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

Monitoring the level of government trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the course of an influenza pandemic, governments know relatively little about the possibly changing influence of government trust, risk perception, and receipt of information on the public's intention to adopt protective measures or on the acceptance of vaccination. This study aims to identify and describe possible changes in and factors associated with public's intentions during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixteen cross-sectional telephone surveys were conducted (N = 8060) between April - November 2009. From these repeated measurements three consecutive periods were categorized based on crucial events during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. Time trends in government trust, risk perception, intention to adopt protective measures, and the acceptance of vaccination were analysed. Factors associated with an intention to adopt protective measures or vaccination were identified.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Trust in the government was high, but decreased over time. During the course of the pandemic, perceived vulnerability and an intention to adopt protective measures increased. Trust and vulnerability were associated with an intention to adopt protective measures in general only during period one. Higher levels of intention to receive vaccination were associated with increased government trust, fear/worry, and perceived vulnerability. In periods two and three receipt of information was positively associated with an intention to adopt protective measures. Most respondents wanted to receive information about infection prevention from municipal health services, health care providers, and the media.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Dutch response to the H1N1 virus was relatively muted. Higher levels of trust in the government, fear/worry, and perceived vulnerability were all positively related to an intention to accept vaccination. Only fear/worry was positively linked to an intention to adopt protective measures during the entire pandemic. Risk and crisis communication by the government should focus on building and maintaining trust by providing information about preventing infection in close collaboration with municipal health services, health care providers, and the media.</p

Waiting for elective general surgery: Physical, psychological and social consequences

Background: Long surgical waiting lists are common and receive serious consideration. To evaluate the positive and negative effects of waiting lists, insight into the consequences of waiting is needed. The present study aims to assess what insight the current literature provides into the effects of delayed surgery for varicose veins, inguinal hernia in adults, gallstones, and breast cancer in terms of physical, psychological and social aspects. Methods: Searches of Medline and Embase, for the period January 1985-September 2003, were performed to identify articles providing direct or indirect insight into the consequences of waiting for surgery for each disorder. Reference lists of retrieved reports were examined for relevant articles. Results: Seven studies were identified with direct data on consequences of delay in elective surgery. Relevant indirect data were found in 32 reports. Results indicated that delayed varicose vein surgery or inguinal hernia repair involves marginal physical, psychological or social suffering, and that severe deterioration is unlikely. The impact of delayed cholecystectomy seems more profound by suffering on all three health aspects. Complications while waiting do occur, with a higher risk for patients with previous complications. Longer delays for breast cancer surgery seem to adversely affect prognosis, although it is unclear which interval is associated with such an effect. Moreover, having breast cancer undoubtedly affects psychological health. Conclusions: There is a remarkable paucity of studies addressing the consequential impact of waiting for elective surgery on patients' health for each of the four studied disorders. Current literature permits merely general estimation of this consequential impact. As specific assessment of these consequences is important for daily practice and for policy, further research is required

Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: A conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners

The prioritisation of patients on waiting lists is ascribed high potential for diminishing the consequences of waiting times for elective surgery. However, consistent evidence is lacking about which factors determine patient priority and it is unclear whether different stakeholders have different opinions on this issue. This study, conducted in the Netherlands, investigates the judgements of patients, laypersons (i.e. patients on other waiting lists), and physicians on the priority of patients on waiting lists. Participants were former patients with varicose veins (N=82), inguinal hernia (N=86), and gallstones (N=89), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 general practitioners. Each participant judged the priority of paper vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. The vignettes were designed according to conjoint analysis methodology and described the physical symptoms, the psychological distress, the social limitations, and impairments in work of patients. Multilevel regression analysis of the responses showed that all groups made significant distinctions in patient priority depending on the severity of each characteristic in the vignettes. The physical symptoms and impairments in work had on average the highest impact on priority, but the summed impact of non-physical factors exceeded that of the physical symptoms. The different groups of participants appraised only the importance of the physical symptoms differently, but opinions on priority varied widely within each group. Whereas the high level of agreement between the different groups would facilitate the acceptance and the implementation of explicit prioritisation of patients on the waiting list, the high inter-individual variation signifies that consensus criteria for prioritisation are needed to warrant equity and transparency in care provision.The Netherlands Access to care Waiting lists Prioritisation Surgery

Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: A conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners

The prioritisation of patients on waiting lists is ascribed high potential for diminishing the consequences of waiting times for elective surgery. However, consistent evidence is lacking about which factors determine patient priority and it is unclear whether different stakeholders have different opinions on this issue. This study, conducted in the Netherlands, investigates the judgements of patients, laypersons (i.e. patients on other waiting lists), and physicians on the priority of patients on waiting lists. Participants were former patients with varicose veins (N=82), inguinal hernia (N=86), and gallstones (N=89), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 general practitioners. Each participant judged the priority of paper vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. The vignettes were designed according to conjoint analysis methodology and described the physical symptoms, the psychological distress, the social limitations, and impairments in work of patients. Multilevel regression analysis of the responses showed that all groups made significant distinctions in patient priority depending on the severity of each characteristic in the vignettes. The physical symptoms and impairments in work had on average the highest impact on priority, but the summed impact of non-physical factors exceeded that of the physical symptoms. The different groups of participants appraised only the importance of the physical symptoms differently, but opinions on priority varied widely within each group. Whereas the high level of agreement between the different groups would facilitate the acceptance and the implementation of explicit prioritisation of patients on the waiting list, the high inter-individual variation signifies that consensus criteria for prioritisation are needed to warrant equity and transparency in care provision