Prioritising models of healthcare service delivery for a more sustainable health system: a Delphi study of Australian health policy, clinical practice and management, academic and consumer stakeholders
Polina Putrik A B E , Rebecca Jessup A B , Rachelle Buchbinder A B , Paul Glasziou C , Jonathan Karnon D and Denise A. O’Connor A BA Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, 4 Drysdale Street, Malvern, Vic. 3144, Australia. Email: rebecca.jessup@nh.org.au, rachelle.buchbinder@monash.edu, Denise.OConnor@monash.edu
B Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne Vic. 3004, Australia.
C Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, Qld 4226, Australia. Email: pglaszio@bond.edu.au
D Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. Email: jonathan.karnon@flinders.edu.au
E Corresponding author. Email: Polina.Putrik@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 45(4) 425-432 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH20160
Submitted: 29 June 2020 Accepted: 9 December 2020 Published: 18 March 2021
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2021 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Objectives Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in developed countries. A recent scoping review identified several alternative healthcare delivery models with the potential to improve health system sustainability. Our objective was to obtain input and consensus from an expert Delphi panel about which alternative models they considered most promising for increasing value in healthcare delivery in Australia and to contribute to shaping a research agenda in the field.
Methods The panel first reviewed a list of 84 models obtained through the preceding scoping review and contributed additional ideas in an open round. In a subsequent scoring round, the panel rated the priority of each model in terms of its potential to improve health care sustainability in Australia. Consensus was assumed when ≥50% of the panel rated a model as (very) high priority (consensus on high priority) or as not a priority or low priority (consensus on low priority).
Results Eighty-two of 149 invited participants (55%) representing all Australian states/territories and wide expertise completed round one; 71 completed round two. Consensus on high priority was achieved for 59 alternative models; 14 were rated as (very) high priority by ≥70% of the panel. Top priorities included improving medical service provision in aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for people with chronic conditions and providing tailored early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient care. No consensus was reached on 47 models, but no model was deemed low priority.
Conclusions Input from an expert stakeholder panel identified healthcare delivery models not previously synthesised in systematic reviews that are a priority to investigate. Strong consensus exists among stakeholders regarding which models require the most urgent attention in terms of (cost-)effectiveness research. These findings contribute to shaping a research agenda on healthcare delivery models and where stakeholder engagement in Australia is likely to be high.
What is known about the topic? Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in high-income countries worldwide. A recent scoping review of systematic reviews identified a substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of models of healthcare service delivery that can inform health system improvements. Given the large number of systematic reviews available on numerous models of care, a method for gaining consensus on the models of highest priority for implementation (where evidence demonstrates this will lead to beneficial effects and resource savings) or for further research (where evidence about effects is uncertain) in the Australian context is warranted.
What does this paper add? This paper describes a method for reaching consensus on high-priority alternative models of service delivery in Australia. Stakeholders with leadership roles in health policy and government organisations, hospital and primary care networks, academic institutions and consumer advocacy organisations were asked to identify and rate alternative models based on their knowledge of the healthcare system. We reached consensus among ≥70% of stakeholders that improving medical care in residential aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for patients with a range of chronic conditions and providing early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient stay for people with a range of conditions are of highest priority for further investigation.
What are the implications for practitioners? Decision makers seeking to optimise the efficiency and sustainability of healthcare service delivery in Australia could consider the alternative models rated as high priority by the expert stakeholder panel in this Delphi study. These models reflect the most promising alternatives for increasing value in the delivery of health care in Australia based on stakeholders’ knowledge of the health system. Although they indicate areas where stakeholder engagement is likely to be high, further research is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of some of these models.
Keywords: models of healthcare service delivery, alternative delivery arrangements, health system sustainability, improving value, reducing waste, Delphi study.
References
[1] OECD. Fiscal sustainability of health systems: bridging health and finance perspectives. Paris: OECD Publishing. 2015. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/publications/fiscal-sustainability-of-health-systems-9789264233386-en.htm [verified February 2021][2] Jessup R, Putrik P, Buchbinder R, Nezon J, Rischin K, Cyril S, Shepperd S, O’Connor DA. Identifying alternative models of healthcare service delivery to inform health system improvement: scoping review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2020; 10 e036112
| Identifying alternative models of healthcare service delivery to inform health system improvement: scoping review of systematic reviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32690732PubMed |
[3] Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000; 32 1008–15.
| 11095242PubMed |
[4] Dalkey, N.C., The Delphi method. An Experimental Study of Group Opinion. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. 1967.
