Previously submitted to: JMIR Formative Research (no longer under consideration since Mar 19, 2025)
Date Submitted: Jul 30, 2023
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 2, 2023 - Mar 30, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
When COVID-19 changes the rules: Understanding the rapid implementation of a pathology result notification service – A case study
ABSTRACT
Background:
The COVID-19 pandemic put enormous pressure on health systems around to world, including the New South Wales (NSW) Health system, it was also a significant driver of change. COVID-19 test data was, and remains, important to identify positive patients and monitor outbreaks and clusters [1]. This increased demand for NSW Health Pathology (NSWHP) testing and disrupted usual clinician pathology referral pathways, meaning that there was no simple way to rapidly deliver the large volume of negative patient results which was undertaken manually by staff. The NSWHP COVID-19 SMS Result Service (the Result Service) was introduced to alleviate pressure on frontline clinical staff due to surging demand for pathology testing and manual notification of results. At the start of the pandemic, negative results were taking up to ten days to be reported manually to patients. The introduction of automated result notification freed resources to focus on patients who tested positive including clinical management, support services and contact tracing. Successful implementation of the Result Service relied on partnering with Local Health Districts (LHDs).
Objective:
Through a purposive sample of LHDs, this study explores contextual factors using the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model[2] that influenced LHD adoption of the Result Service. The aim is to inform the planning and implementation of other technology resources for result notification and/or the delivery of pathology services to LHD customers and patients for other non-pandemic purposes.
Methods:
We used a mixed methods approach. A semi-structured one-time survey was issued to a total of 239 staff from a representative sample of four metropolitan, regional and rural LHDs to elicit the views and experience of LHD staff, about the implementation of the Result Service. The survey was supplemented by analysis of retrospective NSWHP enterprise data related to COVID-19 testing and Result Service uptake rates.
Results:
Within a month of implementation of the Results Service, registration rates increased sharply from 10% to 75% in all four LHDs. Despite the low response rate 13% (31), several themes emerged from the survey. Most participants agreed that the Result Service benefitted the people of NSW and their LHD. The highest ranked factors that influenced the implementation were demand on frontline staff (4.57 out of 5), direction or support from the COVID-19 Lead (4.50 out of 5) and “patient demand” (4.48 out of 5).
Conclusions:
This study explores the contextual factors that influenced successful implementation of the Result Service using the PRISM model. Based on staff feedback, the study found this included increasing demands on front-line staff, unfunded resource impacts and pressure from patients. This study will inform further research into the implementation of similar technology projects, specifically when they are dependent on partnering organisations.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.