The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 2: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Developing a prioritisation framework for patients in need of coronary artery angiography

BACKGROUND

Effective waiting list management and comprehensive prioritisation can provide timely delivery of appropriate services to ensure that the patient needs are met and increase equity in the provision of health services. We developed a prioritisation framework for patients in need of coronary artery angiography (CAA).

METHODS

We used a multi-methods approach to elicit effective factors that affect CAA patient prioritisation. Qualitative data wase collected using semi-structured interviews with 15 experts. The final set of factors was selected using experts' consensus through modifed Delphi technique. The framework was finalised during expert panel meetings.

RESULTS

212 effective factors were identified based on the literature review, interviews, and expert panel discussion of them, 37 factors were selected for modifed Delphi study. Following two rounds of Delphi discussions, seven final factors were selected and weighed by ten experts using pair-wise comparisons. The following weights were given: the severity of pain and symptoms (0.22), stress testing (0.18), background diseases (0.15), number of myocardial infarctions (0.15), waiting time (0.10), reduction of economic and social performance (0.12), and special conditions (0.08).

CONCLUSION

Clinical effective factors were important for CAA prioritisation framework. Using this framework can potentially lead to improved accountability and justice in the health system.

Patient Mix Optimization in Admission Planning under Multitype Patients and Priority Constraints

Hospital beds are one of the most critical medical resources. Large hospitals in China have caused bed utilization rates to exceed 100% due to long-term extra beds. To alleviate the contradiction between the supply of high-quality medical resources and the demand for hospitalization, in this paper, we address the decision of choosing a case mix for a respiratory medicine department. We aim to generate an optimal admission plan of elective patients with the stochastic length of stay and different resource consumption. We assume that we can classify elective patients according to their registration information before admission. We formulated a general integer programming model considering heterogeneous patients and introducing patient priority constraints. The mathematical model is used to generate a scientific and reasonable admission planning, determining the best admission mix for multitype patients in a period. Compared with model II that does not consider priority constraints, model I proposed in this paper is better in terms of admissions and revenue. The proposed model I can adjust the priority parameters to meet the optimal output under different goals and scenarios. The daily admission planning for each type of patient obtained by model I can be used to assist the patient admission management in large general hospitals.

Development and Reliability of an Appropriateness and Prioritization Instrument for Eye Care Practice: A Modified Delphi Process

Purpose: To modify the Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWLP) cataract prioritization criteria into measurement instruments for assessing appropriateness and prioritization emphasizing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and examining reliability.Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted using two rounds of online surveys and a face-to-face meeting. A panel of eye care experts rated the relevancy of criteria on a 5-point scale. Patient narratives highlighted the patient experience. A G-theory framework was used to assess inter- and intra-rater agreement using the criteria.Results: Nine Ophthalmologists, three Optometrists, and one General Practitioner participated in the modified Delphi process. Consensus to include/exclude was reached on all criteria. Seventeen criteria were included and 16 were excluded. The most significant changes were related to the categorization of comorbidities and expansion of HRQoL questions. The overall reliability was good (_ϕ = 0.852).Conclusion: The WCWLP was modified to include appropriateness and to better reflect HRQoL. Having achieved consensus and demonstrated reliability of the criteria, the next step is to estimate weights for criteria and to validate against patient health outcomes data.

When is 'Urgent' Really Urgent and Does it Matter? Misclassification of Procedural Status and Implications for Risk Assessment in Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Many patients classified as "urgent" in Australia New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) registry contradict the prescribed definition (surgery within 72hours of angiogram or unplanned admission). The aim was to examine the impacts of this misclassification on the prediction of 30-day mortality following cardiac surgery.

METHODS

The 'reported clinical status' was compared with a 'corrected clinical status' following reclassification based on the standard definition calculated from raw data. Observed-to-predicted risk ratios (OPRs) of 30-day mortality were calculated for the model using reported status and corrected status and compared. A Bland-Altman plot was generated to examine the level of agreement between the two OPRs.

RESULTS

Of 18496 cases reported as urgent, 49.9% were operated after 72hours, leading to misclassification of 14.6% in the registry. Misclassified patients had significantly higher mortality (3.5%) than true urgent patients (2.9%). Underweight (OR:1.6,CI:1.2-2.1), dialysis (OR:1.4,CI:1.1-1.7), endocarditis (OR:2.1,CI:1.7-2.5), shock (OR:1.6,CI:1.3-2.0) and poor ejection fraction (OR:1.2,CI:1.1-1.4) were significant predictors of misclassification. Bland- Altman plot demonstrates significant disagreement between two risk estimates (P<0.001). Misclassification results in overestimation of risk by 9.1%. Observed-to-predicted risk increased with corrected definition (0.8975 vs 0.9875), suggesting poorer calibration with reported status.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ANZSCTS database, misclassification prevalence is 14.6%. Misclassification compromises the discrimination capacity and calibration of the model and results in overestimation of mortality risk.

Knee replacement

Knee-replacement surgery is frequently done and highly successful. It relieves pain and improves knee function in people with advanced arthritis of the joint. The most common indication for the procedure is osteoarthritis. We review the epidemiology of and risk factors for knee replacement. Because replacement is increasingly considered for patients younger than 55 years, improved decision making about whether a patient should undergo the procedure is needed. We discuss assessment of surgery outcomes based on data for revision surgery from national joint-replacement registries and on patient-reported outcome measures. Widespread surveillance of existing implants is urgently needed alongside the carefully monitored introduction of new implant designs. Developments for the future are improved delivery of care and training for surgeons and clinical teams. In an increasingly ageing society, the demand for knee-replacement surgery will probably rise further, and we predict future trends. We also emphasise the need for new strategies to treat early-stage osteoarthritis, which will ultimately reduce the demand for joint-replacement surgery.

