• Katherine E Harding, Nicholas F Taylor, Sandra G Leggat, and Maree Stafford.
• Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. katherine.harding@easternhealth.org.au
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Mar 1; 93 (3): 441-5.

ObjectiveTo investigate how the allocation of referrals for a community rehabilitation service to triage categories affects waiting time from referral to first appointment, and whether other factors also contribute to variance in waiting time.DesignA prospective cohort study.SettingA multidisciplinary outpatient community rehabilitation program within a large metropolitan health service.ParticipantsConsecutive adult patients (N=379) commencing rehabilitation over a 3-month period.InterventionAllocation of referrals to a triage category of 1 (most urgent) to 4 (least urgent) by allied health clinicians guided by a written protocol.Main Outcome MeasureThe primary outcome was waiting time from referral to service commencement.ResultsThe small group of patients (4%) allocated to the most urgent category had significantly shorter mean waiting times than the other 3 categories (mean, 4.8d vs 19.6, 26.6, and 19.4d for categories 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Regression analysis indicated that approximately 11% of the variance in waiting time was accounted for by the triage categories. Site of treatment (home or center) and diagnosis also made small contributions (4% combined) to variance in waiting time.ConclusionsThe triage process ensured rapid service for a small number of urgent referrals, but made little difference to the waiting time of the vast majority of patients. Given the resources required for triaging patients, the results of this study lead us to question the value of the triage system in this setting.Copyright © 2012 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…