in a community setting: an observational study. N Z Med J. 2016; 129 59–68.
| 27349264PubMed |
[26] Holland K, McGeoch G, Gullery C. A multifaceted intervention to improve primary care radiology referral quality and value in Canterbury. N Z Med J. 2017; 130 55–64.
| 28449017PubMed |
[27] Dixon B, Gray J, Elliot N, et al. A multifaceted programme to reduce the rate of tongue-tie release surgery in newborn infants: observational study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 113 156–63.
| A multifaceted programme to reduce the rate of tongue-tie release surgery in newborn infants: observational study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30173975PubMed |
[28] Sanders AD, Stevenson C, Pearson J, et al. A novel pathway for investigation of colorectal symptoms with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography. N Z Med J. 2013; 126 45–57.
| 24154769PubMed |
[29] Mansfield SJ, Quirk F, von Treuer K, Gill G. On the right path? Exploring the experiences and opinions of clinicians involved in developing and implementing HealthPathways Barwon. Aust Health Rev. 2016; 40 129–35.
| On the right path? Exploring the experiences and opinions of clinicians involved in developing and implementing HealthPathways Barwon.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26691571PubMed |
[30] Andrews S, Appleton-Dyer S, Henderson G. Evaluation of 3D HealthPathways. Auckland: SYNERGIA; 2018. [cited 2020 October 12]. Available from: https://www.ccdhb.org.nz/about-us/integrated-care-collaborative-alliance/3dhb-health-pathways/healthpathways-report-final-26-june-2018.pdf
[31] Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District. COORDINARE, South Eastern NSW PHN. HealthPathways Illawarra Shoalhaven Short Term Evaluation. Warrawong: HealthPathways Illawarra Shoalhaven; 2018. [cited 2020 October 12]. Available from: https://illawarrashoalhavenproject.healthpathways.org.au/Portals/32/HPWIS%20Docs/HPW%20Evaluations,%20Surveys%20&%20Papers/HPWIS%20Short%20Term%20Evaluation%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20070918.pdf
