Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40410714›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

"A banana in the tailpipe": a qualitative study of patient flow in the healthcare system.

Mahnaz Samadbeik, Andrew Staib, Justin Boyle, Sankalp Khanna, Emma Bosley, Elizabeth McCourt, Daniel Bodnar, James Lind, Jodie A Austin, Clair Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Mahnaz SamadbeikCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. m.samadbeik@uq.edu.au.
Andrew StaibPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Justin BoyleThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Brisbane, Australia.
Sankalp KhannaThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Brisbane, Australia.
Emma BosleyQueensland Ambulance Service, Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia.
Elizabeth McCourtCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Daniel BodnarQueensland Ambulance Service, Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia.
James LindGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, Australia.
Jodie A AustinCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Clair SullivanCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuboptimal patient flow and impaired hospital access can lead to adverse outcomes, including lower care quality, higher mortality risk, and patient dissatisfaction. Despite awareness, optimizing patient flow remains an area requiring further development. This study aimed to comprehensively identify factors hindering patient flow in a large healthcare system and explore potential solutions, using a qualitative approach for context-specific insights.

methodsThis qualitative study followed COREQ guidelines. We conducted four focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 23 healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients selected through purposive sampling. The data were analysed using the directed content analysis method, ensuring rigor through methods such as credibility, dependability, authenticity, and transferability. The study also mapped qualitative findings to outcomes from our recent umbrella review (UR) to enhance comprehensiveness.

resultsPatient flow challenges were categorized into population (patients and providers), capacity, and process. Population challenges included community-based care, staffing issues, and inequities in access. The capacity challenges involved inefficient resource allocation, resource constraints, and patient volume growth. The process challenges included bed management, modernization struggles, private hospital issues, funding model problems, information sharing gaps, coordination challenges, transition issues, particularly delayed discharges from inpatient wards, and problems in healthcare management and patient communication. The solutions focused on human factors, infrastructure, and management, organization, and policy. FGDs identified new challenges and solutions were not covered in the recent UR. DISCUSSION: The participants' insights highlight the critical necessity for systemic improvements, which include enhancing infrastructure, communication, and collaboration. These improvements include early identification of discharge barriers, facilitating community discharge, addressing diverse patient needs, optimizing prehospital services, and improving patient communication. Shifting the focus from traditional emergency department processes to a system-wide approach is crucial. The comparative mapping between FGDs and the UR insights into both common and specific challenges and solutions enriches discussions on healthcare reform.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareAdultEfficiency, OrganizationalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchChallengesFocus group discussions (FGDs)Healthcare systemPatient flowQualitative studySolutionsStakeholder perspectives

Identifiers

PMID40410714
PMCPMC12100811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.