A single-entry model and wait time for hip and knee replacement in eastern health region of Newfoundland and Labrador 2011–2019

Background A single-entry model in healthcare consolidates waiting lists through a central intake and allows patients to see the next available health care provider based on the prioritization. This study aimed to examine whether and to what extent the prioritization reduced wait times for hip and knee replacement surgeries. Method The survival regression method was used to estimate the effects of priority levels on wait times for consultation and surgery for hip and knee replacements. The sample data included patients who were referred to the Orthopedic Central Intake clinic at the Eastern Health region of Newfoundland and Labrador and had surgery of hip and knee replacements between 2011 and 2019. Result After adjusting for covariates, the hazard of having consultation booked was greater in patients with priority 1 and 2 than those in priority 3 when and at 90 days after the referral was made for both hip and knee replacements. Regarding wait time for surgery after the decision for surgery was made, while the hazard of having surgery was lower in priority 2 than in priority 3 when and indifferent at 182 days after the decision was made, it was not significantly different between priority 1 and priority 3 among hip replacement patients. Priority levels were not significantly related to the hazard of having surgery for a knee replacement after the decision for surgery was made. Overall, the hazard of having surgery after the referral was made by a primary care physician was greater for patients in high priority than those in low priority. Preferring a specific surgeon indicated at referral was found to delay consultation and it was not significantly related to the total wait time for surgery. Incomplete referral forms prolonged wait time for consultation and patients under age 65 had a longer total wait time than those aged 65 or above. Conclusion Patients with high priority could have a consultation booked earlier than those with low priority and prioritization in a single entrance model shortens the total wait time for surgery. However, the association between priority levels and wait for surgery after the decision for surgery was made has not well-established.

Patient satisfaction with the Nigerian National Health Insurance Scheme two decades since establishment: A systematic review and recommendations for improvement

Background: To improve healthcare access and mitigate healthcare costs for its population, Nigeria established a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in 1999. The NHIS remains Nigeria’s leading vehicle for achieving universal health coverage; nonetheless, questions remain regarding its quality and effectiveness. Studies on patient satisfaction have served as a useful strategy to further understand the patient experience and the efficacy of health systems.Aim: To synthesise current knowledge on patient satisfaction with the NHIS.Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of primary literature from 1999 to 2020 reporting on NHIS patient satisfaction in eight databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Africa-wide Information).Results: This search returned 764 unique records of which 21 met criteria for full data extraction. The 21 qualifying studies representing 11 of the 36 Nigerian states, were published from 2011 to 2020, and found moderate overall satisfaction with the NHIS (64%). Further, when disaggregated into specific domains, NHIS enrolees were most satisfied with provider attitudes (77%) and healthcare environments (70%), but less satisfied with laboratories (62%), billings (62%), pharmaceutical services (56%), wait times (55%), and referrals (51%). Importantly, time trends indicate satisfaction with the NHIS is increasing – although to differing degrees depending on the domain.Conclusion: The beneficiaries of the NHIS are moderately satisfied with the scheme. They consider it an improvement from being uninsured, but believe that the scheme can be considerably improved. The authors present two main recommendations: (1) shorter wait times may increase patient satisfaction and can be a central focus in improving the overall scheme, and (2) more research is needed across all 36 states to comprehensively understand patient satisfaction towards NHIS in anticipation of potential scheme expansion.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Surgical Wait Times for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in Ontario

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on surgical wait times for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) in Ontario, Canada. Methods: Ontario's wait time data has fourteen reporting categories for PRS. For each category, the mean wait time for consultation and for surgery were reported. Each category was given a priority ranging from 1 to 4. Two periods, three-month and six-month, were selected and compared to the same calendar months of the previous year. Wait times, surgical volume and percent change to the provincial wait time target were reported and compared to the baseline data. Results: This study reviewed 9563 consults and 15,000 operative cases. There was a 50% reduction in the volume of surgical consults during the study period compared to the baseline period (P = 0.004). The reduction ranged from 46% to 75% based on the reporting category. The volume of surgical cases decreased by 43% during the study period compared to the baseline period (P = 0.005). A statistically significant increase in the mean wait times for surgery was observed, involving priorities 2 to 4 (overall mean = 32 days, P ≤ 0.01). There was a 15% decrease in the percentage of surgeries meeting the provincial target times (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: COVID-19 has caused a significant reduction in the volume of cases performed in the majority of PRS categories with an overall increase in the wait times for consultation and for surgery. Recovery following COVID-19 will require strategies to address the growing volume of cases and wait times for surgery across all PRS categories.

“Taking Care of Your Pregnancy”: A mixed-methods study of group antenatal care in Kakamega County, Kenya

Background Traditional antenatal care (ANC) models often do not meet women’s needs for information, counseling, and support, resulting in gaps in quality and coverage. Group ANC (GANC) provides an alternative, person-centered approach where pregnant women of similar gestational age meet with the same health provider for facilitated discussion. There are few studies that show associations between GANC and various outcomes. Methods We used mixed methods to evaluate a contextualized GANC model (Lea Mimba Pregnancy Clubs) and to understand implementation experiences at six health facilities in Kakamega County, Kenya. Between April 2018 and January 2019, we tracked 1,652 women who were assigned to 162 GANC cohorts to assess ANC retention. Using an intention-to-treat approach, we conducted baseline (N = 112) and endline surveys (N = 360) with women attending immunization visits to assess outcomes and used time diaries to assess wait times. At endline, we conducted 29 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and three focus group discussions with women who were currently and previously participating in GANC, and 15 IDIs with stakeholders. Results GANC was associated with enhanced social support, with some evidence for improved knowledge, adoption of healthy behaviors, enhanced self-efficacy, and improved experience of care. Quantitatively, we found strong associations between GANC and knowledge of danger signs, women who shared their feelings with other women, knowledge and competence of health workers, respect shown by ANC providers, overall quality of care, and birth preparations; as well as an improvement in ANC retention. No changes were seen in knowledge of positive behaviors, empowerment, several aspects related to women’s experience of care, ANC retention, early initiation of ANC, and other healthy behaviors. Qualitatively, women and stakeholders noted improved interactions between health providers and women, improved counseling, increased feelings of empowerment to ask questions and speak freely, and strengthened social networks and enhanced social cohesion among women. Both wait times and counseling times increased in GANC compared to traditional ANC. Conclusions This is one of the few mixed-methods studies evaluating GANC and offers new measures for experience of care, empowerment, and adoption of healthy behaviors. While more research is required, GANC holds promise for enhancing women’s experiences during pregnancy. Modifications are needed for sustainability and scalability.