急诊科分诊数字化:医护人员和患者的观点。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Chiara Morlotti, Mattia Cattaneo, Stefano Paleari, Filippo Manelli, Francesco Locati
{"title":"急诊科分诊数字化:医护人员和患者的观点。","authors":"Chiara Morlotti, Mattia Cattaneo, Stefano Paleari, Filippo Manelli, Francesco Locati","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11862-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digitalization in the healthcare sector offers several organizational advantages, ranging from enhanced service quality to cost savings. However, its adoption often progresses slowly and faces challenges, especially in critical settings like emergency departments, requiring prompt, clear, and efficient communication. As such, this study aims to comprehensively assess the factors influencing the preference for digitalized tools over traditional methods from the perspectives of both service providers and users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employ two ad hoc stated preference surveys in which we ask respondents to reveal their preference in simulated triage scenarios. Three main alternatives are proposed: traditional procedures, a fully digitalized solution with no direct patient-professional interaction, and a hybrid option that combines traditional and digital aspects. Scenarios and alternatives vary according to predetermined attributes, selected among the features acknowledged to impact the triage efficiency and efficacy: the possibility to communicate in a known language, the completeness of information retrieved from the patient, the time dedicated to triage activity, and the level of privacy. Responses are analyzed by means of discrete choice models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal a preference for the hybrid approach, wherein patients use digital tools to input relevant information, followed by an interview with healthcare professionals. Nevertheless, distinct alternative- and case-specific features can favor the preference toward other kinds of triage. Respondents prefer shorter triage times and the opportunity to interact in a known language, while the level of privacy does not significantly impact their choices. Interestingly, the presence of an algorithm assigning urgency code diminishes the probability that healthcare professionals select the fully digitalized option.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides important insight into the utilization of digital tools in emergency departments. The results can be used by hospital managers and policy makers to develop digital tools that meet the needs of both users and healthcare professionals. This, in turn, may result in cost savings and improved quality of service.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1406"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The digitalization of emergency department triage: the perspectives of health professionals and patients.\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Morlotti, Mattia Cattaneo, Stefano Paleari, Filippo Manelli, Francesco Locati\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11862-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digitalization in the healthcare sector offers several organizational advantages, ranging from enhanced service quality to cost savings. However, its adoption often progresses slowly and faces challenges, especially in critical settings like emergency departments, requiring prompt, clear, and efficient communication. As such, this study aims to comprehensively assess the factors influencing the preference for digitalized tools over traditional methods from the perspectives of both service providers and users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employ two ad hoc stated preference surveys in which we ask respondents to reveal their preference in simulated triage scenarios. Three main alternatives are proposed: traditional procedures, a fully digitalized solution with no direct patient-professional interaction, and a hybrid option that combines traditional and digital aspects. Scenarios and alternatives vary according to predetermined attributes, selected among the features acknowledged to impact the triage efficiency and efficacy: the possibility to communicate in a known language, the completeness of information retrieved from the patient, the time dedicated to triage activity, and the level of privacy. Responses are analyzed by means of discrete choice models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal a preference for the hybrid approach, wherein patients use digital tools to input relevant information, followed by an interview with healthcare professionals. Nevertheless, distinct alternative- and case-specific features can favor the preference toward other kinds of triage. Respondents prefer shorter triage times and the opportunity to interact in a known language, while the level of privacy does not significantly impact their choices. Interestingly, the presence of an algorithm assigning urgency code diminishes the probability that healthcare professionals select the fully digitalized option.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides important insight into the utilization of digital tools in emergency departments. The results can be used by hospital managers and policy makers to develop digital tools that meet the needs of both users and healthcare professionals. This, in turn, may result in cost savings and improved quality of service.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1406\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566660/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11862-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11862-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医疗保健领域的数字化提供了多种组织优势,包括提高服务质量和节约成本。然而,其应用往往进展缓慢并面临挑战,尤其是在急诊科等需要及时、清晰和高效沟通的关键环境中。因此,本研究旨在从服务提供者和用户的角度,全面评估数字化工具优于传统方法的影响因素:方法:我们采用了两种特别的陈述偏好调查,要求受访者在模拟的分流场景中表达他们的偏好。我们提出了三种主要的替代方案:传统程序、没有患者与专业人员直接互动的全数字化解决方案以及传统与数字化相结合的混合方案。场景和替代方案根据预先确定的属性而有所不同,这些属性是从公认的影响分诊效率和效果的特征中挑选出来的:用已知语言交流的可能性、从病人那里获取信息的完整性、分诊活动所需的时间以及隐私程度。我们通过离散选择模型对用户的回答进行了分析:我们的研究结果表明,人们更倾向于使用混合方法,即患者使用数字工具输入相关信息,然后与医护人员面谈。尽管如此,其他分诊方式和具体病例的不同特点也会使受访者倾向于其他分诊方式。受访者更喜欢较短的分诊时间和使用已知语言进行互动的机会,而隐私程度对他们的选择没有显著影响。有趣的是,采用算法分配紧急代码会降低医护人员选择全数字化选项的概率:这项研究为了解急诊科数字化工具的使用情况提供了重要依据。医院管理者和政策制定者可利用研究结果来开发满足用户和医护人员需求的数字化工具。这反过来可能会节约成本并提高服务质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The digitalization of emergency department triage: the perspectives of health professionals and patients.

Background: Digitalization in the healthcare sector offers several organizational advantages, ranging from enhanced service quality to cost savings. However, its adoption often progresses slowly and faces challenges, especially in critical settings like emergency departments, requiring prompt, clear, and efficient communication. As such, this study aims to comprehensively assess the factors influencing the preference for digitalized tools over traditional methods from the perspectives of both service providers and users.

Methods: We employ two ad hoc stated preference surveys in which we ask respondents to reveal their preference in simulated triage scenarios. Three main alternatives are proposed: traditional procedures, a fully digitalized solution with no direct patient-professional interaction, and a hybrid option that combines traditional and digital aspects. Scenarios and alternatives vary according to predetermined attributes, selected among the features acknowledged to impact the triage efficiency and efficacy: the possibility to communicate in a known language, the completeness of information retrieved from the patient, the time dedicated to triage activity, and the level of privacy. Responses are analyzed by means of discrete choice models.

Results: Our findings reveal a preference for the hybrid approach, wherein patients use digital tools to input relevant information, followed by an interview with healthcare professionals. Nevertheless, distinct alternative- and case-specific features can favor the preference toward other kinds of triage. Respondents prefer shorter triage times and the opportunity to interact in a known language, while the level of privacy does not significantly impact their choices. Interestingly, the presence of an algorithm assigning urgency code diminishes the probability that healthcare professionals select the fully digitalized option.

Conclusions: This study provides important insight into the utilization of digital tools in emergency departments. The results can be used by hospital managers and policy makers to develop digital tools that meet the needs of both users and healthcare professionals. This, in turn, may result in cost savings and improved quality of service.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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