ObjectivesBased on the historical data of inpatients, a logistic regression model was established. It aimed to identify the influencing factors of patient's admission scheduling decisions and compare them with the actual scheduling rules, so as to discover the differences and deficiencies.MethodsWe extracted data of outpatients and inpatients in Department of Respiration in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2016, and standardized the original dataset. We established the binary multivariate logistic regression model through R software and ‘glm’ package.ResultsThe analysis of multi-factor logistic regression showed that the effect of the five variables (type of medical insurance, time of registration, waiting time, type of disease and admission priority) on patient schedule was statistically significant.ConclusionsThe logistic regression model constructed in this study has a good effect on patient planning, which is helpful to provide decision support for admission schedule through identification factors.
Patient priority evaluation has been studied and applied abroad for a long time, which is a mature theory and widely used in practice now. This article uses the priority, patients, waiting list and criteria as keywords to search Wiley Inter Science, Web of Science, Scopus Pub Med, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Springer, and Jstor database (searching time is up to December 2017), to collect relevant indicators for patient admission priority evaluation. In addition, relevant citations and grey literature were searched, and experts from relevant fields in China were consulted to obtain more comprehensive research literature. On this basis, this article describes the concept of patient admission priority evaluation, and describes the meanings of the indicators and the countries of application from the three dimensions of clinical indicators, expected results, and social factors. It is considered that the research and implementation of the evaluation of the priority of patient admission has been relatively many. However, there are only a few related researches in the country and without unity. There is no systematic patient-related priority evaluation. It is necessary to use foreign mature theory research to establish a hospital admission priority evaluation system suitable for China’s national conditions.
In order to mediate the contradiction between the high quantity and low quality of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical research, to avoid blind research and waste of resources, and to promote the benign development of TCM clinical research, we proposed carrying out health research priority setting on the TCM clinical research. This paper defined the main content of TCM clinical research and briefly introduced the research status of priority setting methods. We described a five-step process of the TCM priority setting research: setting the research scope and plan, establishing the working group, mapping the research field, identifying priority research areas, reporting, evaluating and updating the research. It is expected that this area will receive the attention of relevant researchers, policy makers and research funders.
With the increasingly prominent contradiction between limited health resources and the growing population, priority setting of health research, as a response, has received widespread attention from health systems worldwide. As the results of priority setting at different levels increase year by year, some questions in the results reporting are also constantly emerging. For example, the process of producing the results is vague, too dependent on individual subjective judgment, the participation of individual stakeholder groups is limited or lack of voice, unable to identify potential conflicts of interest, and so on. It does not only seriously affect the effectiveness and rationality of the results themselves, but also create intangible obstacles to their promotion and adoption. In 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology published ‘Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)’, which makes uniform specifications for more comprehensive and consistent reporting of results in priority areas. This paper interpreted the background, formulation process and key contents of the REPRISE guideline, with an aim to promote the application of the reporting guideline in China.
In the formulation of the clinical question of traditional Chinese medicine clinical practice guidelines, even if the intervention elements (intervention or control) have an appropriate scope, guideline developers are still faced with a variety of interventions. By analyzing the difficulty and necessity of priority selection of intervention interventions, we propose the approach of extending expert evidence to the process of priority selection of intervention interventions, and further provide the methodology of expert evidence data collection table design, application, data presentation and expert decision-making method to provide references and guidance for guideline developers.
When prioritizing clinical questions in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, clinical questions with high recognition and low variability, or high score and less disagreement among experts were often prioritized, while questions with high recognition but high variability were excluded. By this approach, clinical questions with practical value but also showed high variability due to different causes were not accepted as priorities. There were some methodological and clinical limitations by doing so. By summarizing the causes and connotations of expert opinion variability in terms of clinical experience, expertise and values, this paper analyzed the advantages of the variability quantification application, and proposed corresponding methodological recommendations, so as to provide references for guideline developers in the priority selection of clinical questions.