Value for money - recasting the problem in terms of dynamic access prioritisation

PURPOSE

To develop an approach for achieving value for money in rehabilitation based on dynamic prioritisation of access to services according to individual capacity to benefit.

METHOD

A critical review of economic evaluation and adaptation of a prioritisation method used in determining access to elective surgical services in New Zealand to a rehabilitation context.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness frontier is not straight but curved, suggesting that some people benefit more from a given intervention than others. An approach that identifies those most likely to benefit from inpatient rehabilitation following stroke (as an example) and enables access in order of capacity to benefit is presented in the context of a quality improvement programme. The approach is operationalised as a prioritisation tool that is dynamic in the sense that is can be reapplied subject to changes in the patient's clinical status. The steps proposed to develop such a tool include qualitative research with expert clinicians, pair-wise comparison of alternative scenarios (1000Minds survey), construction of an economic model of the tool's operation and an observational cohort study to help populate the model and calibrate the tool.

CONCLUSION

A dynamic prioritisation approach to guide access to scarce health-care resources (such as inpatient rehabilitation following stroke) offers a transparent and equitable way of achieving value for money in the delivery of rehabilitation services.

Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using information from circulating biomarkers to inform the prioritisation process of patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

DESIGN

Decision analytical model comparing four prioritisation strategies without biomarkers (no formal prioritisation, two urgency scores, and a risk score) and three strategies based on a risk score using biomarkers: a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate), a novel biomarker (C reactive protein), or both. The order in which to perform coronary artery bypass grafting in a cohort of patients was determined by each prioritisation strategy, and mean lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared.

DATA SOURCES

Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (9935 patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting and then followed up for cardiovascular events after the procedure for 3.8 years), and meta-analyses of prognostic effects (relative risks) of biomarkers.

RESULTS

The observed risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting was 3 per 10,000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients). Using a cost effectiveness threshold of pound20,000- pound30,000 (euro22,000-euro33,000; $32,000-$48,000) per additional QALY, a prioritisation strategy using a risk score with estimated glomerular filtration rate was the most cost effective strategy (cost per additional QALY was < pound410 compared with the Ontario urgency score). The impact on population health of implementing this strategy was 800 QALYs per 100,000 patients at an additional cost of pound 245,000 to the National Health Service. The prioritisation strategy using a risk score with C reactive protein was associated with lower QALYs and higher costs compared with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSION

Evaluating the cost effectiveness of prognostic biomarkers is important even when effects at an individual level are small. Formal prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting using a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate) along with simple, routinely collected clinical information was cost effective. Prioritisation strategies based on the prognostic information conferred by C reactive protein, which is not currently measured in this context, or a combination of C reactive protein and estimated glomerular filtration rate, is unlikely to be cost effective. The widespread practice of using only implicit or informal means of clinically ordering the waiting list may be harmful and should be replaced with formal prioritisation approaches.

Waiting for surgery from the patient perspective

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the impact of waiting for elective surgery from the patient perspective, with a focus on maximum tolerance, quality of life, and the nature of the waiting experience. Searches were conducted using Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and HealthSTAR. Twenty-seven original research articles were identified which included each of these three themes. The current literature suggested that first, patients tend to state longer wait times as unacceptable when they experienced severe symptoms or functional impairment. Second, the relationship between length of wait and health-related quality of life depended on the nature and severity of proposed surgical intervention at the time of booking. Third, the waiting experience was consistently described as stressful and anxiety provoking. While many patients expressed anger and frustration at communication within the system, the experience of waiting was not uniformly negative. Some patients experienced waiting as an opportunity to live full lives despite pain and disability. The relatively unexamined relationship between waiting, illness and patient experience of time represents an area for future research.

Are coronary angiograms of value in the risk stratification of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery?

INTRODUCTION

There are currently more than 20 risk-scoring systems that attempt to predict peri-operative mortality following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). All these scoring systems use objective criteria to assess operative risk. Angiographic data are currently not included in any of these systems. This pilot study assessed the value of coronary angiography in predicting peri-operative mortality following CABG.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fourteen patients who died following first-time isolated CABG surgery were identified. These were matched with 14 patients of similar age, sex, left ventricle function and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). A panel of 25 clinicians were given details of the patients' age, sex, diabetic status, family history, smoking history, hypertensive status, lipid status, pre-operative symptoms, left ventricle ejection fraction and weight and shown the coronary angiograms of the patient. They were asked to predict the outcome following CABG for each patient.

RESULTS

Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed and the area under the curves calculated and analysed using a commercially available statistical package (PRISM). The area under the curve for the group was 0.6820 for the group. Consultant clinicians achieved an area of 0.6789 versus their trainees 0.6844 (P = NS). The cardiologists achieved an area of 0.7063 versus the cardiothoracic surgeons 0.6491 (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the EuroSCORE predicting equal risk for the two groups of patients, it would appear that clinicians are able to identify individual higher risk patients by assessing pre-operatively the quality of the patient's coronary vasculature. Although the clinicians were able to predict individual patient mortality better than the EuroSCORE, the area under the curve indicates that it is not a robust method and clinicians, with all the clinical information to hand, are only moderately good at predicting the outcome following coronary artery bypass surgery.

