Access improvement in healthcare: a 12-step framework for operational practice.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2025-01-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1487914
Allen M Chen
{"title":"Access improvement in healthcare: a 12-step framework for operational practice.","authors":"Allen M Chen","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1487914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Access improvement is a fundamental component of value-based healthcare as it inherently promotes quality by eliminating chokepoints, redundancies, and inefficiencies which could hinder the provisioning of timely care. The purpose of this review is to present a 12-step framework which offers healthcare organizations a practical, thematic-based foundation for thinking about access improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. A literature search of prospective peer-reviewed publications was undertaken to identify studies pertaining to healthcare access. Articles published from January 2014 to January 2024 were included. An interpretive synthesis was then presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 469 peer-reviewed studies were identified. The most common diseases analyzed were related to general medicine/family practice (<i>N</i> = 75), surgical care (<i>N</i> = 51), health screening (<i>N</i> = 30), mental health (<i>N</i> = 27), cardiovascular disease (<i>N</i> = 17), emergency room/critical care (<i>N</i> = 15), and cancer (<i>N</i> = 7). The remaining 247 studies (53%) did not specifically report on any specialization. The core themes could be broadly categorized into the following: workforce adequacy, patient experience, physical space utilization, template optimization, scheduling efficiency, process standardization, cost transparency, physician engagement, and data analytics. Sixty publications (13%) focused at least in part on equity issues, structural racism, and/or implicit bias; and 25 publications (5%) addressed disparities in education, training, and/or technical literacy. Seventy-three publications (16%) focused either completely or in part on digital health as a means of access improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this systematic review, a 12-step thematically based framework for approaching access improvement in healthcare was developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1487914"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11739290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1487914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Access improvement is a fundamental component of value-based healthcare as it inherently promotes quality by eliminating chokepoints, redundancies, and inefficiencies which could hinder the provisioning of timely care. The purpose of this review is to present a 12-step framework which offers healthcare organizations a practical, thematic-based foundation for thinking about access improvement.

Methods: This study was designed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. A literature search of prospective peer-reviewed publications was undertaken to identify studies pertaining to healthcare access. Articles published from January 2014 to January 2024 were included. An interpretive synthesis was then presented.

Results: A total of 469 peer-reviewed studies were identified. The most common diseases analyzed were related to general medicine/family practice (N = 75), surgical care (N = 51), health screening (N = 30), mental health (N = 27), cardiovascular disease (N = 17), emergency room/critical care (N = 15), and cancer (N = 7). The remaining 247 studies (53%) did not specifically report on any specialization. The core themes could be broadly categorized into the following: workforce adequacy, patient experience, physical space utilization, template optimization, scheduling efficiency, process standardization, cost transparency, physician engagement, and data analytics. Sixty publications (13%) focused at least in part on equity issues, structural racism, and/or implicit bias; and 25 publications (5%) addressed disparities in education, training, and/or technical literacy. Seventy-three publications (16%) focused either completely or in part on digital health as a means of access improvement.

Conclusion: Based on this systematic review, a 12-step thematically based framework for approaching access improvement in healthcare was developed.

改善医疗保健准入:业务实践的12步框架。
背景:改善可及性是基于价值的医疗保健的一个基本组成部分,因为它通过消除可能阻碍及时提供护理的瓶颈、冗余和低效率,内在地提高了质量。本次审查的目的是提出一个12步框架,为医疗保健组织提供一个实用的、基于主题的基础,以考虑改善访问。方法:本研究根据系统评价和meta分析方案的首选报告项目(PRISMA-P)声明进行设计。对预期的同行评议出版物进行了文献检索,以确定与医疗保健获取有关的研究。收录了2014年1月至2024年1月间发表的文章。然后提出了解释性综合。结果:共确定了469项同行评议研究。分析的最常见疾病与全科医学/家庭医疗(N = 75)、外科护理(N = 51)、健康筛查(N = 30)、心理健康(N = 27)、心血管疾病(N = 17)、急诊室/重症护理(N = 15)和癌症(N = 7)有关。其余247项研究(53%)没有明确报告任何专业化。核心主题可以大致分为以下几类:劳动力充足、患者体验、物理空间利用、模板优化、调度效率、流程标准化、成本透明度、医生参与和数据分析。60份出版物(13%)至少部分关注公平问题、结构性种族主义和/或隐性偏见;25份出版物(5%)涉及教育、培训和/或技术素养方面的差异。73份出版物(16%)完全或部分关注数字卫生,将其作为改善可及性的手段。结论:基于这一系统的审查,一个12步的主题为基础的框架接近获得改善医疗保健被开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信