Objectives <p>This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of two service delivery models in Finnish public dental service (PDS); the treatment plan-based model utilized by two public providers (M1, M2; control units) and the single-visit model (SVM) adopted by a private provider (SV; intervention unit).</p> Methods <p>A benchmarking controlled trial design was adopted. Data were collected from electronic health records (EHR) and the study organizations for patient visits, procedures, and resources utilized by the organizations for the entire year of 2013. Data were collected for a total of 156,219 patients and analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and significance testing.</p> Results <p>The intervention unit outperformed the control units on all chosen outcome metrics. The healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the intervention unit produced on average 84%-102% more, 64%-80% more during a single visit, and 15%-24% more per patient. The episode lengths in the intervention unit were 62%-63% shorter and patients were treated on average with 1.1 visits less than in the control units.</p> Conclusions <p>The SVM shows great promise as a service delivery model of choice for routine patients. For a PDS with an obligation to treat the whole patient population, a segmentation based service delivery model could be adopted, which leverages the benefits of the SVM for routine patients and retains the capacity to also treat more complex patients.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Comparing service delivery models in Finnish dental care: efficiency of the single-visit approach

  • Märt Vesinurm,
  • Tuomas Nenonen,
  • Tomi Malmström,
  • Paulus Torkki

摘要

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of two service delivery models in Finnish public dental service (PDS); the treatment plan-based model utilized by two public providers (M1, M2; control units) and the single-visit model (SVM) adopted by a private provider (SV; intervention unit).

Methods

A benchmarking controlled trial design was adopted. Data were collected from electronic health records (EHR) and the study organizations for patient visits, procedures, and resources utilized by the organizations for the entire year of 2013. Data were collected for a total of 156,219 patients and analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and significance testing.

Results

The intervention unit outperformed the control units on all chosen outcome metrics. The healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the intervention unit produced on average 84%-102% more, 64%-80% more during a single visit, and 15%-24% more per patient. The episode lengths in the intervention unit were 62%-63% shorter and patients were treated on average with 1.1 visits less than in the control units.

Conclusions

The SVM shows great promise as a service delivery model of choice for routine patients. For a PDS with an obligation to treat the whole patient population, a segmentation based service delivery model could be adopted, which leverages the benefits of the SVM for routine patients and retains the capacity to also treat more complex patients.