Validation of a prioritization tool for patients on the waiting list for total hip and knee replacements

RATIONALE AND AIMS

Total hip and knee replacements, usually, have long waiting lists. There are several prioritization tools for these kind of patients. A new tool should undergo a standardized validation process. The aim of the present study was to validate a new prioritization tool for primary hip and knee replacements.

METHODS

We carried out a prospective study. Consecutive patients placed on the waiting list were eligible for the study. Patients included were mailed a questionnaire which included, among other questions, the seven items of the priority tool and the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) specific questionnaire. The priority tool gives a score from 0 to 100 points, and three categories (urgent, preferent and ordinary). We studied the content and construct validity. We used Student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance. Correlational analysis was used to evaluate convergent and discriminate validity.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 838 patients (62.3% were female), with mean age of 70.2 years (SD 8.4). A total of 55.5% patients underwent knee replacement. Given that the tool was elaborated by patients and orthopaedic surgeons, it shows a good content validity. The priority score was statistically different (P < 0.001) among the three urgency categories created. The scores of the three WOMAC dimensions showed differences (P < 0.001) by the three urgency categories created. The correlations between the priority score and WOMAC dimensions were 0.79 (function), 0.69 (pain) and 0.51 (stiffness). The correlations between WOMAC items and items from priority tool were greater (0.47-0.69) between items measuring similar constructs than those measuring different constructs (0.27-0.49). These data are similar in both joints.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the validity of the prioritization tool to be used with patients waiting for hip or knee replacement.

Triage for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Canada: do patients agree on who should come first?

Background

The extent to which clinical and non-clinical factors impact on the waiting-list prioritization preferences of patients in the queue is unknown. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, the objective of this study was to examine the extent to which clinical and non-clinical factors impacted on how patients would prioritize others relative to themselves in the coronary artery bypass surgical queue.

Methods

Ninety-one consecutive eligible patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (median waiting-time duration prior to survey of 8 weeks) were given a self-administered survey consisting of nine scenarios in which clinical and non-clinical characteristic profiles of hypothetical patients (also awaiting coronary artery bypass surgery) were varied. For each scenario, patients were asked where in the queue such hypothetical patients should be placed relative to themselves.

Results

The eligible response rate was 65% (59/91). Most respondents put themselves marginally ahead of a hypothetical patient with identical clinical and non-clinical characteristics as themselves. There was a strong tendency for respondents to place patients of higher clinical acuity ahead of themselves in the queue (P < 0.0001). Social independence among young individuals was a positively valued attribute (P < 0.0001), but neither age per se nor financial status, directly impacted on patients waiting-list priority preferences.

Conclusion

While patient perceptions generally reaffirmed a bypass surgical triage process based on principals of equity and clinical acuity, the valuation of social independence may justify further debate with regard to the inclusion of non-clinical factors in waiting-list prioritization management systems in Canada, as elsewhere.

Quality of life at referral predicts outcome of elective coronary artery angiogram

BACKGROUND

Patients' anxiety and quality of life (HRQL) are affected by waiting for diagnostic tests such as coronary artery angiogram (CATH). It is unknown whether HRQL and psychological status at the time of referral are related to likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) as diagnosed by CATH.

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were (1) to determine patients' anxiety and HRQL at the time of referral for elective CATH and (2) to assess the impact of baseline HRQL on likelihood of CAD.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of 1009 patients referred for elective CATH. Questionnaires were mailed to patients within 2 weeks of referral. Packages contained a general HRQL measure (SF-36), a condition-specific HRQL measure (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Patients returned the baseline questionnaires in a postage-paid envelope.

RESULTS

: Complete data were available for 90.6% of patients (n=914). At baseline, general HRQL was significantly lower than population norms for healthy individuals (p<0.0001), but significantly higher than population norms for patients living with angina (p<0.02). Also at baseline, patients' (n=971) mean state anxiety score on the STAI was 44.3 (SD=13.3), reflecting 'high anxiety'. Logistic regression analysis revealed 3 predictors of angiographically documented CAD: male sex (OR 5.76; CI 3.75-8.84), the SF-36 physical functioning subscale (OR 1.05; CI 1.01-1.07) and older age (OR 2.38; CI 1.48-3.82).

CONCLUSION

At the time of referral for elective CATH patients have high levels of anxiety and poor HRQL. It is possible that patient-rated physical HRQL at the time of referral adds to our ability to triage patients according to urgency ratings.

Priority setting and cardiac surgery: A qualitative case study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe priority setting in cardiac surgery and evaluate it using an ethical framework, "accountability for reasonableness".

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac surgery is an expensive part of hospital budgets. Priority setting decisions are made daily regarding ever increasing volumes of patients. While much attention has been paid to the management of cardiac surgery waiting lists, little empirical research exists into the way actual decision makers deliberate upon and resolve priority setting decisions on a daily basis. A key goal of priority setting, in cardiac surgical areas as well as others, is fairness. "Accountability for reasonableness" is a leading ethical framework for fair priority setting, and can be used to identify opportunities for improvement (i.e. make it fairer) and highlight good practices.

METHODS

A case study was conducted to examine the process of priority setting processes at three University of Toronto affiliated cardiac surgery centres. Relevant documents were examined, weekly triage rounds were observed for 27 months, and interviews were carried out with 23 key participants including cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, and triage nurses. In data analysis, the conditions of "accountability for reasonableness" (relevance, publicity, appeals and enforcement) were used as an analytic lens.

