Patient and provider perspective with the use of a central intake system (CIS) for surgical waitlist management: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to summarise and reflect on current evidence around patient and surgeon perspectives regarding the use of a central intake system (CIS) as a strategy for managing surgical waitlists. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on 9 October 2023. The strategies used key words such as 'central intake', 'surgery' and 'experience'. Medical and the Web of Science core databases were searched. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Titles and abstracts were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if: the study population was adult (age >18), and patients were referred for non-emergency surgery assessment. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research was used to assess study quality. Of 2805 studies identified, nine were included with a moderate to high confidence of evidence. Through thematic analysis, four patient and five surgeon themes were identified, with a further two common themes (although conceptualised differently). RESULTS: Patients value CISs for their potential to create an equitable referral process and clearer timelines, yet they emphasise the importance of preserving autonomy and personalised care by maintaining the option to choose their surgeon. Surgeons recognise the operational benefits of CISs in streamlining referrals and reducing wait times, but also caution that adequate resources, strong leadership and careful case selection are critical to sustain quality and engagement. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the complex balance required to successfully implement CISs. The system-level gains in access and coordination must be carefully aligned with patient-centred values such as choice and trust and supported by organisational culture shifts and leadership commitment. Importantly, the study identifies gaps in end-user involvement and decision-making power that should be addressed to enhance acceptability and effectiveness.Future actions should consider a framework that incorporates clear governance with continued pilot programmes that include evaluation of patient satisfaction, quantitative and qualitative clinical outcomes, and impact on equity. Additionally, targeted strategies are needed to accommodate complex or specialised cases that may not fit the central intake model. Through careful implementation and continuous stakeholder engagement, central intake models have the potential to meaningfully improve surgical waitlist management while respecting the needs and preferences of both patients and surgeons.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».