Background: Patient flow through health services is increasingly recognized as a system issue, yet the flow literature has focused overwhelmingly on localized interventions, with limited examination of system-level causes or remedies. Research suggests that intractable flow problems may reflect a basic misalignment between service offerings and population needs, requiring fundamental system redesign. However, little is known about health systems’ approaches to population–capacity misalignment, and guidance for system redesign remains underdeveloped. Methods: This qualitative study, part of a broader investigation of patient flow in urban Western Canada, explored health-system strategies to address or prevent population–capacity misalignment. We conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of managers in 10 jurisdictions across 4 provinces (N = 300), spanning all healthcare sectors and levels of management. We used the constant comparative method to develop an understanding of relevant strategies and derive principles for system design. Results: All regions showed evidence of pervasive population–capacity misalignment. The most superficial level of response – mutual accommodation (case-by-case problem solving) – was most prevalent; capacity (re)allocation occurred less frequently; population redefinition most rarely. Participants’ insights yielded a general principle: Define populations on the basis of clusters of co-occurring need. However, defining such clusters demands a difficult balance between narrowness/rigidity and breadth/flexibility. Deeper analysis suggested a further principle: Populations that can be divided into homogeneous subgroups experiencing similar needs (eg, surgical patients) are best served by narrow/ rigid models; heterogeneous populations featuring diverse constellations of need (eg, frail older adults) require broad/ flexible models. Conclusion: To remedy population–capacity misalignment, health system planners should determine whether clusters of population need are separable vs. fused, select an appropriate service model for each population, allocate sufficient capacity, and only then promote mutual accommodation to address exceptions. Overreliance on case-by-case solutions to systemic problems ensures the persistence of population–capacity misalignment.

While most health systems have implemented interventions to manage situations in which patient demand exceeds capacity, little is known about the long-term sustainability or effectiveness of such interventions. A large multi-jurisdictional study on patient flow in Western Canada provided the opportunity to explore experiences with overcapacity management strategies across 10 diverse health regions. Four categories of interventions were employed by all or most regions: overcapacity protocols, alternative locations for emergency patients, locations for discharge-ready inpatients, and meetings to guide redistribution of patients. Two mechanisms undergirded successful interventions: providing a capacity buffer and promoting action by inpatient units by increasing staff accountability and/or solidarity. Participants reported that interventions demanded significant time and resources and the ongoing active involvement of middle and senior management. Furthermore, although most participants characterized overcapacity management practices as effective, this effectiveness was almost universally experienced as temporary. Many regions described a context of chronic overcapacity, which persisted despite continued intervention. Processes designed to manage short-term surges in demand cannot rectify a long-term mismatch between capacity and demand; solutions at the level of system redesign are needed.

Units providing transitional, subacute, or restorative care represent a common intervention to facilitate patient flow and improve outcomes for lower acuity (often older) inpatients; however, little is known about Canadian health systems’ experiences with such “transition units.” This comparative case study of diverse units in four health regions (48 interviews) identified important success factors and pitfalls. A fundamental requirement for success is to clearly define the unit’s intended population and design the model around its needs. Planners must also ensure that the unit be resourced and staffed to deliver truly restorative care. Finally, streamlined processes must be developed to help patients access and move through the unit. Units that were perceived as more effective appeared to have satisfactorily addressed these population, capacity, and process issues, whereas those perceived as less effective continued to struggle with them. Findings suggest principles to support optimal design and implementation of transition units.

BackgroundSeveral of the many emergency department (ED) interventions intended to address the complex problem of (over)crowding are based on the principle of streaming: directing different groups of patients to different processes of care. Although the theoretical basis of streaming is robust, evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions remains inconclusive.MethodsThis qualitative research, grounded in the population-capacity-process model, sought to determine how, why and under what conditions streaming interventions may be effective. Data came from a broader study exploring patient flow strategies across Western Canada through in-depth interviews with managers at all levels. We undertook realist analysis of interview data from the 98 participants who discussed relevant interventions (fast-track/minor treatment areas, rapid assessment zones, diverse short-stay units), focusing on their explanations of initiatives’ perceived outcomes.ResultsEssential features of streaming interventions included separation of designated populations (population), provision of dedicated space and resources (capacity) and rapid cycle time (process). These features supported key mechanisms of impact: patients wait only for services they need; patient variability is reduced; lag time between steps is eliminated; and provider attitude change promotes prompt discharge. Conversely, reported failures usually involved neglect of one of these dimensions during intervention design and/or implementation. Participants also identified important contextual barriers to success, notably lack of outflow sites and demand outstripping capacity. Nonetheless, failure was more commonly attributed to intervention flaws than to context factors.ConclusionsWhile streaming interventions have the potential to reduce crowding, a theory-based intervention relies on its implementers’ adherence to the theory. Streaming interventions cannot be expected to yield the desired results if operationalised in a manner incongruent with the theory on which they are supposedly based.

PurposeInterventions to hasten patient discharge continue to proliferate despite evidence that they may be achieving diminishing returns. To better understand what such interventions can be expected to accomplish, the authors aim to critically examine their underlying program theory.Design/methodology/approachWithin a broader study on patient flow, spanning 10 jurisdictions across Western Canada, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with 300 senior, middle and frontline managers; 174 discussed discharge initiatives. Using thematic analysis informed by a Realistic Evaluation lens, the authors identified the mechanisms by which discharge activities were believed to produce their impacts and the strategies and context factors necessary to trigger the intended mechanisms.FindingsManagers' accounts suggested a common program theory that applied to a wide variety of discharge initiatives. The chief mechanism was inculcation of a sharp focus on discharge; reinforcing mechanisms included development of shared understanding and a sense of accountability. Participants reported that these mechanisms were difficult to produce and sustain, requiring continual active management and repeated (re)introduction of interventions. This reflected a context in which providers, already overwhelmed with competing demands, were unlikely to be able (or perhaps even willing) to sustain a focus on this particular aspect of care.Originality/valueThe finding that “discharge focus” emerged as the core mechanism of discharge interventions helps to explain why such initiatives may be achieving limited benefit. There is a need for interventions that promote timely discharge without relying on this highly problematic mechanism.