Determining priority for joint replacement: comparing the views of orthopaedic surgeons and other professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess which patient characteristics influence the assessments of urgency for surgery by orthopaedic surgeons and non-orthopaedic professionals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of 80 patients requiring elective hip or knee replacement attending a public hospital orthopaedic outpatient clinic or orthopaedic surgeon's private rooms. Patients were interviewed after being placed on the surgery waiting list. The interview asked about the severity of their joint disease and its effects on physical capability, psychological distress and social circumstances. Patient interviews were summarised and presented to assessors who ranked groups of eight patients in order of their perceived urgency for surgery. Eleven orthopaedic surgeon assessors completed 360 patient ratings and nine non-orthopaedic assessors from various professions, including physiotherapy, social work, research, management and engineering, completed 720 patient ratings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale rating of patient urgency for surgery; patient rankings for surgery; scores for individual domain contributions to urgency rating. RESULTS: A broad spread of perceived urgency was evident among the patients. For each group of eight patients, there was moderate agreement on overall urgency rankings between the two groups of assessors. Linear regression demonstrated that pain was the dominant determinant of urgency score for both assessor groups. Orthopaedic surgeons also took into account limitations to mobility and concurrent medical illness but gave less priority to psychological distress or social circumstances. For the non-orthopaedic assessors, limitations to mobility, social circumstances and psychological distress also contributed to urgency. CONCLUSION: Both orthopaedic surgeons and non-orthopaedic professionals considered pain the most important factor in establishing urgency and priority for joint replacement. Only the non-orthopaedic professionals considered psychosocial factors important when determining priority for surgery. Broader community discussion about prioritisation for elective surgery is needed to facilitate agreement about which patients factors should be considered.

Prioritizing patients for prostatectomy: balancing clinical and psychosocial factors.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a points-based approach to prioritize patients for elective transurethral resection of the prostate and to determine the relative contributions that clinical and psychosocial characteristics should make to a measurement of urgency for surgery. Another objective was to measure the agreement between urologists, other medical practitioners and laypersons in assessing the major determinants of priority. METHODS: A focus group of urologists and epidemiologists developed a standard questionnaire identifying relevant clinical and psychosocial factors in men with benign prostatic hypertrophy. The questionnaire was used to interview 48 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy being placed on waiting lists for transurethral resection of the prostate at four Victorian public hospitals. Individual patient case vignettes were produced using the answers to the interview questions. Members of an assessor panel comprising six laypeople, six non-urologist medical practitioners, and five urologists individually reviewed the vignettes and assigned urgency ratings and rankings to each patient. The urgency ratings and rankings were used to derive weightings for the clinical and psychosocial factors that were then incorporated into a prioritization tool framework. RESULTS: The assessor panel perceived a broad spread of urgency for surgery among the patients. Agreement on rankings and urgency ratings was moderate among assessors. Linear regression showed that the effect of clinical symptoms and psychosocial disturbance held approximately equal-strength independent associations with perceived urgency for all groups of assessors. CONCLUSION: Urologists, non-urologist medical practitioners and laypeople considered the severity of benign prostatic hypertrophy symptoms and any resulting psychosocial disturbance as equally important in establishing priority for transurethral resection of the prostate. New prioritization tools should take both into consideration and weight them equally.

Waiting lists and elective surgery: ordering the queue.

In the Australian public health system, access to elective surgery is rationed through the use of waiting lists in which patients are assigned to broad urgency categories. Surgeons are principally responsible for referring patients to waiting lists, deciding on the appropriate urgency category, and selecting patients from the waiting list to receive surgery. There are few agreed-upon criteria to help surgeons make these decisions, leading to striking differences between institutions in proportions of patients allocated to urgency categories. In other countries with publicly funded health systems, programs have been developed that aim to make prioritisation more consistent and access to surgery more equitable. As demand for health care increases, similar programs should be established in Australia using relevant clinical and psychosocial factors. Prioritisation methodology adapted for elective surgery may have a role in prioritising high-demand procedures in other areas of health care.