RESULTS

RELEVANCE

While decisions may appear to be based strictly upon clinical criteria (e.g. coronary anatomy); non-clinical criteria also have an impact upon decision-making (e.g. patients' lifestyle choices, type of surgical practice and departmental constraints on resource use). Participants stated that these factors influence their decision-making and can result in unfair and inconsistent decisions. PUBLICITY: Non-clinical reasons are not publicly accessible, nor are they clearly acknowledged in discussions between cardiac clinicians. APPEALS: There are mechanisms for challenging decisions however without access to the non-clinical reasons, this can be problematic. Enforcement: Participants cite little departmental or institutional support to engage in fairer priority setting.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe actual priority setting practices for cardiac surgery practices and evaluate them using an ethical framework, in this case, "accountability for reasonableness". Priority setting decision making in cardiac surgery has been described and evaluated with lessons learned include specific findings regarding the contextual and dynamic nature of decision making in cardiac surgery. The approach of combining a descriptive case study with the ethical framework of "accountability for reasonableness" is a useful tool for identifying good practices and highlighting areas for improvement. The good practices (including surgeons strongly facilitating patients seeking second opinions and approaching patients from a holistic perspective in consideration for surgery) and areas for improvement (including lack of transparency and lack of institutional support for "fair" decision making) that we have identified in this case study can be used to reflect upon the present tool used in priority setting and improve the fairness and legitimacy of priority setting decision making in cardiac surgery.

Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams?

Objective

To assess variations in decisions to revascularise patients with coronary heart disease between general cardiologists, interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons

Design

Six cases of coronary heart disease were presented at an open meeting in a standard format including clinical details which might influence the decision to revascularise. Clinicians (n = 53) were then asked to vote using an anonymous electronic system for one of 5 treatment options: medical, surgical (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or initially medical proceeding to revascularisation if symptoms dictated. Each case was then discussed in an open forum following which clinicians were asked to revote. Differences in treatment preference were compared by chi squared test and agreement between groups and between voting rounds compared using Kappa.

Results

Surgeons were more likely to choose surgery as a form of treatment (p = 0.034) while interventional cardiologists were more likely to choose PCI (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists (p = 0.13) in their choice of treatment. There was poor agreement between all clinicians in the first round of voting (Kappa 0.26) but this improved to a moderate level of agreement after open discussion for the second vote (Kappa 0.44). The level of agreement among surgeons (0.15) was less than that for cardiologists (0.34) in Round 1, but was similar in Round 2 (0.45 and 0.45 respectively)

Conclusion

In this case series, there was poor agreement between cardiac clinical specialists in the choice of treatment offered to patients. Open discussion appeared to improve agreement. These results would support the need for decisions to revascularise to be made by a multidisciplinary panel.

A Simple Score to Assess Mortality Risk in Patients Waiting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

Independent risk factors for death in patients waiting for elective coronary artery bypass surgery have previously been identified. A prioritization where these factors are considered may potentially reduce waiting list mortality. A simple score based on the risk factors was constructed and validated.

METHODS

A scoring system based on risk factors in 5,864 consecutive patients operated from 1995 to 1999 was constructed. The following factors were included in the score: unstable angina (3 points [p]), left main stenosis (2p), concomitant aortic valve disease (2p), operative risk (0-2p), left ventricular ejection fraction (0-2p), and male gender (1p). The score was retrospectively validated in 5,167 new patients operated from 1999 to 2003. Based on the sum of risk score points, the patients were divided into three risk groups: low risk (0-2p), intermediate risk (3-5p) and high risk (> or = 6p). The risk groups were related to waiting list mortality and clinical priority (imperative, urgent, and routine).

RESULTS

Median waiting time was 33 days. Forty-two patients (0.8%) died while waiting for surgery (5.2 deaths/100 waiting years). Of the patients, 2,406 (47%) were low risk, 1,990 (38%) intermediate risk, and 771 (15%) high risk. Mortality incidence in the high-risk group was fivefold higher than in the intermediate group and 25-fold higher than in the low-risk group (32, 7, and 1.3 deaths/100 waiting years, respectively, p < 0.001 between all groups). Twenty-three percent of the patients in the high-risk group had not been given imperative clinical priority.

CONCLUSIONS

The score system identifies patients with increased risk of death while waiting for coronary artery bypass grafting. The score may be used to facilitate and improve the prioritization process.

Mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH2) Glu504Lys polymorphism contributes to the variation in efficacy of sublingual nitroglycerin

Glyceryl trinitrate (GTN), also known as nitroglycerin, has been used to treat angina and heart failure for more than 130 years. Recently, it was shown that mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH2) is responsible for formation of NO, the metabolite needed for GTN efficacy. In the present study, we show that the common G-to-A polymorphism in exon 12 of ALDH2--resulting in a Glu504Lys replacement that virtually eliminates ALDH2 activity in both heterozygotes and homozygotes--is associated with a lack of efficacy of sublingual GTN in Chinese subjects. We also show that the catalytic efficiency (Vmax/Km) of GTN metabolism of the Glu504 protein is approximately 10-fold higher than that of the Lys504 enzyme. We conclude that the presence of the Lys504 allele contributes in large part to the lack of an efficacious clinical response to nitroglycerin; we recommend that this genetic factor be considered when administering nitroglycerin to patients, especially Asians, 30-50% of whom possess the inactive ALDH2*2 mutant allele.

Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Priority scoring tools are moot as means for dealing with burgeoning elective surgical waiting lists. There is ongoing development work in New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This emerging international perspective is invaluable in determining the application of these tools and addressing any pitfalls.

