Determinants of patient and surgeon perspectives on maximum acceptable waiting times for hip and knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Lengthy waiting times for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised concerns about equitable and timely access to care. The Western Canada Waiting List project has developed priority criteria scores linked to maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWT) for different levels of priority. Our study purpose was to assess the determinants of patient- and surgeon-rated MAWT, and to test whether the anticipated waiting time has an independent influence after adjusting for age, sex and patient urgency. A second aim was to compare MAWT, waiting time and anticipated waiting time for different levels of urgency assessed using the priority criteria score. METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons assessed 233 consecutive patients waiting for arthroplasty in terms of their urgency (assessed using the priority criteria score and a visual analogue scale), MAWT and anticipated waiting time. Patient data included urgency (assessed by a visual analogue scale), MAWT and the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis index. We used hierarchical linear regression to test the models. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and sex, urgency (assessed by priority criteria score and visual analogue scale) and anticipated waiting time accounted for 40% of the variance in surgeon MAWT. The patient model accounted for 30% of the variance in patient MAWT. Older patients preferred signficantly shorter MAWTs (P <0.05). Anticipated waiting time added significantly to both the surgeon and patient MAWT models (R(2) change 0.11 and 0.07, respectively). Actual waiting time was weakly correlated with urgency assessed using the priority criteria score (r = -0.25, P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' and surgeons' views are critical to a fair process of establishing MAWT for elective procedures. Anticipated waiting time may influence the perspectives on MAWT and must be considered in their interpretation.

Prioritization of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee replacement: validation of a priority criteria tool.

OBJECTIVES: This study tested the reliability and validity of the Western Canada Waiting List Project priority criteria score (PCS) for prioritizing patients waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Sixteen orthopedic surgeons assessed 233 consecutive patients at consultation for hip or knee arthroplasty. Measures included the PCS, a visual analogue scale of urgency (VAS urgency), and maximum acceptable waiting time (MAWT). Patients completed a VAS urgency, an MAWT, the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the EQ-5D. Using correlational analysis, convergent and discriminant validity was assessed between similar constructs in the priority criteria and WOMAC. Median MAWTs were determined for five levels of urgency based on PCS percentiles. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: The sample of 233 patients (62 percent female) ranged in age from 18 to 89 years (mean, 66.3 years). A total of 45 percent were booked for hip and 55 percent for knee arthroplasty. Correlations were strong between the PCS and surgeon VAS urgency (r = .79) and weaker between patient and surgeon measures of VAS urgency (r = .24) and MAWT (r = .44). Correlation coefficients between similar constructs in the priority criteria and WOMAC ranged from 0.24 to 0.32 and were higher than those measuring dissimilar constructs. For decreasing levels of urgency, the median MAWT ranged from 10 to 12 weeks for surgeons and 4 to 12 weeks for patients. Cronbach's alpha was 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validity of the PCS as a measure of surgeon-rated urgency. Patients might be ranked differently with different prioritization measures.

Prioritization of patients on scheduled waiting lists: validation of a scoring system for hip and knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The hip and knee replacement priority criteria tool (HKPT) is 1 of 5 tools developed by the Western Canada Waiting List Project for setting priorities among patients awaiting elective procedures. We set out to assess the validity of the HKPT priority criteria score (PCS) and map the maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWTs) for patients to levels of urgency. METHODS: Two studies were used to assess convergent and discriminant validity. In study 1, consecutive patients on a waiting list for hip or knee arthroplasty were assessed by orthopedic surgeons from the 4 provinces in Western Canada, using the HKPT and data on patient age, gender, joint site, type of surgery (primary or revision), 2 measures of surgeon-rated patient urgency, and diagnosis. In study 2, 6 patients were videotaped during a consultation interview with the surgeon and were assessed by a group of experts. We measured function with the PCS and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: In study 1, we assessed 394 patients, and in study 2, 19 raters assessed the 6 patients. Correlations between the PCS and other measures of physician-rated urgency were strong, ranging from 0.78 to 0.89. For a subgroup of 60 patients, correlation between the PCS and function as measured with the WOMAC was 0.48, and correlation was greater (0.45-0.56) between items measuring similar constructs (e.g., pain at rest) than those measuring different constructs (0.21-0.40). In study 2, median MAWTs ranged from 4 to 24 weeks for 5 levels of urgency based on PCS percentiles. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study support the validity of the PCS as a measure of surgeon-rated urgency for hip or knee arthroplasty. Evaluative studies are needed to assess the validity and acceptability of the tools and the establishment of MAWTs in clinical practice.

Developing priority criteria for hip and knee replacement: results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project.

INTRODUCTION: The Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWL), a federally funded partnership of 19 organizations, was created to develop tools for managing waiting lists. The WCWL panel on hip and knee replacement surgery was 1 of 5 panels constituted under this project. METHODS: The panel developed and tested a collection of standardized clinical criteria for setting priorities among patients awaiting hip and knee replacement. The criteria were applied to 405 patients in 4 provinces. Regression analysis was used to determine the set of criteria weights that collectively best predicted clinicians' overall urgency ratings. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was assessed from 6 videotaped patient interviews, scored by orthopedic surgeons, related professionals and general practitioners. RESULTS: The priority criteria accounted for over two-thirds of the observed variance in overall urgency ratings (adjusted R2 = 0.676). The panel modified the criteria and weights based on the empirical findings and on clinical judgement. The reliability of the priority criteria for the hip and knee replacement tool was among the strongest of the 5 instruments developed in the WCWL project. CONCLUSIONS: The panel considered the criteria easy to use and reasonably reflective of expert surgical judgement regarding clinical urgency for hip and knee replacement. Further development and testing of the tool appears warranted.