SynthesisSystematic reviews2020
A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech in Line: A Catholic Ethical Approach in Prioritizing Children with Speech Delay or Elderly Stroke Survivors Amidst the Scarcity of Speech-Language Pathologists in the Philippines.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- The aging eye: navigating molecular mechanisms and innovative interventions.Biogerontology · 2026Review
- An intuitionistic fuzzy automated negotiation model for personalized and efficient shared decision-making.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between sickle cell anaemia and dental caries among children in Nigeria.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Developing the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT) for use by UK mental health pharmacy teams-a modified Delphi study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Wait-times benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a simulation study.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Article
- Public perceptions related to healthcare preparedness to anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's Disease in Japan.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2024Observational
- Surgical waitlist management: Perspectives from surgeons on surgical prioritization at a paediatric hospital.Paediatrics & child health · 2024Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Wait-Time Management: Derivation and Validation of the Canadian TAVI Triage Tool (CAN3T).Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Study on the construction of multi-level protection system for non-emergency transfer under the perspective of structuring.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Accuracy of a tool to prioritise patients awaiting elective surgery: an implementation report.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Article
- Article
- A Delphi study to explore clinician and lived experience perspectives on setting priorities in eating disorder services.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The impact of referral letter quality on timely access to specialised mental health care: a quantitative study of the reliability of patient triage.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Optimal national prioritization policies for hospital care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Nature computational science · 2021Article
- A Multi-Faceted Strategy for Evidence Translation Reduces Healthcare Waiting Time: A Mixed Methods Study Using the RE-AIM Framework.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Article
- Therapeutic time window of disease-modifying therapy for early Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings.
methodsWe conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently.
resultsWe included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients.
conclusionsThis review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018107205.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.