METHODS

A systematic electronic literature review was performed. Information was also retrieved using a search of reference lists of all papers included in the review and contact with those who were involved in the development of such criteria.

RESULTS

The ethical basis of prioritization differed among priority scoring tools and in a number was not stated. The majority of tools covered criteria for specific procedures. Delphi consensus methods and regression were the predominant methods for -deter-mining -specific criteria. Authors' opinions were the main source of generic criteria. Linear and non-linear models or matrices sum-mated criteria.

CONCLUSION

There is debate over the ethical basis for prioritization. It is a concern that it is not addressed in many studies. The development of generic criteria showed a dearth of consensus approaches that represents a significant gap in our knowledge. On the aspects of summation and weighting, the impact of assumptions on the prioritization of patients may not have been fully explored.

Priority setting in surgery: improve the process and share the learning

Surgeons and surgical programs encounter priority-setting challenges every day, such as in regard to purchasing new technologies or managing waiting lists for elective surgery. The purpose of this paper was to explore priority setting in surgery. Traditionally in surgery, priority-setting decisions for new technologies have been based on evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and decisions about managing waiting lists for elective surgery have been based on urgency rating scores. The fairness of priority-setting processes in surgical programs should be enhanced to permit all relevant information and values to be considered. The quality of these decisions can be improved by using an approach that captures and shares lessons from each priority-setting experience. The approach we propose in this paper- describe, evaluate, and improve using a leading conceptual framework for priority setting, called "accountability for reasonableness"-can be used by any surgical program to improve its priority setting, share lessons with others, and develop an evidence base for how these important health policy decisions should be made.

Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

An Achilles' heel of Canadian Medicare is long waits for elective services. The Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) project is a collaboration of 19 partner organizations committed to addressing this issue and influencing the way waiting lists are structured and managed. The focus of the WCWL project has been to develop and refine practical tools for prioritizing patients on scheduled waiting lists.

METHODS

Scoring tools for priority setting were developed through extensive clinical input and highly iterative exchange by clinical panels constituted in five clinical areas: cataract surgery; general surgery procedures; hip and knee replacement; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning, and children's mental health. Several stages of empirical work were conducted to formulate and refine criteria and to assess and improve their reliability and validity. To assess the acceptability and usability of the priority-setting tools and to identify issues pertaining to implementation, key personnel in the seven regional health authorities (RHAs) participated in structured interviews. Public opinion focus groups were conducted in the seven western cities.

RESULTS

Point-count scoring systems were constructed in each of the clinical areas. Participating clinicians confirmed that the tools offered face validity and that the scoring systems appeared practical for implementation and use in clinical settings. Reliability was strongest for the general surgery and hip and knee criteria, and weakest for the diagnostic MRI criteria. Public opinion focus groups endorsed wholeheartedly the application of point-count priority measures. Regional health authorities were generally supportive, though cautiously optimistic towards implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

While the WCWL project has not 'solved' the problem of waiting lists and times, having a standardized, reliable means of assigning priority for services is an important step towards improved management in Canada and elsewhere.

Does ageism affect the management of ischaemic heart disease?

OBJECTIVES

To analyse access by age to exercise testing, coronary angiography, revascularisation (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/stent insertion and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) and receipt of thrombolysis, where indicated, for hospital patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease.

METHOD

Retrospective case note analysis, tracking each case backwards and forwards by 12 months from the patient's date of entry to the study. The setting was a district hospital in the eastern part of outer London. The case notes eligible for inclusion were those of elective and emergency in-patients with an in-patient ICD-10 code of ischaemic heart disease, angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction and a consecutive 20% sample of new cardiac outpatients with these diagnoses.

RESULTS

Analysis of 712 case notes showed that older hospital patients with ischaemic heart disease, and with indications for further investigation, were less likely than younger people to be referred for exercise tolerance tests and cardiac catheterisation and angiography. This was independent of both gender and severity of condition. Older patients did not appear to be discriminated against in relation to receipt of indicated treatments (revascularisation or thrombolysis), although, in the case of revascularisation, older patients were more likely to have been filtered out at the investigation stage (catheterisation and angiography), so selection bias partly explains this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings from a single hospital are comparable with the results from a broader study of equity of access by age to cardiological interventions in another district hospital in the same region. Although only two hospitals were analysed, the similarity of findings enhances the generalisability of the results presented here. It appears that age per se causes older cardiac hospital patients to be treated differently.

Gender and socioeconomic status as determinants of waiting time for inpatient surgery in a system with implicit queue management

OBJECTIVE

In a system with implicit queue management, to examine gender and socioeconomic status as determinants of waiting time for inpatient surgery, after adjusting for other potential predictors.

METHODS

A cohort of 452 subjects was examined in outpatient clinics of a general hospital and referred to inpatient surgery. They were followed until scheduled hospital admission (n=396) or until the requested procedure no longer was relevant (n=56). We compared waiting time between groups from referral date until hospital admission, using Kaplan-Meier estimates of waiting times and log rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for assessing the risk ratio (RR) of hospital admission for scheduled surgery.

