SynthesisBMJ open2025
Patient and provider perspective with the use of a central intake system (CIS) for surgical waitlist management: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Single-entry models as an ethical approach to decreasing surgical wait times.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur 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).
resultsPatients 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.
conclusionsThese 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.
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.