Achieving waiting list reform: a pilot program integrating waiting time, category and patient factors
Mark T. Siddins A B C G , John Boland D , Brian Mathews E and Perry Swanborough FA School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.
B Department of Procedural and Related Services, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia.
C Level 2, Flinders Private Hospital, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia.
D School of Mathematics and Statistics and Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia. Email: john.boland@unisa.edu.au
E Endeavour IT, 21 Halifax St, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: brian@endeavourit.com.au
F PO Box 8330, Angelo Street, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia. Email: 2bbears@gmail.com
G Corresponding author. Email: siddinsmark@hotmail.com
Australian Health Review 36(3) 248-253 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11997
Submitted: 12 January 2011 Accepted: 14 September 2011 Published: 8 June 2012
Abstract
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.
What is known about this topic? Current models for the management of hospital waiting lists have remained largely unchanged for several decades. Typically patients are allocated to urgent, semi-urgent and non-urgent categories of care. No methodology exists to systematically integrate these groups, or to account for specific patient factors. In this void, propriety in management is difficult to establish or defend.
What does this paper add? A program is reported that unifies all categories of patients into a single prioritised waiting list. The order of patients is dynamic, and transparently reflects waiting time, category assignment and relevant individual patient factors. Uniquely, the program is applicable to lists containing patients with diverse clinical conditions.
What are the implications for clinicians? Adoption of new technology is essential if reasonable community expectations in waiting list management are to be met. The current program provides unambiguous, defensible prioritisation of all patients awaiting care. The present reliance on individual managers is reduced, and the unique circumstances of each patient are recognised. We believe this approach affords significant benefit to patients, practitioners and regulators.
References
[1] Buchanan DA, Storey J. Don’t stop the clock: manipulating hospital waiting lists. J Health Organ Manag 2010; 24 343–60.| 21033633PubMed |
[2] Elective surgery waiting list audit. Royal Womens Hospital. Department of Human Services (Victoria). Melbourne: Paxton Partners; 2009.
[3] Performance Audit Report. ACT Health. Waiting lists for elective surgery and medical treatment. Canberra: ACT Auditor General’s Office; 2011.
[4] Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DR, Rietberg M, Knol DL, van der Wal G. The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7 32
| The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17328816PubMed |
[5] Siddins MT, Klinken EM, Vocale LR. Adequacy of consent documentation in a specialty surgical unit: time for community debate? Med J Aust 2009; 191 259–62.
| 19740046PubMed |
[6] Escobar A, Quintana JM, González M, Bilbao A, Ibañez B. Waiting list management: priority criteria or first-in first-out? A case for total joint replacement. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15 595–601.
| Waiting list management: priority criteria or first-in first-out? A case for total joint replacement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19674214PubMed |
[7] Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Martínez O. Criteria for prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists in the National Health System. Rev Calid Asist 2009; 24 185–91.
| Criteria for prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists in the National Health System.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19717075PubMed |
[8] Allepuz A, Quintana JM, Espallargues M, Escobar A, Moharra M, Arostegui I. Relationship between total hip replacement appropriateness and surgical priority instruments. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 17 18–25.
| 20807290PubMed |
[9] García Gutiérrez S, Bilbao A, Beguiristain JM, Navarro G, Martínez Tapias J, Blasco JA, Quintana JM. García Gutiérrez S, Bilbao A, Beguiristain JM, Navarro G, Martínez Tapias J, Blasco JA, Quintana JM. Variability in the prioritization of patients for cataract extraction. Int J Qual Health Care 2010; 22 107–14.
| Variability in the prioritization of patients for cataract extraction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Quintana JM, Espallargues M, Las Hayas C, Allepuz A, Vrotsou K, Moharra M, Escobar A. Comparison of 3 systems for assigning priority to patients on waiting lists for cataract extraction. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45 125–31.
| Comparison of 3 systems for assigning priority to patients on waiting lists for cataract extraction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Ma Quintana J, Escobar A, Bilbao A, IRYSS-Appropriateness Cataract Group Explicit criteria for prioritization of cataract surgery. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6 24
| Explicit criteria for prioritization of cataract surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Las Hayas C, González N, Aguirre U, Blasco JA, Elizalde B, Perea E, Escobar A, Navarro G, et al IRYSS-Cataract Group. Can an appropriateness evaluation tool be used to prioritize patients on a waiting list for cataract extraction? Health Policy 2010; 95 194–203.
| IRYSS-Cataract Group. Can an appropriateness evaluation tool be used to prioritize patients on a waiting list for cataract extraction?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Moharra M, Comas M, Pons JM. Research Group on Support Instruments – IRYSS Network. Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: instruments validation. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8 76
| Research Group on Support Instruments – IRYSS Network. Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: instruments validation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Vitale A, Saracino E, D’Amico FE, Grigoletto F, Burra P, Angeli P, Boccagni P, Brolese A, et al Prospective validation of a new priority allocation model for liver transplant candidates: an interim analysis. Transplant Proc 2009; 41 1092–5.
| Prospective validation of a new priority allocation model for liver transplant candidates: an interim analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Valente R, Testi A, Tanfani E, Fato M, Porro I, Santo M, Santori G, Torre G, et al A model to prioritize access to elective surgery on the basis of clinical urgency and waiting time. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9 1
| A model to prioritize access to elective surgery on the basis of clinical urgency and waiting time.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Lack A, Edwards RT, Boland A. Weights for waits: lessons from Salisbury. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5 83–8.