RESULTS

Gender and socioeconomic status could not explain variations in waiting time. However, patients with suspected/verified neoplastic disease or a risk of serious deterioration without treatment had markedly shorter waiting times than the reference groups, with adjusted RR (95% confidence intervals (95%CI)) of time to receiving in-patient surgery of 2.3 (1.7-3.0) and 2.0 (1.3-3.0), respectively. Being on sick leave was associated with shorter waiting time, adjusted RR of 1.7 (1.2-2.5). Referrals from within the hospital or other hospitals had also shorter waiting times than referrals from primary health care physicians, adjusted RR=1.4 (1.1-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of bias against women or people in lower socioeconomic classes in this implicit queue management system. However, patients' access to inpatient surgery was associated with malignancy, prognosis, sick leave status, physician experience, referral pattern and the major diagnosis category.

The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Few large, systematic, prospective studies have documented the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients awaiting cardiac catheterization and the delays that they experience. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the waiting times, morbidity and mortality of patients waiting for catheterization. A secondary objective was to identify predictors of cardiac events that occur while patients are waiting.

METHODS

A computerized, prospective, central waiting list registry was developed at a regional centre in Hamilton, Ont., serving 2.2 million people in southern Ontario. Between Apr. 1, 1998, and Mar. 31, 2000, 8030 consecutive patients (4725 outpatients and 3305 inpatients) were referred for cardiac catheterization. Major cardiac outcomes while on the waiting list (death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure) were documented prospectively and related to requested versus actual waiting time.

RESULTS

Most of the referrals (7345 [91.5%]) were for a primary diagnosis of suspected coronary artery disease. The median waiting time was 6 (interquartile range [IQR] 4) days for inpatients and 60 (IQR 68) days for outpatients. Actual waiting times correlated with the waiting times requested by the referring physicians. However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time. Of the 8030 patients, 50 (0.6%) died, 32 (0.4%) had a myocardial infarction and 41 (0.5%) experienced congestive heart failure. Overall, 109 patients (1.4%) had a major cardiac event, namely, death, myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure. These events occurred over a median wait of 27 days (2 days for inpatients and 35 days for outpatients), and over half (57%) occurred within the waiting time requested by the referring physician. In the multivariate analysis, predictors of the composite of death, myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure were increasing age (relative risk [RR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-3.75) and New York Heart Association class III/IV symptoms (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.11-7.33) in inpatients, and increasing age (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.12-1.66), aortic stenosis (RR 3.70, 95% CI 1.93-7.08) and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% (RR 4.35, 95% CI 2.48-7.61) in outpatients.

INTERPRETATION

Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.

Measuring and managing waiting times: what's to be done?

On September 11, 2000, the First Ministers of Canada issued a communiqué pledging to develop and report on waiting times for a number of diagnostic and treatment services. Reporting is to begin by September 2002. Given this commitment, what are the ideal characteristics of such a data collection system? This article defines and evaluates methods of measuring waiting times, and recommends a prioritized waiting-time information system to permit both measurement and management.

Equity in access to exercise tolerance testing, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass grafting by age, sex and clinical indications

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether patients with heart disease in a single UK hospital have equitable access to exercise testing, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of patients' medical case notes (n = 1790), tracking each case back 12 months and forward 12 months from the patient's date of entry to the study.

SETTING

Single UK district hospital in the Thames Region.

PATIENTS

Patients (elective and emergency) with a cardiac ICD inpatient code at discharge or death, or who were referred to cardiology or care of the elderly unit over a 12 month period in 1996-7 (new episodes) were included.

RESULTS

Analysis of 1790 hospital case notes revealed that, despite having indications for intervention identical to those of younger patients, older patients (that is, those aged > 75 years) and women, independently, were significantly less likely to undergo exercise tolerance testing (exercise ECG) and cardiac catheterisation. The similar trends for age and access to CABG did not achieve significance. While clinical priority scores also independently predicted access to cardiac catheterisation and CABG, considerable numbers of patients in high clinical priority groups were not referred for either procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The management and treatment of older patients and women with cardiac disease may be different from that of younger patients and men. Given the similarity of the indications for treatment and the lack of significant contraindications or comorbidities as a cause for these differences, one possible explanation is that these patients are being discriminated against principally because of their age and sex. Although clinical priority scores independently predicted access to catheterisation and CABG, large proportions of patients in high priority groups were not referred. This implies that the New Zealand priority scoring system may be more equitable than UK practice. The cost implications of redressing these inequities in service provision would be considerable.

Public purchasing and private priorities for healthcare in New Zealand

The 1993 Health and Disability Services Act heralded a range of structural reforms in the New Zealand health care system. Despite these reforms considerable resources being spent on convincing consumers of their merits, have failed to gain widespread public approval. This paper examines two key issues that have arisen during the reform process. These are the difficulties associated with trying to set priorities in ways which are effective and politically acceptable, and the relationship between the public and private sectors. Unacknowledged conflicts of interest have helped to undermine the priority setting process. The discussion suggests that it may be increasingly difficult for any government in future to determine the allocation of resources without taking private sector interests and rising public concern into account. It remains to be seen which of these factors is more powerful.

Rationing healthcare in New Zealand: the use of clinical guidelines

A 1991 "Green and White Paper", Your health and the public health. A statement of government health policy, advised that healthcare services in New Zealand could be rationed by a simple list. The Health and Disability Services Act 1993 provided a framework for resource allocation. The Core Services Committee rejected the "Oregon approach" of using a simple list to determine what condition/treatment pairs should be funded, preferring the development of clinical guidelines as a basis for assessment. Clinical priority assessment criteria derived from guidelines are used to define the degree of clinical benefit for public funding. Criteria have been developed for entry into end-stage renal failure programs, access to coronary artery surgery, and entry into booking systems for other elective services. The development of clinical criteria to define access to services has had a difficult road, but is a start in defining public expectations of New Zealand's healthcare system.

