Cutting queues or cutting corners: waiting lists and the 1990 NHS reforms

The shadows of waiting and care: on discourses of waiting in the history of the British National Health Service

Waiting is at the centre of experiences and practices of healthcare. However, we know very little about the relationship between the subjective experiences of patients who wait in and for care, health practitioners who 'prescribe' and manage waiting, and how this relates to broader cultural meanings of waiting. Waiting features heavily in the sociological, managerial, historical and health economics literatures that investigate UK healthcare, but the focus has been on service provision and quality, with waiting (including waiting lists and waiting times) drawn on as a key marker to test the efficiency and affordability of the NHS. In this article, we consider the historical contours of this framing of waiting, and ask what has been lost or occluded through its development. To do so, we review the available discourses in the existing literature on the NHS through a series of 'snapshots' or key moments in its history. Through its negative imprint, we argue that what shadows these discourses is the idea of waiting and care as phenomenological temporal experiences, and time as a practice of care. In response, we begin to trace the intellectual and historical resources available for alternative histories of waiting - materials that might enable scholars to reconstruct some of the complex temporalities of care marginalized in existing accounts of waiting, and which could help reframe both future historical accounts and contemporary debates about waiting in the NHS.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity within academic urological departments in Paris]

Introduction

En conséquence de la pandémie de COVID-19 en France, toute activité chirurgicale non urgente a dû être annulée à partir du 12 mars 2020. Afin d’anticiper la reprise des interventions décalées, une quantification de la réduction d’activité est nécessaire. L’objectif de l’étude était d’évaluer comparativement à 2019 la réduction d’activité chirurgicale urologique adulte pendant la pandémie de COVID-19.

Matériel et méthodes

Nous avons comparé le nombre d’interventions urologiques pratiquées dans les 8 services universitaires d’urologie de l’Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (AP–HP) sur deux périodes comparables (14–29 mars 2019 et 12–27 mars 2020) à l’aide du logiciel de planification opératoire et du PMSI partagé par ces centres. L’intitulé d’intervention et le type de chirurgie ont été collectés et regroupées en 16 catégories.

Résultats

Une baisse de l’activité globale à l’AP–HP en urologie de 55 % entre 2019 et 2020 (995 et 444 interventions respectivement) a été constatée sur les 8 services. L’activité oncologique et les urgences ont diminué de 31 % et 44 %. L’activité de transplantation rénale, la chirurgie fonctionnelle et andrologique ont subi les plus fortes baisses d’activité par les interventions non oncologiques (−92 %, −85 % et −81 %, respectivement). Environ 1033 heures d’intervention devront être reprogrammées pour rattraper le programme opératoire annulé.

Conclusion

Le confinement et le report des interventions chirurgicales « non urgentes » ont entraîné une diminution drastique de l’activité chirurgicale au sein de l’AP–HP. Pendant cette période, les urologues ont été sollicités pour d’autres tâches mais doivent désormais s’atteler à organiser la période de reprise d’activité pour éviter une crise organisationnelle en urologique.

Niveau de preuve

3.

Space, place and (waiting) time: reflections on health policy and politics

Health systems have repeatedly addressed concerns about efficiency and equity by employing trans-national comparisons to draw out the strengths and weaknesses of specific policy initiatives. This paper demonstrates the potential for explicit historical analysis of waiting times for hospital treatment to add value to spatial comparative methodologies. Waiting times and the size of the lists of waiting patients have become key operational indicators. In the United Kingdom, as National Health Service (NHS) financial pressures intensified from the 1970s, waiting times have become a topic for regular public and political debate. Various explanations for waiting times include the following: hospital consultants manipulate NHS waiting lists to maintain their private practice; there is under-investment in the NHS; and available (and adequate) resources are being used inefficiently. Other countries have also experienced ongoing tensions between the public and private delivery of universal health care in which national and trans-national comparisons of waiting times have been regularly used. The paper discusses the development of key UK policies, and provides a limited Canadian comparative perspective, to explore wider issues, including whether 'waiting crises' were consciously used by policymakers, especially those brought into government to implement new economic and managerial strategies, to diminish the autonomy and authority of the medical professional in the hospital environment.

[Results of a management plan for surgical waiting lists for hip and knee replacements]

This study describes the implementation of a management plan for surgical joint replacement waiting lists and its results after 3 years. The plan was based on the following: unification of information and scheduling, periodic review, clinical guidelines, management of demand, prioritization according to need, and increasing the services provided. During the first year, the plan succeeded in revealing the real waiting list, with 23% more patients than previously included. Three years later, 16% of the patients had not turned up for surgery after being scheduled; the mean length of hospital stay for joint replacements had been reduced by 4 days; 59.5% of the patients joining the list had been assessed with a prioritization instrument, and the number of joint replacements had increased by 16% with a reduction of 14.7% in patients waiting for joint replacements. The resolution time for these procedures had also decreased by 3 months for knee arthroplasty and by 1 month for hip arthroplasty.

