Development of a decision analytical framework to prioritise operating room capacity: lessons learnt from an empirical example on delayed elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost. DESIGN: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty). SETTING: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times. RESULTS: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three approaches for lymph node assessment in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to risk factor assessment and routine full lymph node dissection for the assessment of lymph nodes in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to compare three lymph node assessment strategies in terms of costs and effects: 1) sentinel lymph node mapping; 2) post-operative risk factor assessment (adjuvant therapy based on clinical and histological risk factors); 3) full lymph node dissection. Input data were derived from systematic literature searches and expert opinion. QALYs were used as measure of effectiveness. The model was built from a healthcare perspective and the impact of uncertainty was assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that sentinel lymph node mapping was the most effective strategy for lymph node assessment in patients with low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Compared to risk factor assessment it was more costly, but the incremental cost effectiveness ratio stayed below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 with a maximum of €9637/QALY. Sentinel lymph node mapping was dominant compared to lymph node dissection since it was more effective and less costly. Sensitivity analyses showed that the outcome of the model was robust to changes in input values. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 sentinel lymph node mapping remained cost-effective in at least 74.3% of the iterations. CONCLUSION: Sentinel lymph node mapping is the most cost-effective strategy to guide the need for adjuvant therapy in patients with low and intermediate risk endometrioid endometrial cancer.