{"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.