Solving the surgical waiting list problem? New Zealand's 'booking system'

This article discusses the development and implementation of New Zealand's booking system for publicly funded non-urgent surgical and medical procedures. The 'booking system' emerged out of New Zealand's core services debate and the government's desire to remove waiting lists. It was targeted for implementation by mid-1998. However, the booking system remains in an unsatisfactory state and a variety of problems have plagued its introduction. These include a lack of national consistency in the priority access criteria, failure to pilot the system and a shortfall in the levels of funding available to treat the numbers of patients whose priority criteria 'scores' deem them clinically eligible for surgery. The article discusses endeavours to address these problems. In conclusion, based on the New Zealand experience, the article provides lessons for policy-makers interested in introducing surgical booking systems.

Parsonnet score is a good predictor of the duration of intensive care unit stay following cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of the Parsonnet score (PS) in identifying preoperatively patients that are likely to spend < 24 hours on the intensive care unit (ICU) following cardiac surgery.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data on 5591 patients were analysed. PS, mortality, the length of stay on the ICU (ICU-LOS), number of patients with clinical evidence of stroke, need for haemofiltration, resternotomy for bleeding, tracheostomy, and use of intra-aortic balloon pump were documented as outcomes. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours identified a PS of 10 as the best cut off point that would predict ICU-LOS < 24 hours. The patients were therefore stratified by PS into two groups, those with a PS of 0 to 9 (PS 0-9) and those with a PS of 10 and above (PS 10+).

RESULTS

The ROC curve constructed using PS as a predictor of ICU stay < 24 hours had an area under the curve of 0.70 (0.01). The maximum efficiency of the test was at a sensitivity of 0.68. This corresponded to PS 10. The positive predictive value of the test at this score was 90.5%. Patients with PS 0-9 had a mean ICU stay of 1.49 days, while patients with PS 10+ had a mean ICU stay of 2.89 days (p = 0.01). The risk of stroke, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, requirement for haemofiltration, need for tracheostomy, and risk of resternotomy for bleeding were each significantly less in patients with PS 0-9 versus those with a score of PS 10+ (p < 0.01 in all cases). The risk of a single complication was 4.7% (PS 0-9) v 15.2% (PS 10+) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

PS is an impartial and objective method of predicting postoperative complications and ICU stay < 24 hours. This is of value in selecting a cohort of patients likely to maintain a smooth flow of patients through the cardiothoracic unit when resources are limited to a few free ICU beds.

Cardiac surgery in octogenarians--The Green Lane Hospital Experience 1995-1998

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients aged 80 years and over are being considered and accepted for cardiac surgery.

AIM

To review the experience of surgery in this elderly group of patients at our institution.

METHODS

Hospital records of octogenarians undergoing surgery between January 1995 and September 1998 were reviewed and follow-up was obtained by general practitioner (GP) and patient questionnaires.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients underwent cardiac surgery. The mean age was 82.8+/-1.4 years (range 80.8 to 86.2 years). Twenty-three (62%) were male. All were independent pre-operatively with severe symptoms and minor co-existing morbidity. All operations were urgent except two (emergency). Twenty patients (54%) had isolated coronary surgery, six (16%) aortic valve replacement alone, and 11 (30%) combined surgery. There were four (11%) early deaths and five (14%) peri-operative neurological events. The mean duration of post-operative intensive care stay was 2.4+/-3.9 days (range 0.05 to 16, median 1.0) and post-operative hospital stay 14.0+/-13.9 days (range 0 to 79, median 11). At the time of follow-up (mean duration 20.0+/-11.2 months) two further patients had died (non-cardiac). Twenty-six of the 31 survivors were living at home (23 independently), one with relatives, and four in residential care. Their cardiac symptoms were well controlled. The GPs of all hospital survivors, and all surviving patients themselves, felt that cardiac surgery had been beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac surgery in the very elderly has been reserved for those with severe disease or symptoms and little co-morbidity. Early mortality is higher than for the general population undergoing cardiac surgery, but post-operative resource use is acceptable and the intermediate-term outcome for survivors is good.

Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public

The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to measure attitudes to health care prioritisation criteria among the Finnish general public (n = 1156), politicians (n = 1096), doctors (n = 803) and nurses (n = 667), altogether 3722 subjects. The questionnaire consisted of questions on background data, a list of seven alternative prioritisation methods and a list of 11 possible criteria for health care prioritisation. The most acceptable prioritisation methods were increased treatment fees and restricting expensive treatments and examinations. Only a few supported administrative prioritisation decisions. One third of the general public indicated that they did not accept any limitations in health care, whereas only 5% of doctors agreed with them. More doctors accepted prioritisation methods than respondents in other groups. Patient is a child, patient is an elderly person, severity of the disease and prognosis of the disease were the most accepted prioritisation criteria. Politicians and the general public also accepted self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation crieteria. Logistic regression analysis of the general public respondents demonstrated that male gender, higher education and higher personal income were associated with acceptance of most prioritisation criteria. Similarly, older age of the respondent was associated with acceptance of self-induced nature of disease and patient's wealth as prioritisation criteria.

Death on the waiting list for cardiac surgery in The Netherlands in 1994 and 1995

OBJECTIVE

To describe the causes and circumstances of death regarding patients who died in 1994 and 1995 while on a waiting list for cardiac surgery in the Netherlands.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre case study.