[5] Schmeer K. Guidelines for conducting a stakeholder analysis. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates Inc. 1999. Available at http://www.who.int/management/partnerships/overall/GuidelinesConductingStakeholderAnalysis.pdf, [verified August 2020].
[6] Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 2000; 15 239–46.
| Stakeholder analysis: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11012397PubMed |
[7] NHMRC PCHSS. NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability. Sydney: Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, Australian Institute of Health Innovation. 2016. Available at: https://www.healthsystemsustainability.com.au/ [verified October 2020].
[8] Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2007.
[9] Walker AM, Selfe J. The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health researcher. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996; 3 677–81.
| The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health researcher.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy. London: Cochrane. 2015. Available at https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy [verified February 2021].
[11] Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med 2017; 31 684–706.
| Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28190381PubMed |
[12] Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15 261–6.
| Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12803354PubMed |
[13] Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004; 6 e34
| Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15471763PubMed |
[14] Arendts G, Howard K. The interface between residential aged care and the emergency department: a systematic review. Age Ageing 2010; 39 306–12.
| The interface between residential aged care and the emergency department: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20176712PubMed |
[15] Crilly J, Chaboyer W, Wallis M. A structure and process evaluation of an Australian hospital admission avoidance programme for aged care facility residents. J Adv Nurs 2012; 68 322–34.
| A structure and process evaluation of an Australian hospital admission avoidance programme for aged care facility residents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21679228PubMed |
[16] Arendts G, Lowthian J. Demography is destiny: an agenda for geriatric emergency medicine in Australasia. Emerg Med Australas 2013; 25 271–8.
| Demography is destiny: an agenda for geriatric emergency medicine in Australasia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23759050PubMed |
[17] The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety’s Interim Report. Adelaide: Royal Commission. 2019. Available at https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/interim-report [verified February 2021].
[18] Harvey P, Storer M, Berlowitz DJ, Jackson B, Hutchinson A, Lim WK. Feasibility and impact of a post-discharge geriatric evaluation and management service for patients from residential care: the Residential Care Intervention Program in the Elderly (RECIPE). BMC Geriatr 2014; 14 48
| Feasibility and impact of a post-discharge geriatric evaluation and management service for patients from residential care: the Residential Care Intervention Program in the Elderly (RECIPE).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24735110PubMed |
[19] Connolly MJ, Boyd M, Broad JB, Kerse N, Lumley T, Whitehead N, Foster S. The Aged Residential Care Healthcare Utilization Study (ARCHUS): a multidisciplinary, cluster randomized controlled trial designed to reduce acute avoidable hospitalizations from long-term care facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015; 16 49–55.
| The Aged Residential Care Healthcare Utilization Study (ARCHUS): a multidisciplinary, cluster randomized controlled trial designed to reduce acute avoidable hospitalizations from long-term care facilities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25239019PubMed |
[20] Brodaty H, Draper BM, Millar J, Low LF, Lie D, Sharah S, Paton H. Randomized controlled trial of different models of care for nursing home residents with dementia complicated by depression or psychosis. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64 63–72.
| Randomized controlled trial of different models of care for nursing home residents with dementia complicated by depression or psychosis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12590626PubMed |
[21] Boorsma M, Frijters DH, Knol DL, Ribbe ME, Nijpels G, van Hout HP. Effects of multidisciplinary integrated care on quality of care in residential care facilities for elderly people: a cluster randomized trial. CMAJ 2011; 183 E724–32.
| Effects of multidisciplinary integrated care on quality of care in residential care facilities for elderly people: a cluster randomized trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21708967PubMed |
[22] MacNeil Vroomen JL, Boorsma M, Bosmans JE, Frijters DH, Nijpels G, van Hout HP. Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care. PLoS One 2012; 7 e37444
| Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22655047PubMed |
[23] Haines TP, Palmer AJ, Tierney P, Si L, Robinson AL. A new model of care and in-house general practitioners for residential aged care facilities: a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial. Med J Aust 2020; 212 409–15.
| A new model of care and in-house general practitioners for residential aged care facilities: a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32237279PubMed |
[24] Doessing A, Burau V. Care coordination of multimorbidity: a scoping study. J Comorb 2015; 5 15–28.
| Care coordination of multimorbidity: a scoping study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29090157PubMed |
[25] Mitchell GK, Tieman JJ, Shelby-James TM. Multidisciplinary care planning and teamwork in primary care. Med J Aust 2008; 188 S61–4.
