等待专家:多优先和多专业分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

管理专家咨询的等待时间是全球卫生保健系统面临的一项重大挑战。本研究考察了医院如何通过多优先系统管理门诊专家咨询,分析了葡萄牙一家主要医院(2010-2019年)29个医学专业的近100万次咨询。使用具有Driscoll-Kraay标准误差的固定效应模型,我们调查了操作因素如何影响三个优先级的首次咨询等待时间。在分诊中每多花一天时间,紧急会诊等待时间就会增加0.52天
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
197
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信