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.

Single-Entry Models in Surgical Services

In the health care system, common elements of SEMs include pooled referrals and waiting lists, centralized intake through a single-entry point, and triage for urgency and appropriateness. Four programs including the use of SEMs from the Canadian context were examined: the Winnipeg Central Intake System for hip and knee replacements, the British Columbia Surgical Strategy, the Nova Scotia Hip and Knee Action Plan, and the Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative. SEMs were generally implemented as 1 element of broader strategies to reduce surgical waits and enhance quality and safety of surgical services.Key success factors for implementation of SEMs included: Concurrent investments in surgical capacity and health system resources. The establishment of standardized clinical pathways to reduce care variation. Strong leadership, including a focus on change management and use of clinician champions. Standardized data collection and public reporting on key performance indicators. Concurrent focus on quality improvement and patient-centred care. Challenges for implementation of SEMs included: Effectively managing change and resistance to change. Challenges in other areas of the health system that could impact wait times. Maintaining strategic focus and predictable funding, especially in the face of external shocks.

Models of Arthritis Care: A Systems-level Evaluation of Acceptability as a Dimension of Quality of Care

Objective.To describe a systems-level baseline evaluation of central intake (CI) and triage systems in arthritis care within Alberta, Canada. The specific objectives were to (1) describe a process for systems evaluation for the provision of arthritis care; (2) report the findings of the evaluation for different clinical sites that provide arthritis care; and (3) identify opportunities for improving appropriate and timely access based on the findings of the evaluation.Methods.The study used a convergent mixed methods design. Surveys and semistructured interviews were the main data collection methods. Participants were recruited through 2 rheumatology clinics and 1 hip and knee clinic providing CI and triage, and included patients, referring physicians, specialists, and clinic staff who experienced CI processes.Results.A total of 237 surveys were completed by patients (n = 169), referring physicians (n = 50), and specialists (n = 18). Interviews (n = 25) with care providers and patients provided insights to the survey data. Over 95% of referring physicians agreed that the current process of CI was satisfactory. Referring physicians and specialists reported issues with the referral process and perceived support in care for wait-listed patients. Patients reported positive experiences with access and navigation of arthritis care services but expressed concerns around communication and receiving minimal support for self-management of their arthritis before and after receiving specialist care.Conclusion.This baseline evaluation of CI and triage for arthritis care indicates satisfaction with the service, but areas that require further consideration are referral completion, timely waiting lists, and further supporting patients to self-manage their arthritis.