| Multidisciplinary care planning and teamwork in primary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18429739PubMed |
[26] Takeda A, Martin N, Taylor RS, Taylor SJ. Disease management interventions for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 1 CD002752
| 30620776PubMed |
[27] Smith SM, Cousins G, Clyne B, Allwright S, O’Dowd T. Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2 CD004910
| Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28230899PubMed |
[28] Smith SM, Wallace E, O’Dowd T, Fortin M. Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3 CD006560
| Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26976529PubMed |
[29] Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Lannin NA, Clemson LM, Cameron ID, Shepperd S. Discharge planning from hospital. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; CD000313
| 27911487PubMed |
[30] Langhorne P, Baylan S, Early Supported Discharge T. Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7 CD000443
| Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28721691PubMed |
[31] Legg LA, Quinn TJ, Mahmood F, Weir CJ, Tierney J, Stott DJ, Smith LN, Langhorne P. Non-pharmacological interventions for caregivers of stroke survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD008179
| Non-pharmacological interventions for caregivers of stroke survivors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21975778PubMed |
[32] Rodakowski J, Rocco PB, Ortiz M, Folb B, Schulz R, Morton SC, Leathers SC, Hu L, James AE. Caregiver Integration During Discharge Planning for Older Adults to Reduce Resource Use: A Metaanalysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017; 65 1748–55.
| Caregiver Integration During Discharge Planning for Older Adults to Reduce Resource Use: A Metaanalysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28369687PubMed |
[33] Chi NC, Demiris G. A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21 37–44.
| A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25475220PubMed |
[34] Prvu Bettger J, Alexander KP, Dolor RJ, Olson DM, Kendrick AS, Wing L, Coeytaux RR, Graffagnino C, Duncan PW. Transitional care after hospitalization for acute stroke or myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 407–16.
| Transitional care after hospitalization for acute stroke or myocardial infarction: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22986378PubMed |
[35] Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD002098
| Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26343551PubMed |
[36] Lee PA, Greenfield G, Pappas Y. The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18 495
| The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29940936PubMed |
[37] Bashi N, Karunanithi M, Fatehi F, Ding H, Walters D. Remote Monitoring of Patients With Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 e18
| Remote Monitoring of Patients With Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28108430PubMed |
[38] de la Torre-Díez I, Lopez-Coronado M, Vaca C, Aguado JS, de Castro C. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2015; 21 81–5.
| Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25474190PubMed |
[39] Corbett M, Heirs M, Rose M, Smith A, Stirk L, Richardson G, Stark D, Swinson D, Craig D, Eastwood A. The delivery of chemotherapy at home: an evidence synthesis. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Apr. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.14.) 2015. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285513/ [verified February 2021].
[40] Ho FY, Yeung WF, Ng TH, Chan CS. The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Stepped Care Prevention and Treatment for Depressive and/or Anxiety Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep 2016; 6 29281
| The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Stepped Care Prevention and Treatment for Depressive and/or Anxiety Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27377429PubMed |
[41] van Straten A, Hill J, Richards DA, Cuijpers P. Stepped care treatment delivery for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2015; 45 231–46.
| Stepped care treatment delivery for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25065653PubMed |
[42] Gillies D, Buykx P, Parker AG, Hetrick SE. Consultation liaison in primary care for people with mental disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD007193
| Consultation liaison in primary care for people with mental disorders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26599576PubMed |
[43] Wu CH, Tu ST, Chang YF, Chan DC, Chien JT, Lin CH, Singh S, Dasari M, Chen JF, Tsai KS. Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone 2018; 111 92–100.
| Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29555309PubMed |
[44] Wu CH, Kao IJ, Hung WC, Lin SC, Liu HC, Hsieh MH, Bagga S, Achra M, Cheng TT, Yang RS. Economic impact and cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 2018; 29 1227–42.
| Economic impact and cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services: a systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29460102PubMed |
[45] Osuna PM, Ruppe MD, Tabatabai LS. Fracture Liaison Services: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Secondary Fracture Prevention. Endocr Pract 2017; 23 199–206.
| Fracture Liaison Services: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Secondary Fracture Prevention.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27849385PubMed |
[46] Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR, Eisman JA, March L, Seibel MJ. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24 393–406.
| Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22829395PubMed |
[47] Rowe BH, Guo X, Villa-Roel C, Schull M, Holroyd B, Bullard M, Vandermeer B, Ospina M, Innes G. The role of triage liaison physicians on mitigating overcrowding in emergency departments: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18 111–20.
| The role of triage liaison physicians on mitigating overcrowding in emergency departments: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21314769PubMed |
