Waiting time distribution in public health care: empirics and theory

Excessive waiting times for elective surgery have been a long-standing concern in many national healthcare systems in the OECD. How do the hospital admission patterns that generate waiting lists affect different patients? What are the hospitals characteristics that determine waiting times? By developing a model of healthcare provision and analysing empirically the entire waiting time distribution we attempt to shed some light on those issues. We first build a theoretical model that describes the optimal waiting time distribution for capacity constraint hospitals. Secondly, employing duration analysis, we obtain empirical representations of that distribution across hospitals in the UK from 1997–2005. We observe important differences on the ‘scale’ and on the ‘shape’ of admission rates. Scale refers to how quickly patients are treated and shape represents trade-offs across duration-treatment profiles. By fitting the theoretical to the empirical distributions we estimate the main structural parameters of the model and are able to closely identify the main drivers of these empirical differences. We find that the level of resources allocated to elective surgery (budget and physical capacity), which determines how constrained the hospital is, explains differences in scale. Changes in benefits and costs structures of healthcare provision, which relate, respectively, to the desire to prioritise patients by duration and the reduction in costs due to delayed treatment, determine the shape, affecting short and long duration patients differently

Improving access for community health and sub-acute outpatient services: protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for treatment are common in outpatient and community services, Existing methods for managing access and triage to these services can lead to inequities in service delivery, inefficiencies and divert resources from frontline care. Evidence from two controlled studies indicates that an alternative to the traditional &quot;waitlist and triage&quot; model known as STAT (Specific Timely Appointments for Triage) may be successful in reducing waiting times without adversely affecting other aspects of patient care. This trial aims to test whether the model is cost effective in reducing waiting time across multiple services, and to measure the impact on service provision, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. METHODS/DESIGN: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the impact of the STAT model in 8 community health and outpatient services. The primary outcome will be waiting time from referral to first appointment. Secondary outcomes will be nature and quantity of service received (collected from all patients attending the service during the study period and health-related quality of life (AQOL-8D), patient satisfaction, health care utilisation and cost data (collected from a subgroup of patients at initial assessment and after 12&nbsp;weeks). Data will be analysed with a multiple multi-level random-effects regression model that allows for cluster effects. An economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: This paper outlines the study protocol for a fully powered prospective stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to establish whether the STAT model of access and triage can reduce waiting times applied across multiple settings, without increasing health service costs or adversely impacting on other aspects of patient care. If successful, it will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a practical model of access that can substantially reduce waiting time for outpatient and community services with subsequent benefits for both efficiency of health systems and patient care.<br /

A model to prioritize access to elective surgery on the basis of clinical urgency and waiting time

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prioritization of waiting lists for elective surgery represents a major issue in public systems in view of the fact that patients often suffer from consequences of long waiting times. In addition, administrative and standardized data on waiting lists are generally lacking in Italy, where no detailed national reports are available. This is true although since 2002 the National Government has defined implicit Urgency-Related Groups (URGs) associated with Maximum Time Before Treatment (MTBT), similar to the Australian classification. The aim of this paper is to propose a model to manage waiting lists and prioritize admissions to elective surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2001, the Italian Ministry of Health funded the Surgical Waiting List Info System (SWALIS) project, with the aim of experimenting solutions for managing elective surgery waiting lists. The project was split into two phases. In the first project phase, ten surgical units in the largest hospital of the Liguria Region were involved in the design of a pre-admission process model. The model was embedded in a Web based software, adopting Italian URGs with minor modifications. The SWALIS pre-admission process was based on the following steps: 1) urgency assessment into URGs; 2) correspondent assignment of a pre-set MTBT; 3) real time prioritization of every referral on the list, according to urgency and waiting time. In the second project phase a prospective descriptive study was performed, when a single general surgery unit was selected as the deployment and test bed, managing all registrations from March 2004 to March 2007 (1809 ordinary and 597 day cases). From August 2005, once the SWALIS model had been modified, waiting lists were monitored and analyzed, measuring the impact of the model by a set of performance indexes (average waiting time, length of the waiting list) and Appropriate Performance Index (API).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The SWALIS pre-admission model was used for all registrations in the test period, fully covering the case mix of the patients referred to surgery. The software produced real time data and advanced parameters, providing patients and users useful tools to manage waiting lists and to schedule hospital admissions with ease and efficiency. The model protected patients from horizontal and vertical inequities, while positive changes in API were observed in the latest period, meaning that more patients were treated within their MTBT.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The SWALIS model achieves the purpose of providing useful data to monitor waiting lists appropriately. It allows homogeneous and standardized prioritization, enhancing transparency, efficiency and equity. Due to its applicability, it might represent a pragmatic approach towards surgical waiting lists, useful in both clinical practice and strategic resource management.</p

The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients

BACKGROUND: Problematic waiting lists in public health care threaten the equity and timeliness of care provision in several countries. This study assesses different stakeholders' views on the acceptability of waiting lists in health care, their preferences for priority care of patients, and their judgements on acceptable waiting times for surgical patients. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 257 former patients (82 with varicose veins, 86 with inguinal hernia, and 89 with gallstones), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 GPs. Judgements on acceptable waiting times were assessed using vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. RESULTS: Participants endorsed the prioritisation of patients based on clinical need, but not on ability to benefit. The groups had significantly different opinions (p < 0.05) on the use of non-clinical priority criteria and on the need for uniformity in the prioritisation process. Acceptable waiting times ranged between 2 and 25 weeks depending on the type of disorder (p < 0.001) and the severity of physical and psychosocial problems of patients (p < 0.001). Judgements were similar between the survey groups (p = 0.3) but responses varied considerably within each group depending on the individual's attitude towards waiting lists in health care (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The explicit prioritisation of patients seems an accepted means for reducing the overall burden from waiting lists. The disagreement about appropriate prioritisation criteria and the need for uniformity, however, raises concern about equity when implementing prioritisation in daily practice. Single factor waiting time thresholds seem insufficient for securing timely care provision in the presence of long waiting lists as they do not account for the different consequences of waiting between patients

