Abstract
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.