Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927927›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Patient prioritization tools and their effectiveness in non-emergency healthcare services: a systematic review protocol.

Julien Déry, Angel Ruiz, François Routhier, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, André Côté, Daoud Ait-Kadi, Valérie Bélanger, Simon Deslauriers, Marie-Eve Lamontagne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Julien DéryDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Angel RuizCentre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale (CIRRIS), Centre Intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Canada.
François RouthierDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Pierre GagnonFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
André CôtéFaculty of Business Administration, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Daoud Ait-KadiCentre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale (CIRRIS), Centre Intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Canada.
Valérie BélangerCentre interuniversitaire de recherche sur les réseaux d'entreprise, la logistique et le transport (CIRRELT), Montréal, Canada.
Simon DeslauriersDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Eve LamontagneDepartment of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. marie-eve.lamontagne@fmed.ulaval.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3301-7429

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWaiting lists should be managed as fairly as possible to ensure that patients with greater or more urgent needs receive services first. Patient prioritization refers to the process of ranking referrals in a certain order based on various criteria with the aim of improving fairness and equity in the delivery of care. Despite the widespread use of patient prioritization tools (PPTs) in healthcare services, the existing literature on this subject has mainly focused on emergency settings. Evidence has not been synthesized with respect to all the non-emergency services.

methodsThis review aims to perform a systematic synthesis of published evidence concerning (1) prioritization tools' characteristics, (2) their metrological properties, and (3) their effect measures across non-emergency services. Five electronic databases will be searched (Cochrane Library, Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Eligibility criteria guiding data selection will be (1) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods empirical studies; (2) patient prioritization in any non-emergency setting; and (3) discussing characteristic, metrological properties, or effect measures. Data will be sought to report tool's format, description, population, setting, purpose, criteria, developer, metrological properties, and outcome measures. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. Data will be synthesized with sequential exploratory design method. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess the quality of articles included in the review. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide much-needed knowledge regarding patient prioritization tools. The results will benefit clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers by giving them a better understanding of the methods used to prioritize patients in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesTriageDelivery of Health CareHealth PrioritiesHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicHealthcare servicesOutcomesPatient prioritizationSystematic reviewWaiting lists

Identifiers

PMID30927927
PMCPMC6441215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.