Constitutional patriotism

Constitutional patriotism is a political theory that seeks to provide an explanation for the sense of ownership that most individuals have towards their national constitutional system. Specifically, constitutional patriotism assumes that free-thinking individuals involved in a discussion over the common good will reach an agreement that is perceived, at least by those involved in the debate, as having normative value. The awareness that such a deliberative process has historically been a part of the constitutional system also induces a sense of ownership of past historical accommodations of constitutional principles. The shared perception of being part of historically grounded institutions within a deliberative democracy is sometimes called the ‘normative surplus effect’ or ‘normative spill-over effect’ of the deliberative process. The theory, in its current form, was proposed by Jürgen Habermas and Jean-Werner Müller. Debates over the common good might take place informally or within the state’s institutions. Pell-mell informal debates, with few exceptions, have a limited effect on amending constitutional norms. Yet, the prerogative to openly discuss laws and policies legitimised by constitutional norms is normally sufficient to develop an inner sense of belonging to a constitutional system. Deliberative debates within public institutions (e.g. parliaments and courts) are more likely to change the functioning of a constitutional system, but they are, by way of comparison to informal political discussions, normally constrained by the system of rules that regulate representative democracy and the administration of justice. Thus, the theory of constitutional patriotism provides an explanatory model for the historical development of a democratic constitutional system. As one of the most persuasive explanatory theories of modern pluralist democracy, constitutional patriotism has attracted a series of well-articulated critiques. It has been suggested, for instance, that constitutional patriotism might not provide a plausible model of social integration for international organisations such as the European Union (EU). In this essay, I will provide an overview of the theory and a selection of its critiques

Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multicentre validation study which included orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists from 10 hospitals. Participating doctors were asked to include all eligible patients placed in the waiting list for the procedures under study during the medical visit. Doctors assessed patients' priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and administered the prioritisation instrument. Information on socio-demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HUI3, EQ-5D, WOMAC and VF-14) was obtained through a telephone interview with patients. The correlation coefficients between the prioritisation instrument score and VAS and HRQOL were calculated. For the reliability study a self-administered questionnaire, which included hypothetic patients' scenarios, was sent via postal mail to the doctors. The priority of these scenarios was assessed through the prioritisation instrument. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between doctors was calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Correlations with VAS were strong for the AI (0.64, CI95%: 0.59–0.68) and for the CI (0.65, CI95%: 0.62–0.69), and moderate between the WOMAC and the AI (0.39, CI95%: 0.33–0.45) and the VF-14 and the CI (0.38, IC95%: 0.33–0.43). The results of the discriminant analysis were in general as expected. Inter-observer reliability was 0.79 (CI95%: 0.64–0.94) for the AI, and 0.79 (CI95%: 0.63–0.95) for the CI.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results show acceptable validity and reliability of the prioritisation instruments in establishing priority for surgery.</p

On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East

This article contains the reasons for the establishment of sacred trees in Israel based on a field study. It includes 97 interviews with Muslim and Druze informants. While Muslims (Arabs and Bedouins) consider sacred trees especially as an abode of righteous figures' (Wellis') souls or as having a connection to their graves, the Druze relate sacred trees especially to the events or deeds in the lives of prophets and religious leaders. A literary review shows the existence of 24 known reasons for the establishment of sacred trees worldwide, 11 of which are known in Israel one of these is reported here for the first time. We found different trends in monotheistic and polytheistic religions concerning their current worship of sacred trees

Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

PURPOSE: Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice. RESULTS: Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication. CONCLUSION: Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals

Patient and healthcare practitioner evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery - a modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are an important emerging metric increasingly utilised in clinical, research and registry settings. These outcomes, while vital, are underutilised and require refinement for the specific patient population of those undergoing bariatric surgery. This study aimed to investigate and compare how pre-surgical patients, post-surgical patients, and healthcare practitioners evaluate patient-reported outcomes of bariatric surgery to identify outcomes that are considered most important. METHODS: A modified Delphi survey was distributed to patients pre- and post-surgery, and to a variety of healthcare practitioners involved in bariatric care. Across two rounds, participants were asked to rate a variety of physical and psychosocial outcomes of bariatric surgery from 0 (Not Important) to 10 (Extremely Important). Outcomes rated 8-10 by at least 70% of participants were considered highly important (prioritised). The highest-rated outcomes were compared between the three groups as well as between medical and allied health practitioner subgroups. RESULTS: 20 pre-surgical patients, 95 post-surgical patients, and 28 healthcare practitioners completed both rounds of the questionnaire. There were 58 outcomes prioritised, with 21 outcomes (out of 90, 23.3%) prioritised by all three groups, 13 (14.4%) by two groups, and 24 (26.7%) prioritised by a single group or subgroup. Unanimously prioritised outcomes included 'Co-morbidities', 'General Physical Health', 'Overall Quality of Life' and 'Overall Mental Health'. Discordant outcomes included 'Fear of Weight Regain', 'Suicidal Thoughts', 'Addictive Behaviours', and 'Experience of Stigma or Discrimination'. CONCLUSION: While there was considerable agreement between stakeholder groups on many outcomes, there remain several outcomes with discordant importance valuations that must be considered. In particular, healthcare practitioners prioritised 20 outcomes that were not prioritised by patients, emphasising the range of priorities across stakeholder groups. Future work will consider these priorities to ensure resulting measures encompass all important outcomes and are beneficial and valid for end users