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

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

Funding flows in medical and dental education Briefing paper

Includes bibliographical referencesAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:m03/34430 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

BMA cohort study of 1995 Medical graduates

Includes bibliographical references. Title from coverSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:2116. 0325(8th) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Appraisal for doctors Identifying good practice

Includes bibliographical referencesAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:2283. 958046(13) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Increasing capacity to reduce waiting lists

Includes bibliographical referencesSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:3597. 2422(10) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Violence at work The experience of UK doctors

Includes bibliographical references. Title from coverSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:m03/37075 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Survey of primary care groups 1999

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/43502 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

What sort of healthcare does the public expect, want or need?

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:4275.247842(1) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo