Identification of criteria for the prioritisation of patients for elective general surgery

Development of the national bariatric prioritization tool in Aotearoa New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is a proven effective method of reducing obesity and reversing or preventing obesity-related comorbidities. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool to assist with the prioritization of patients with obesity for bariatric surgery. The tool would meet the criteria for being evidence-based, fair, implementable and transparent.

METHODS

The development of the tool involved a validated step-by-step process based on the consensus of clinical judgement of the New Zealand Ministry of Health working party. The process involved elicitation of criteria, clinical ranking of vignettes and creation of weightings using the 1000Minds® tool. The concurrent validity was tested by comparing tool rankings of vignettes to clinical judgement rankings.

RESULTS

Four major criteria (impact on life, likelihood of achieving maximum benefit with respect to control of diabetes, duration of benefit and surgical risk) are used to characterize the need and potential to benefit. The impact on life criterion has the largest weighting (up to 44.3%). There was good concurrent validity with a correlation coefficient r = 0.67.

CONCLUSION

The tool as presented is evidence-based, transparent and internally valid. The next step is to assess the predictive validity of the tool using real patient data to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool and determine what modifications may be required.

Prioritization and surgical wait lists: A cross-sectional survey of patient's health-related quality of life

INTRODUCTION

In many countries, there are waits for elective (planned) surgery. In these settings, processes for triaging patients are applied to determine how long patients wait for their surgery. There are very few instances that evaluate the effectiveness of surgical triage processes.

METHODS

A sample of patients from four acute care hospitals in Vancouver, Canada, completed a number of patient-reported outcomes shortly after being registered on the surgical wait list. Patients' diagnosis was used to triage and determine their expected wait for surgery. The associations between patient-reported outcomes with surgical triage were measured.

RESULTS

The mean wait times for participants were similar across wait times categories. Participants whose expected waits for surgery were the longest reported successively lower levels of self-rated health (p < 0.01) and successively higher levels of pain (p < 0.01.) There was no difference in symptoms of anxiety among participants expected to wait the longest.

DISCUSSION

The diagnosis-based system for prioritizing patients found higher levels of pain and lower health status among those expected to wait the longest for their surgery. Screening waiting patients for treatable mental health conditions should be implemented and the process of surgical triage could be redesigned to allow for a broader set of attributes of health to determine how long a patient waits for their elective surgery.

Patient prioritisation methods to shorten waiting times for elective surgery: A systematic review of how to improve access to surgery

BACKGROUND

Concern about long waiting times for elective surgeries is not a recent phenomenon, but it has been heightened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated measures. One way to alleviate the problem might be to use prioritisation methods for patients on the waiting list and a wide range of research is available on such methods. However, significant variations and inconsistencies have been reported in prioritisation protocols from various specialties, institutions, and health systems. To bridge the evidence gap in existing literature, this comprehensive systematic review will synthesise global evidence on policy strategies with a unique insight to patient prioritisation methods to reduce waiting times for elective surgeries. This will provide evidence that might help with the tremendous burden of surgical disease that is now apparent in many countries because of operations that were delayed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform policy for sustainable healthcare management systems.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with our most recent searches in January 2020. Articles published after 2013 on major elective surgery lists of adult patients were eligible, but cancer and cancer-related surgeries were excluded. Both randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible and the quality of studies was assessed with ROBINS-I and CASP tools. We registered the review in PROSPERO (CRD42019158455) and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The electronic search in five bibliographic databases yielded 7543 records (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane) and 17 eligible articles were identified in the screening. There were four quasi-experimental studies, 11 observational studies and two systematic reviews. These demonstrated moderate to low risk of bias in their research methods. Three studies tested generic approaches using common prioritisation systems for all elective surgeries in common. The other studies assessed specific prioritisation approaches for re-ordering the waiting list for a particular surgical specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Explicit prioritisation tools with a standardised scoring system based on clear evidence-based criteria are likely to reduce waiting times and improve equitable access to health care. Multiple attributes need to be considered in defining a fair prioritisation system to overcome limitations with local variations and discriminations. Collating evidence from a diverse body of research provides a single framework to improve the quality and efficiency of elective surgical care provision in a variety of health settings. Universal prioritisation tools with vertical and horizontal equity would help with re-ordering patients on waiting lists for elective surgery and reduce waiting times.

Patients’ Prioritization on Surgical Waiting Lists: A Decision Support System

Currently, in Chile, more than a quarter-million of patients are waiting for an elective surgical intervention. This is a worldwide reality, and it occurs as the demand for healthcare is vastly superior to the clinical resources in public systems. Moreover, this phenomenon has worsened due to the COVID-19 sanitary crisis. In order to reduce the impact of this situation, patients in the waiting lists are ranked according to a priority. However, the existing prioritization strategies are not necessarily systematized, and they usually respond only to clinical criteria, excluding other dimensions such as the personal and social context of patients. In this paper, we present a decision-support system designed for the prioritization of surgical waiting lists based on biopsychosocial criteria. The proposed system features three methodological contributions; first, an ad-hoc medical record form that captures the biopsychosocial condition of the patients; second, a dynamic scoring scheme that recognizes that patients’ conditions evolve differently while waiting for the required elective surgery; and third, a methodology for prioritizing and selecting patients based on the corresponding dynamic scores and additional clinical criteria. The designed decision-support system was implemented in the otorhinolaryngology unit in the Hospital of Talca, Chile, in 2018. When compared to the previous prioritization methodology, the results obtained from the use of the system during 2018 and 2019 show that this new methodology outperforms the previous prioritization method quantitatively and qualitatively. As a matter of fact, the designed system allowed a decrease, from 2017 to 2019, in the average number of days in the waiting list from 462 to 282 days.

Wait lists and adult general surgery: is there a socioeconomic dimension in Canada?

BACKGROUND

Little is known about whether patients' socioeconomic status influences their access to elective general surgery in Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between socioeconomic status and wait times for elective general surgery.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively recruited participants' data. The setting was six hospitals in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, a geographically defined region that includes Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Participants had elective general surgery between October 2013 and April 2017, community dwelling, aged 19 years or older and could complete survey forms. The outcome measure was wait time, defined as the number of weeks between being registered for elective general surgery and surgery date.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred twenty elective general surgery participants were included in the study. The response rate among eligible patients was 53%. Regression analyses found no statistically significant association between patients' wait time with SES, adjusting for health status, cancer status, surgical priority level, comorbidity burden and demographic characteristics. Participants with proven or suspected cancer status had shorter waits relative to participants waiting for surgery for benign conditions. Participants with at least one comorbidity tended to experience shorter waits of approximately 5 weeks (p < 0.01). Pre-operative pain or depression/anxiety were not associated with shorter wait times.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study found no relationship between SES and surgical wait time for elective general surgeries in the study hospitals, patients in lower SES categories reported worse health when assigned to the surgical queue.

Administrative ethics: Good intentions, bad decisions

The Canadian healthcare system is costly. Each day, health leaders must make decisions about what healthcare services will be offered, how they will be funded, to whom they will be made available, and within what administrative and clinical structure they will be managed and delivered. These decisions, their justification, and the ethics framework employed can vary greatly across the Canadian landscape. These high-stakes decisions must not only draw upon healthcare science but the science of business finance, risk management, and organizational design. However, in equal measure and often overlooked, these decisions must draw upon our values, upon our ethics. Sometimes we get it right, and other times, decidedly less so. When timely and fair access to effective and efficient healthcare services is not rendered, matters of justice, fairness, rights, and a host of other constructs are often cited. However, these important constructs are commonly misunderstood, contributing, in part, to well-intentioned but ultimately unethical decisions.

Judgment Analysis of Surgeons’ Prioritization of Patients for Elective General Surgery

Background . Access to elective general surgery in New Zealand is governed by clinicians’ judgment of priority using a visual analog scale (VAS). This has been criticized as lacking reliability and transparency. Our objective was to describe this judgment in terms of previously elicited cues. Methods . We asked 60 general surgeons in New Zealand to assess patient vignettes using 8 VAS scales to determine priority. They then conducted judgment analysis to determine agreement between surgeons. Cluster analysis was performed to identify groups of surgeons who used different cues. Multiple regression for the combined surgeons was undertaken to determine the predictability of the 8-scale VAS. Results . Agreement between surgeons was poor (ra = 0.48). The cause of poor agreement was mostly due to poor consensus (G) between surgeons in how they weighted criteria. Using cluster analysis, we classified the surgeons into 2 groups: 1 took more account of quality of life and diagnosis, whereas the other group placed more weight on the influence of treatment. The 8-scale VAS showed good predictability in assigning a priority score (R 2 = 0.66). Discussion . The level of agreement reflects surgeons’ practice variation. This is exemplified by 2 distinct surgeon groups that differ in how criteria were weighted.

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.

The impact of nonphysician clinicians: do they improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of health care services?

