referral and consultation

BACKGROUND
Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition; nevertheless, standard treatments often remain unsatisfactory. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a well-established therapy for non-NLUTD, but there is a lack of randomized controlled trials to show benefit in patients with NLUTD.

METHODS
For this sham-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients with refractory NLUTD (and intended SNM) were recruited at four Swiss SNM referral centers. After lead placement into the sacral foramina S3 (rarely, S4), all participants underwent SNM testing. If successful (≥50% improvement in key bladder diary variables), the neurostimulator was implanted for permanent stimulation. For 2 months, neuromodulation was optimized using subsensory stimulation with individually adjusted parameters. Thereafter, the neurostimulator remained on or was switched off (1:1 random allocation to group SNM ON or SNM OFF, respectively) for 2 months, followed by a neurourologic reevaluation. The primary outcome was success, as defined above, of SNM compared with baseline.

RESULTS
Of 124 patients undergoing SNM testing, 65 (52%) had successfully improved lower urinary tract function. Of these, 60 patients (median age, 49.5 years; 43 women) were randomly assigned to the intervention. After 2 months of intervention, the SNM ON group demonstrated a success rate of 76%. In the SNM OFF group, 42% of patients showed sustained SNM effects despite their neurostimulator being switched off during the last 2 months (odds ratio, 4.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to 13.21; P=0.009). During the entire study period, there were 11 adverse events (6 dropouts; no dropouts during the intervention phase).

CONCLUSIONS
SNM effectively corrected refractory NLUTD in the short term in well-selected neurologic patients. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Vontobel–Stiftung, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter–Rhyner Stiftung, Dr. Urs Mühlebach, and the Swiss Continence Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02165774.)

Background: The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care.

Methods: This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content.

Results: The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model (“Appointment system” and “Interprofessional practice”), 1 was merged with a revised pillar (“Develop contingency plans” with “Planning of needs and supply”) and 1 underwent major transformations (“Backlog reduction” to “Continuous adjustment”). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content.

Interpretation: The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Timely access is a cornerstone of strong primary health care and a key component of a patient-centred medical home for ensuring population health.1 Numerous innovations have been implemented to improve timely access,2 with one of the most recommended around the world being the advanced access model, also called open access.2,3 Based on greater accessibility linked with patients’ relational and informational continuity with a primary health care professional or team, the advanced access model aims to ensure that patients obtain access to health care services at a time and date convenient for them when needed, regardless of the urgency of the demand.4 Originally developed in the United States in the early 2000s, advanced access is defined by Murray and Berwick as having 5 pillars: balance supply and demand, reduce the backlog of previously scheduled appointments, review the appointment system, integrate interprofessional practice and develop contingency plans.5,6 Several scientific papers on the foundations of advanced access have been published over the past 20 years, and its benefits have been reported in many countries, including the US, the United Kingdom and Canada.6–9

Over the last 2 decades, primary health care practice has evolved to increase interdisciplinarity in clinical teams. Thus, the need for a model that incorporates new practices and professionals has necessitated development of an updated advanced access model. Furthermore, advanced access was originally developed in a context that prioritized implementing a new way of doing, with less emphasis on the ongoing practice and sustainability of the model.10,11 However, changes in primary health care practice require revisions to the advanced access model to adapt it to the contemporary context.

In this study, we redefine the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model by integrating an interdisciplinary team–based focus, while considering the integration of primary health care professionals, such as nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers and other allied professionals, in primary health care practices. The objective of this study was to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model.