Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens.

PURPOSE: Decision models can be used to support allocation of scarce surgical resources. These models incorporate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values that can be determined using physician panels. The predominant opinion is that one should use values obtained from citizens. We investigated whether physicians give different HRQoL values to citizens and evaluate whether such differences impact decision model outcomes. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study was conducted. Citizens estimated HRQoL of pre- and post-operative health states for ten surgeries using a visual analogue scale. These values were compared using Bland-Altman analysis with HRQoL values previously obtained from physicians. Impact on decision model outcomes was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the rankings of surgeries established using the physicians' and the citizens' values. RESULTS: A total of 71 citizens estimated HRQoL. Citizens' values on the VAS scale were - 0.07 points (95% CI - 0.12 to - 0.01) lower than the physicians' values. The correlation between the rankings of surgeries based on citizens' and physicians' values was 0.96 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Physicians put higher values on health states than citizens. However, these differences only result in switches between adjacent entries in the ranking. It would seem that HRQoL values obtained from physicians are adequate to inform decision models during crises.

Minimizing population health loss due to scarcity in OR capacity: validation of quality of life input.

OBJECTIVES: A previously developed decision model to prioritize surgical procedures in times of scarce surgical capacity used quality of life (QoL) primarily derived from experts in one center. These estimates are key input of the model, and might be more context-dependent than the other input parameters (age, survival). The aim of this study was to validate our model by replicating these QoL estimates. METHODS: The original study estimated QoL of patients in need of commonly performed procedures in live expert-panel meetings. This study replicated this procedure using a web-based Delphi approach in a different hospital. The new QoL scores were compared with the original scores using mixed effects linear regression. The ranking of surgical procedures based on combined QoL values from the validation and original study was compared to the ranking based solely on the original QoL values. RESULTS: The overall mean difference in QoL estimates between the validation study and the original study was - 0.11 (95% CI: -0.12 - -0.10). The model output (DALY/month delay) based on QoL data from both studies was similar to the model output based on the original data only: The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the ranking of all procedures before and after including the new QoL estimates was 0.988. DISCUSSION: Even though the new QoL estimates were systematically lower than the values from the original study, the ranking for urgency based on health loss per unit of time delay of procedures was consistent. This underscores the robustness and generalizability of the decision model for prioritization of surgical procedures.

Minimising population health loss in times of scarce surgical capacity: a modelling study for surgical procedures performed in nonacademic hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a reduction of available health care capacity for regular care. To guide prioritisation of semielective surgery in times of scarcity, we previously developed a decision model to quantify the expected health loss due to delay of surgery, in an academic hospital setting. The aim of this study is to validate our decision model in a nonacademic setting and include additional elective surgical procedures. METHODS: In this study, we used the previously published three-state cohort state-transition model, to evaluate the health effects of surgery postponement for 28 surgical procedures commonly performed in nonacademic hospitals. Scientific literature and national registries yielded nearly all input parameters, except for the quality of life (QoL) estimates which were obtained from experts using the Delphi method. Two expert panels, one from a single nonacademic hospital and one from different nonacademic hospitals in the Netherlands, were invited to estimate QoL weights. We compared estimated model results (disability adjusted life years (DALY)/month of surgical delay) based on the QoL estimates from the two panels by calculating the mean difference and the correlation between the ranks of the different surgical procedures. The eventual model was based on the combined QoL estimates from both panels. RESULTS: Pacemaker implantation was associated with the most DALY/month of surgical delay (0.054 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.025-0.103) and hemithyreoidectomy with the least DALY/month (0.006 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.002-0.009). The overall mean difference of QoL estimates between the two panels was 0.005 (95% CI -0.014-0.004). The correlation between ranks was 0.983 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an overview of incurred health loss due to surgical delay for surgeries frequently performed in nonacademic hospitals. The quality of life estimates currently used in our model are robust and validate towards a different group of experts. These results enrich our earlier published results on academic surgeries and contribute to prioritising a more complete set of surgeries.

Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritizing certain surgical patients became inevitable due to limited surgical capacity. This study aims to identify which factors patients value in priority setting, and to evaluate their perspective on a decision model for surgical prioritization. METHODS: We enacted a qualitative exploratory study and conducted semi-structured interviews with N = 15 patients. Vignettes were used as guidance. The interviews were transcribed and iteratively analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We unraveled three themes: 1) general attitude towards surgical prioritization: patients showed understanding for the difficult decisions to be made, but demanded greater transparency and objectivity; 2) patient-related factors that some participants considered should, or should not, influence the prioritization: age, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, behavior, waiting time, impact on survival and quality of life, emotional consequences, and resource usage; and 3) patients' perspective on a decision model: usage of such a model for prioritization decisions is favorable if the model is simple, uses trustworthy data, and its output is supervised by physicians. The model could also be used as a communication tool to explain prioritization dilemmas to patients. CONCLUSION: Support for the various factors and use of a decision model varied among patients. Therefore, it seems unrealistic to immediately incorporate these factors in decision models. Instead, this study calls for more research to identify feasible avenues and seek consensus.