Don't stop the clock: manipulating hospital waiting lists

Challenges to ensuring valid and useful waiting time monitoring - a qualitative study in Swedish specialist care

BACKGROUND

Access to health care is an essential health policy issue. In several countries, waiting time guarantees mandate set time limits for assessment and treatment. High-quality waiting time data are necessary to evaluate and improve waiting times. This study's aim was to investigate health care providers and administrative management professionals' perceptions of validity and usefulness of waiting time reporting in specialist care.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews (n = 28) were conducted with administrative management and care professionals (line managers and care providers) in specialized clinics in the Stockholm Region, Sweden. Clinic-specific data from the waiting time registry was used in the care provider interviews to assess face validity. Clinics were purposefully sampled for maximum variation in complexity of care, volume of production, geographical location, private or public ownership, and local waiting times. Thematic analysis was used.

RESULTS

The waiting time registry was perceived to have low validity and usefulness. Perceived validity and usefulness were interconnected, with mechanisms that reinforced the connection. Structural and cognitive barriers to validity included technical and procedural errors, errors caused by role division, misinterpretation of guidelines, diverging interpretations of nonregulated cases and extensive willful manipulation of data.

CONCLUSIONS

We identify four misconceptions underpinning the current waiting time reporting system: passive dissemination of guidelines is sufficient as implemented, cognitive load of care providers to report waiting times is negligible, soft-law regulation and presentation of outcome data is sufficient to drive improvement, and self-reported data linked to incentives poses a low risk of data corruption. To counter low validity and usefulness, we propose the following for policy makers and administrative management when developing and implementing waiting time monitoring: communicate guidelines with instructions for operationalization, address barriers to implementation, ensure quality through monitoring of implementation and adherence to guidelines, develop IT ontology together with professionals, avoid parallel measurement infrastructures, ensure waiting times are presented to suit management needs, provide timely waiting time data, enable the study of single cases, minimize manual data entry, and perform spot-checks or external validity checks. Several of these strategies should be transferable to waiting time monitoring in other contexts.

Achieving waiting list reform: a pilot program integrating waiting time, category and patient factors

Equity in resource allocation is central to the tenet of social justice in health care. The management of surgical waiting lists is of critical importance to clinicians, patients and regulators. In most hospital environments, the basic process has remained unchanged for decades. Patients are assigned to one of three urgency-related categories. Clinicians consequently administer three competing patient pools. The basis by which patients are selected for treatment may be difficult to define. The specific clinical circumstances of each patient are often unreported and may be unknown to those administering the list. Waiting list bias is also recognised. This may reflect clinician advocacy, pressure to meet category timeframe restrictions or perceived training requirements. In this environment, it is difficult to demonstrate propriety in care. We report the implementation of a pilot program to redesign waiting list management within a South Australian public hospital unit. This allows assemblage of patients into a single list. Overall priority is determined by balancing clinical acuity and waiting time. The determination of acuity takes into account both the primary category and the specific characteristics of each patient that are relevant to their intended procedure. Uniquely, the process is applicable to lists containing patients with dissimilar conditions. This paper reviews the limitations of current approaches in meeting reasonable community expectations. The principles and social justification underpinning this reform are introduced. Finally, the benefits offered by the program are discussed and interim results are reported.