[Citizens opinions, experiences and perceptions about waiting lists for elective cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement. ]

Patients' experiences of discontentment one year after total knee arthroplasty- a qualitative study

Background

Total knee arthroplasty is a common procedure with generally good results. However, there are still patients who are dissatisfied without known explanation. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction have previously been captured by quantitative designs, but there is a lack of qualitative studies regarding these patients’ experiences. Qualitative knowledge might be useful in creating strategies to decrease the dissatisfaction rate.

Methods

Of the 348 patients who responded to a letter asking if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their surgery, 61 (18%) reported discontent. After excluding patients with documented complications and those who declined to participate, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 patients. The interviews were analyzed according to qualitative content analysis. The purpose was to describe patients’ experiences of discontentment 1 year after total knee arthroplasty.

Results

The patients experienced unfulfilled expectations and needs regarding unresolved and new problems, limited independence, and lacking of relational supports. They were bothered by pain and stiffness, and worried that changes were complications as a result of surgery. They described inability to perform daily activities and valued activities. They also felt a lack of relational supports, and a lack of respect and continuity, support from health care, and information adapted to their needs.

Conclusion

Patient expectation seems to be the major contributing factor in patient discontentment after knee replacement surgery. This qualitative study sheds light on the on the meaning of unfulfilled expectations, in contrast to previous quantitative studies. The elements of unfulfilled expectations need to be dealt with both on the individual staff level and on the organizational level. For instance, increased continuity of healthcare staff and facilities may help to improve patient satisfaction after surgery.

Obesity Surgery Score (OSS) for Prioritization in the Bariatric Surgery Waiting List: a Need of Public Health Systems and a Literature Review

BACKGROUND

In the last decades, we have experienced an increase in the prevalence of obesity in western countries with a higher demand for bariatric surgery and consequently prolonged waiting times. Currently, in many public hospitals, the only criterion that establishes priority for bariatric surgery is waiting time regardless of obesity severity.

METHODS

We propose a new, simple, and homogeneous clinical prioritization system, the Obesity Surgery Score (OSS), which takes into account simultaneously and equitably the time on surgical waiting list and the obesity severity based on three variables: body mass index, obesity-related comorbidities, and functional limitations. We have reviewed the current literature related to obesity clinical staging systems, and we have carried out an analysis of our patients in waiting list and divided their characteristics according to their degree of severity (A, B, or C) in the OSS. Patients with OSS grade C have a higher mean BMI, greater severity in comorbidities, and greater socio-labor impact. The current surgery waiting time of our series is of 26 months. Currently, 27 patients (51.9%) with OSS grade B and 15 patients (51.7%) with OSS grade C have been on our waiting list for more than 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Since the obesity severity, the waiting time and its clinical consequences are associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality, it is important to apply a structured prioritization system for bariatric surgery waiting list. This allows prioritization of patients at greater risk, improves patient prognosis, and optimizes costs and available health resources.

Waiting list management: priority criteria or first-in first-out? A case for total joint replacement

BACKGROUND

Total joint replacements are interventions with large waiting times from indication to the surgery management. These patients can be managed in two ways; first-in first-out or through a priority tool. The aim of this study was to compare real time on waiting list (TWL) with a priority criteria score, developed by our team, in patients awaiting joint replacement due to osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients placed on waiting list were eligible. Patients fulfilled a questionnaire which included items of our priority tool and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) specific questionnaire. Other priority items were extracted from the clinical history. The priority tool gives a score from 0 to 100 points, and three categories (urgent, preferent and ordinary). We studied the differences among categories and TWL by means of one-way analysis of variance. Correlational analysis was used to evaluate association among priority score and TWL and WOMAC baseline and gains at 6 months with priority score and TWL.

RESULTS

We have studied 684 patients. Women represented 62% of sample. The mean age was 70 years. There were not association between the categories of priority score and TWL (P = 0.12). The rho correlation coefficient between TWL and priority score was -0.11. Among baseline WOMAC scores and priority score, the rho coefficients were 0.79, 0.7 and 0.52 with function, pain and stiffness dimensions, respectively. There were differences in the mean scores of WOMAC dimensions according to the three priority categories (P < 0.001) but no with TWL categories. Data of gains in both health-related quality of life dimensions at 6 months were similar, with differences according to priority categories but no regarding TWL.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study support the necessity of implementing a prioritization system instead of the actual system if we want to manage the waiting list for joint replacement with clinical equity.

Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis

Objective. The aim was to develop a priority scoring system for patients on waiting lists for joint replacement based on a wide social participation, and to analyze the differences among participants. Methods. Conjoint analysis. Focus groups in combination with a nominal technique were employed to identify the priority criteria (N= 36). A rank-ordered logit model was then applied for scoring estimations. Participants (N= 860) represented: consultants, allied-health professionals, patients and their relatives, and the general population of Catalonia. Results. Clinical and social criteria were selected, and their relative importance (over 100 points) was: pain (33), difficulty in doing activities of daily living (21), disease severity (18), limitations on ability to work (10), having someone to look after the patient (9), being a caregiver (6), and recovery probability (4). Estimated criteria coefficients had the expected positive sign and all were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were differences between groups; pain was rated higher by patients/relatives, and difficulty in doing activities was rated lower by patients/relatives and the general public. Most interaction terms for these criteria and groups were significant (P < 0.001). Consultants and allied-health professionals had the most similar prioritization pattern (r= 0.97). Conclusion. Both clinical and social criteria are considered for prioritization of joint replacement surgery from a wide social perspective. The preference among professional and social groups varies and this might impact the result of patient prioritization. A wide social participation for obtaining adequate prioritizing systems for patients on waiting lists is desirable.

Development of explicit criteria for prioritization of hip and knee replacement

RATIONALE AND AIMS

Among the problems to the publicly funded national health services are the waiting lists. Patients who need elective surgery generally have long waiting times before treatment. We aimed to develop a new prioritization tool for primary hip and knee replacement.

METHODS

Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel process. We convened a panel of nine members who scored the scenarios created by the research team and by patient focus groups. We studied the level of agreement among the panelists and the contribution of the variables to the ratings of the panel using linear and logistic regression models. The priority scores of the variables and their levels were synthesized using the optimal scaling and standard linear regression methods.

RESULTS

Seven variables, pain on motion, walking functional limitations, abnormal findings on physical examination, pain at rest, other functional limitations, social role, and other pathologies that could improve with joint replacement, were considered to create the different scenarios. The panel scored 192 scenarios. The disagreement among the panelists was very low (1%) with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.72. Of the 192 scenarios, 45.8% were scored as urgent, 35.4% as preferred and 18.8% as ordinary. The variables that contributed most to the scores were pain on motion and walking functional limitations. When optimal scaling and regression techniques were applied, similar results were obtained.

CONCLUSION

This tool can evaluate and prioritize patients on a waiting list for hip or knee replacement. We also provide a simple and easy way to use an algorithm to estimate the treatment priority for individual patients.

Priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas: diferencias en las preferencias entre ciudadanos

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare citizen preferences regarding patient prioritization for cataract surgery.

METHOD

A conjoint analysis was performed. Priority criteria were identified and selected using 4 focus/nominal groups consisting of the general public, patients/relatives, allied health-professionals and specialists from Catalonia (n=36). Preferences elicitation (score of criteria): representative sample survey of the above mentioned groups (n=771) and rank-ordered logit model application. Differences were assessed by group analysis and their comparison.

RESULTS

The criteria selected and their relative importance were: visual impairment (45%), difficulty in performing activities of daily living (ADL) (15%), limitation of ability to work (14%), being looked after by someone (11%), being a caregiver (8%), and recovery probability (7%). Differences in scores were observed among groups. Visual impairment was scored more highly by the general public and patients/relatives than by other groups (p<0.001). These two groups also assigned less importance to difficulty in performing ADL (p<0.001). The probability of recovery was the least scored criterion by most groups. Correlations among the order of hypothetical patient scenarios were high (r>0.9). However, the final order of patients on the waiting list could differ by up to 27 positions when different group scores were applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Social and clinical criteria were considered important. The observed differences among citizens regarding how to prioritize patients on the waiting lists indicates the need to take into account the preferences of all groups of citizens.

[Prioritization of patients on the waiting list for hip and knee replacement: the patients' views]

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients' views on the criteria used to prioritize patients on the waiting list for total hip or knee prostheses. This study is part of a wider project whose objective is to design an instrument to prioritize patients on the waiting list for both procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a descriptive study with qualitative methodology that provides valuable information on how to improve various aspects of clinical practice and detect solutions that could be useful in decision making. There were 4 focus groups; 2 before the design of the instrument and 2 after. These focus group were composed of patients on the waiting list for knee or hip replacement.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients agreed to participate in the focus groups. All the patients were dissatisfied with the current waiting lists. The most salient factors discussed in meetings were pain, functional capability, and the repercussions of these on the patient's social role.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the instrument is designed to be used by health professionals, patients' participation in its design and evaluation allows them to feel more involved in the healthcare process and provides information that more accurately reflects their experiences. The use of this information by health professionals will improve resource optimization and the response to patient needs.