Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Sarah Reed, Rachel Hutchings, John Appleby, Stuti Bagri, Nadia Crellin, Stephanie Kumpunen, Cyril Lobont, Jenny Negus, Pei Li Ng, Camille Oung, Jonathan Spencer, Angus Ramsay
{"title":"门诊服务创新调查:混合方法快速评估。","authors":"Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Sarah Reed, Rachel Hutchings, John Appleby, Stuti Bagri, Nadia Crellin, Stephanie Kumpunen, Cyril Lobont, Jenny Negus, Pei Li Ng, Camille Oung, Jonathan Spencer, Angus Ramsay","doi":"10.3310/VGQD4611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.</p><p><strong>Future research: </strong>Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 38","pages":"1-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Sarah Reed, Rachel Hutchings, John Appleby, Stuti Bagri, Nadia Crellin, Stephanie Kumpunen, Cyril Lobont, Jenny Negus, Pei Li Ng, Camille Oung, Jonathan Spencer, Angus Ramsay\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/VGQD4611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.</p><p><strong>Future research: </strong>Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\"12 38\",\"pages\":\"1-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/VGQD4611\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/VGQD4611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在门诊服务中,为了更好地管理医疗服务和减少不必要的预约,正在进行一系列广泛的创新。其中一项研究最少的创新是 "患者主动随访"(Patient-Initiated Follow-Up),它允许患者在需要时预约,而不是按照标准时间表预约:利用全国医院的常规数据,确定近年来在英格兰国民健康服务中实施的门诊服务创新。对 "患者主动随访 "的实施情况和影响进行快速混合方法评估:该项目分四个工作流依次进行:(1) 对门诊创新进行快速范围审查;(2) 应用指标饱和方法扫描全国患者层面的数据,以确定当地可能成功的干预措施;(3) 对工作流 2 中确定的医院进行访谈;(4) 对患者主动随访进行快速混合方法评估。对患者主动随访的评估包括证据审查、与 5 家国民健康服务急症信托机构的 36 名临床和业务人员的访谈、与来自 13 家国民健康服务急症信托机构的工作人员的研讨会、与 4 名患者的访谈、对国家和地方数据的分析,以及制定评估指南:利用指标饱和度,我们确定了九家在随访与首次就诊比率方面有显著变化的服务机构。在接受访谈的三家机构中,两家对数据结果提出质疑,一家将变化归因于临床评估服务。患者主动随访的模式因医院和临床专科的不同而有很大差异,在患者选择、患者监测和出院的方法上也有很大程度的不同。实施的成功与否取决于多种因素,例如临床条件、员工能力和信息技术系统。通过对全国数据的分析,我们发现有证据表明,在 29 个专科中的 15 个专科中,更多地使用患者主动随访与门诊就诊频率较低、7 个专科的门诊就诊频率较高之间存在关联。有四个专科的急诊就诊频率较低与患者主动随访率的增加有关。我们采访的员工和少数患者认为患者主动随访是一项积极的干预措施,尽管对员工的角色和工作量有不同的影响。重要的是,医疗点和服务机构应自行对患者主动随访进行评估。为此,我们制定了一份评估指南,以支持信托机构收集数据和使用方法:患者主动随访评估因缺乏患者层面的数据而受到影响,这些数据显示了哪些患者正在接受患者主动随访。考虑到医疗机构和工作人员面临的压力,与当地服务机构的合作也具有挑战性。患者招募率较低,这影响了直接了解患者经历的能力:这项研究为不断发展的国家门诊转型政策和地方实践提供了有益的启示。患者主动随访通常被员工和患者视为一种积极的干预措施,但其对个人结果、健康不平等、更广泛的患者体验、工作量和能力的影响仍不确定:进一步的研究应包括患者层面的分析,以确定患者主动随访的个人临床结果和健康不平等问题,并对患者体验进行更广泛的调查:本研究已在研究注册中心注册(UIN:researchregistry8864):该奖项由英国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:16/138/17)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第38期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.
Background: Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.
Objectives: To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.
Methods: The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.
Results: Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.
Limitations: The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.
Conclusions: The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.
Future research: Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.
Study registration: This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).
Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.