Pedro G Rodrigues, Maria João Bárrios, Marta S G Mendes
{"title":"等待专家:多优先和多专业分析。","authors":"Pedro G Rodrigues, Maria João Bárrios, Marta S G Mendes","doi":"10.1002/hpm.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Manageing waiting times for specialist consultations is a critical challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. This study examines how hospitals manage outpatient specialist consultations through multi-priority systems, analysing nearly a million consultations across 29 medical specialities at a major Portuguese hospital (2010-2019). Using fixed-effects models with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors, we investigate how operational factors affect waiting times for first consultations across three priority levels. Each additional day spent in triage adds 0.52 days to urgent consultation waits (p < 0.10) but 1.41 days for routine cases (p < 0.01), demonstrating how delays cascade through the system. Staffing changes primarily benefit routine consultations, reducing waiting times by 1.88 days per additional specialist (p < 0.05). Our analysis reveals sophisticated cross-priority effects: backlogs in higher-priority cases significantly increase waiting times for lower-priority consultations, with each additional high-priority case increasing normal-priority waits by 0.15 days (p < 0.001), showing how hospitals actively protect urgent access while systematically manageing delays for routine appointments. Provider-initiated cancellations disproportionately affect lower-priority cases (0.03 days, p < 0.01), whereas urgent consultations show resilience to scheduling disruptions. A 2017 policy reform reducing maximum waiting times triggered speciality-specific adaptations. Despite increased waiting times across all priority levels (p < 0.05), cardiac units implemented operational adjustments: enhanced triage efficiency (-30.88 days, p < 0.001), improved backlog management (-0.25 days, p < 0.001), and optimised capacity utilization (-0.18 days, p = 0.056). These findings show how hospitals balance clinical prioritisation with system efficiency, as speciality-specific constraints shape access outcomes. We highlight the need for targeted resource allocation and sophisticated triage systems that adapt to changing pressures while maintaining clinical priorities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47637,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Waiting for Specialists: A Multi-Priority and Multi-Speciality Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Pedro G Rodrigues, Maria João Bárrios, Marta S G Mendes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hpm.70007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Manageing waiting times for specialist consultations is a critical challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. This study examines how hospitals manage outpatient specialist consultations through multi-priority systems, analysing nearly a million consultations across 29 medical specialities at a major Portuguese hospital (2010-2019). Using fixed-effects models with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors, we investigate how operational factors affect waiting times for first consultations across three priority levels. Each additional day spent in triage adds 0.52 days to urgent consultation waits (p < 0.10) but 1.41 days for routine cases (p < 0.01), demonstrating how delays cascade through the system. Staffing changes primarily benefit routine consultations, reducing waiting times by 1.88 days per additional specialist (p < 0.05). Our analysis reveals sophisticated cross-priority effects: backlogs in higher-priority cases significantly increase waiting times for lower-priority consultations, with each additional high-priority case increasing normal-priority waits by 0.15 days (p < 0.001), showing how hospitals actively protect urgent access while systematically manageing delays for routine appointments. Provider-initiated cancellations disproportionately affect lower-priority cases (0.03 days, p < 0.01), whereas urgent consultations show resilience to scheduling disruptions. A 2017 policy reform reducing maximum waiting times triggered speciality-specific adaptations. Despite increased waiting times across all priority levels (p < 0.05), cardiac units implemented operational adjustments: enhanced triage efficiency (-30.88 days, p < 0.001), improved backlog management (-0.25 days, p < 0.001), and optimised capacity utilization (-0.18 days, p = 0.056). These findings show how hospitals balance clinical prioritisation with system efficiency, as speciality-specific constraints shape access outcomes. We highlight the need for targeted resource allocation and sophisticated triage systems that adapt to changing pressures while maintaining clinical priorities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Planning and Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Planning and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70007\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Waiting for Specialists: A Multi-Priority and Multi-Speciality Analysis.
Manageing waiting times for specialist consultations is a critical challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. This study examines how hospitals manage outpatient specialist consultations through multi-priority systems, analysing nearly a million consultations across 29 medical specialities at a major Portuguese hospital (2010-2019). Using fixed-effects models with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors, we investigate how operational factors affect waiting times for first consultations across three priority levels. Each additional day spent in triage adds 0.52 days to urgent consultation waits (p < 0.10) but 1.41 days for routine cases (p < 0.01), demonstrating how delays cascade through the system. Staffing changes primarily benefit routine consultations, reducing waiting times by 1.88 days per additional specialist (p < 0.05). Our analysis reveals sophisticated cross-priority effects: backlogs in higher-priority cases significantly increase waiting times for lower-priority consultations, with each additional high-priority case increasing normal-priority waits by 0.15 days (p < 0.001), showing how hospitals actively protect urgent access while systematically manageing delays for routine appointments. Provider-initiated cancellations disproportionately affect lower-priority cases (0.03 days, p < 0.01), whereas urgent consultations show resilience to scheduling disruptions. A 2017 policy reform reducing maximum waiting times triggered speciality-specific adaptations. Despite increased waiting times across all priority levels (p < 0.05), cardiac units implemented operational adjustments: enhanced triage efficiency (-30.88 days, p < 0.001), improved backlog management (-0.25 days, p < 0.001), and optimised capacity utilization (-0.18 days, p = 0.056). These findings show how hospitals balance clinical prioritisation with system efficiency, as speciality-specific constraints shape access outcomes. We highlight the need for targeted resource allocation and sophisticated triage systems that adapt to changing pressures while maintaining clinical priorities.
期刊介绍:
Policy making and implementation, planning and management are widely recognized as central to effective health systems and services and to better health. Globalization, and the economic circumstances facing groups of countries worldwide, meanwhile present a great challenge for health planning and management. The aim of this quarterly journal is to offer a forum for publications which direct attention to major issues in health policy, planning and management. The intention is to maintain a balance between theory and practice, from a variety of disciplines, fields and perspectives. The Journal is explicitly international and multidisciplinary in scope and appeal: articles about policy, planning and management in countries at various stages of political, social, cultural and economic development are welcomed, as are those directed at the different levels (national, regional, local) of the health sector. Manuscripts are invited from a spectrum of different disciplines e.g., (the social sciences, management and medicine) as long as they advance our knowledge and understanding of the health sector. The Journal is therefore global, and eclectic.