Health care is changing rapidly. Unacceptable variations in service access and quality of health care and pressures to contain costs have led to the redefinition of professional roles. The roles of nonphysician clinicians (nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists) have been extended to the medical domain. It is expected that such revision of roles will improve health care effectiveness and efficiency. The evidence suggests that nonphysician clinicians working as substitutes or supplements for physicians in defined areas of care can maintain and often improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients. The effect on health care costs is mixed, with savings dependent on the context of care and specific nature of role revision. The evidence base underpinning these conclusions is strongest for nurses with a marked paucity of research into pharmacists and physician assistants. More robust evaluative studies into role revision are needed, particularly with regard to economic impacts, before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique

PURPOSE

The matching of prosthetic devices to the needs of the individual is a challenge for providers and patients. The aims of this study are to explore the values and preferences that prosthetic users have of their prosthetic devices; to investigate users' perceptions of alternative prosthetic options and to demonstrate a novel method for exploring the values and preferences of prosthetic users.

METHODS

This study describes four case studies of upper limb and lower limb high tech and conventional prosthetic users. Participants were interviewed using the repertory grid technique (RGT), a qualitative technique to explore individual values and preferences regarding specific choices and events.

RESULTS

The participants generated distinctive patterns of personal constructs and ratings regarding prosthetic use and different prosthetic options available. The RGT produced a unique profile of preferences regarding prosthetic technologies for each participant.

CONCLUSIONS

User choice is an important factor when matching prosthetic technology to the user. The consumer's values regarding different prosthetic options are likely to be a critical factor in prosthetic acceptance and ultimate quality of life. The RGT offers a structured method of exploring these attitudes and values without imposing researcher or practitioner bias and identifies personalized dimensions for providers and users to evaluate the individuals' preferences in prosthetic technology.

Access, equity and the role of rights in health care

Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values--liberty and equity--can be evaluated and assessed.

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 economics of diagnosis

Any population can be divided into two groups, one with the presence of a given disease or condition, and the other without. Diagnosis consists of using tests to sort the population into these groups. Diagnostic tests use a threshold value of a diagnostic variable to distinguish between disease-positive and disease-negative individuals. The analysis of error in diagnostic tests has typically been undertaken using receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves. More recently, economic value of information (VOI) methods have characterised the costs and consequences of testing. This paper develops a new method for economic test evaluation, which we call ROTS analysis. The ROTS curve plots the costs and effects of changing test thresholds, in cost-effectiveness space. We illustrate the use of our method with a worked example, and show how it can answer three key questions: (1) Is there any test that is worth doing? (2) What is a test's optimum operating point in terms of sensitivity and specificity? (3) If two tests are available, which is best? We contrast the merits of our method with those of established ROC and VOI analysis. We argue that ROTS analysis more clearly reveals the link between changing test thresholds and the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.

Prioritization of cataract surgery: visual analogue scale versus scoring system

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present paper was to evaluate the variability of using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and to assess the feasibility of a priority-setting scoring system for prioritizing elective cataract surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive cases listed for cataract surgery were prospectively recruited. Ophthalmologists listed patients to undergo early or normal surgery and were asked to rate the urgency of surgery using a VAS. Patients were then reassessed and a cataract surgery prioritization (CSP) score was calculated based on the New Zealand priority criteria for cataract surgery. Correlation coefficients between VAS and CSP scores were calculated to determine the variability among ophthalmologists in using the VAS in prioritizing surgery. Further analyses were performed to assess the potential impact of implementing the CSP system.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were recruited. There was a positive correlation between VAS and CSP scores (Spearman rho= 0.407, P < 0.001). A high degree of variation among ophthalmologists in the use of VAS was found. Patients with poor binocular vision were not listed as early, whereas patients with poor vision in the eye listed for cataract surgery but good vision in the fellow eye were more likely to be prioritized to have early operation. These findings suggest that patients with severe impairment in binocular visual function were not adequately accounted for during cataract surgery listing.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a VAS for prioritizing cataract surgery may be suboptimal due to high subjectivity. Adoption of an objective criteria-validated priority-setting scoring system may allow better stratification of patients to ensure better service provision.

The prioritization of patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery: validation of the Western Canada waiting list project cataract priority criteria tool

PURPOSE

To assess the validity of the Cataract Priority Criteria Score (PCS), developed by the Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) Project to determine patient prioritization for cataract surgery.

METHODS

Ophthalmologists assessed consecutive patients with the PCS and a visual analogue scale of urgency (VAS Urgency). Patients were mailed questionnaires pre- and post-surgery. Outcome measures were the Visual Function Assessment (VFA), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and best-corrected visual acuity.

RESULTS

The sample of 253 patients was 58% female (mean age, 73.7 years); 166 completed pre-and post-surgery VFA. The correlation of the PCS and VAS Urgency was 0.65 (p = 0.000). Adjusting for age, first or second eye surgery, and post-operative complication, the PCS predicted improvement in the VFA and visual acuity (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide some evidence to support the convergent and predictive validity of the PCS. Multiple patient outcomes should be used in the evaluation of the validity of priority scores.