SETTING

11 Dutch cardiac surgery centres.

PATIENTS

All patients reported as dying while on the waiting list for cardiac surgery in 1994 and 1995.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Classification of death by an independent adjudication committee into "erroneously reported", "waiting list related" or "not waiting list related". Death was judged as "waiting list related" if the clinical course would have been substantially different if there had been unrestricted surgical capacity.

RESULTS

138 and 129 deaths were reported in 1994 and 1995, respectively. 43 deaths (16%) were considered as erroneously reported. 181 of the remaining 224 cases were adjudicated as waiting list related. Median time from acceptance for surgery to death was 35 days (interquartile range 14-75 days). 97 of 181 deaths occurred within six weeks following addition to the waiting list. The estimated incidence of death ranged from 1.33 per 1000 patient-weeks during weeks 2-4 to 0.68 per 1000 patient-weeks after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The causes and circumstances of death are waiting list related for approximately 100 patients per year in the Netherlands. At least half of the deaths may occur within the first six weeks. Waiting lists for cardiac surgery engender high risks for the patients involved.

Waiting times and prioritization for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

To review the New Zealand coronary artery bypass priority score instituted in May 1996, and specifically to determine whether it prioritizes patients at high risk of cardiac events while waiting. The New Zealand score is compared with the Ontario urgency rating score, and waiting times for surgery are compared with the maximum times recommended by the Ontario consensus panel.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of patients accepted for isolated coronary artery bypass surgery between 1 January 1993 and 31 January 1996.

SETTING

Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Waiting time, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cardiac readmission.

RESULTS

The median waiting times were five days for hospital cases (n = 721) and 146 days for out of hospital cases (n = 701). Of the latter group, 28% waited more than a year, 33% had their surgery expedited because of worsening symptoms, and 19% failed to meet the cut off point set by the New Zealand score for acceptance onto the list. Twenty two patients died, 18 on the outpatient waiting list (waiting list mortality 2.6%, risk 0.28% per month of waiting), and 132 were readmitted, 12% with myocardial infarction and 76% with unstable angina. Risk factors for a composite end point of death or myocardial infarction and/or cardiac readmission were: previous coronary artery bypass surgery (p = 0. 001), class III or IV angina (p = 0.002), and hypertension (p = 0. 005). The New Zealand score did not identify those at risk. Excluding hospital cases, 32% had surgery within the time recommended by the Ontario consensus panel.

CONCLUSIONS

Waiting times for coronary artery bypass surgery in New Zealand are considerably longer than those in Ontario, Canada. By using a numerical cut off point, implementation of the New Zealand priority scoring system has restricted access to coronary surgery on the basis of funding constraints rather than clinical appropriateness. The score does not add greatly to the clinicians' prioritization in predicting those patients who will suffer events while waiting.

Priority points and cardiac events while waiting for coronary bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of important cardiac events while waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in relation to the New Zealand priority scoring system; to compare clinical characteristics of patients referred for CABG in New Zealand with those in Ontario, Canada; and to compare the New Zealand priority scoring system for CABG with the previously validated Ontario urgency score.

DESIGN

Analysis of outcomes in a consecutive case series of patients referred for CABG.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

All 324 patients from Christchurch Hospital wait listed for isolated CABG between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1995.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Death, myocardial infarction, and unstable angina while waiting for CABG; waiting time to surgery.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics at referral were very similar, but median waiting time was longer in New Zealand than in a large Canadian case series (212 days v 17 days). While waiting for elective CABG, 44% (114/257) of New Zealand patients had cardiac events: death 4% (13/257), non-fatal myocardial infarction 6% (16/257), readmission with unstable angina 34% (87/257). Priority scores did not predict cardiac events while waiting for CABG. Indeed, death or non-fatal myocardial infarction occurred in 4% (3/76) and 8% (6/76), respectively, of those with priority scores < 35. These people are no longer eligible for publicly funded surgery in New Zealand.

CONCLUSIONS

Very long waiting times for CABG are associated with frequent cardiac events, at considerable cost to both patients and health care providers. Priority scores may facilitate comparison between countries but such scores did not predict clinical events while waiting.

The role of outputs and outcomes in purchaser accountability: reflecting on New Zealand experiences

Recent reforms in a number of countries' health systems have led to the separation of funder, purchaser and provider roles and the strengthening of funders' and purchasers' positions relative to providers. One of the aims of such reforms is to improve accountability. This paper reports on experiences in New Zealand where, in addition to improving the accountability of providers, purchaser accountability has also been a key policy issue. Attempts have been made in New Zealand to develop a funder-purchaser accountability framework based on a mix of outcomes, outputs and inputs. This paper discusses the roles that each might play in contracts and accountability relationships between funders and purchasers. The paper concludes that holding purchasers accountable for outcomes is likely to prove difficult and controversial, because of problems of attribution and because New Zealand funders in recent years have played an important role in determining the priority outputs and inputs which must be purchased. The paper suggests that accountability is more appropriate at the output and process level, in addition to holding purchasers accountable for the ways in which they make decisions and undertake contracting roles. Holding purchasers accountable for purchasing outputs and processes, however, requires greater commitment on the part of the funder to setting priorities more clearly; specifying the range and level of outputs to be purchased and the terms of access to those services; and funding services to this level. The international attention currently being paid to the development of practice guidelines and priority criteria also suggests that holding purchasers accountable for a form of inputs may become an increasingly common practice in future. From 1 July 1998, New Zealand will introduce a priority criteria system for determining access to elective surgery; accountability is thus becoming focused on inputs in the form of patient characteristics. This approach will greatly assist in promoting accountability.