NHS waiting lists and evidence of national or local failure: analysis of health service data

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the national distribution of prolonged waiting for elective day case and inpatient surgery, and to examine associations of prolonged waiting with markers of NHS capacity, activity in the independent sector, and need.

SETTING

NHS hospital trusts in England.

POPULATION

People waiting for elective treatment in the specialties of general surgery; ear, nose and throat surgery; ophthalmic surgery; and trauma and orthopaedic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Numbers of people waiting six months or longer (prolonged waiting). Characteristics of trusts with large numbers waiting six months or longer were examined by using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The distribution of numbers of people waiting for day case or elective surgery in all the specialties examined was highly positively skewed. Between 52% and 83% of patients waiting longer than six months in the specialties studied were found in one quarter of trusts, which in turn contributed 23-45% of the national throughput specific to the specialty. In general, there was little evidence to show that capacity (measured by numbers of operating theatres, dedicated day case theatres, available beds, and bed occupancy rate) or independent sector activity were associated with prolonged waiting, although exceptions were noted for individual specialties. There was consistent evidence showing an increase in prolonged waiting, with increased numbers of anaesthetists across all specialties and with increased bed occupancy rates for ear, nose and throat surgery. Markers of greater need for health care, such as deprivation score and rate of limiting long term illness, were inversely associated with prolonged waiting.

CONCLUSION

In most instances, substantial numbers of patients waiting unacceptably long periods for elective surgery were limited to a small number of hospitals. Little and inconsistent support was found for associations of prolonged waiting with markers of capacity, independent sector activity, or need in the surgical specialties examined.

[Management of surgical waiting lists by health centers and health professionals]

Waiting lists for non-urgent medical care, in diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, occur mainly in public health systems such as those found in Spain and many other European countries. If waiting lists are moderate they can be useful in the process of managing these patients and are accepted by health professionals and health services users. Waiting lists for surgical procedures can be interpreted, erroneously, as a simple imbalance between the supply and demand for a particular procedure. If that were the case, we would only have to progressively increase resources until eliminating the lists.However, considerable evidence suggests that the isolated increase of resources does not solve the problem since the mean waiting time is reduced but the waiting list becomes longer. Therefore, other management measures are required. The management of waiting lists is necessary at the levels of society, health administration and especially health centers. Clinical management by departments and individual health professionals is essential, using the criteria of inclusion of scientific evidence in the indication for treatment and in the results expected for each patient (effectiveness of the procedure) as well as ethical criteria and considerations of resource use efficiency. Prioritizing patients according to severity, probability of improvement and social criteria is an unavoidable obligation in improving the problem of waiting lists. In this process of prioritization, society should also be able to voice an opinion since non-medical factors may influence the distribution and prioritization of resources and in this context the experience of other countries should be analyzed. Finally, as Archie Cochrane said "all effective treatment should be free" which, put another way would be: in a public system, the financing of procedures that do not provide significant benefits to patients is not justified.

Population requirement for primary hip-replacement surgery: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There has been a long-standing failure in many countries to satisfy the demand for several elective surgical treatments, including total hip replacement. We set out to estimate the population requirement for primary total hip replacement in England.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional study of a stratified random sample of 28,080 individuals aged 35 and over from 40 general practices in inner-city, urban, and rural areas of Avon and Somerset, UK. Prevalent disease was identified through a two-stage process: a self-report screening questionnaire (22,978 of 26,046 responded) and subsequent clinical examination. Incident disease was estimated from the point prevalence by statistical modelling. The requirement for total hip replacement surgery was estimated on the basis of pain and loss of functional ability, with adjustment for evidence of comorbidity and patients' treatment preferences.

FINDINGS

3169 people reported hip pain on the screening questionnaire. 2018 were invited for clinical examination, and 1405 attended. The prevalence of self-reported hip pain was 107 per 1000 (95% CI 101-113) for men and 173 per 1000 (166-180) for women. The prevalence of hip disease severe enough to require surgery was 15.2 (12.7-17.8) per 1000 aged 35-85 years. The corresponding annual incidence of hip disease requiring surgery was estimated as 2.23 (1.56-2.90), which suggests an overall requirement in England of 46,600 operations per year for patients who expressed a preference for, and were suitable for, surgery; the recent actual provision in England was about 43,500.

INTERPRETATION

This research suggests that the satisfaction of demand for total hip replacement, given agreed criteria for surgery, is a realistic objective.

The cardiac waiting game: are patients prioritized on the basis of clinical need?

Waiting lists for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been a recurring problem for many hospitals, putting pressure on hospitals to manage waiting lists more effectively. In this study, we audited the records of 1594 patients who had coronary artery bypass surgery in 1992 and 1993 in three London hospitals, to assess their waiting time experience. Patients' actual waiting times were compared with an appropriate waiting time defined using an adapted version of a Canadian urgency scoring system. Influence of other factors (sex, age, smoking, hypertension, diabetes and obesity) on actual waiting time was assessed. A comparison of patients' actual waiting times with an appropriate waiting time, defined by the urgency score, showed that only 38% were treated within the appropriate period. Thirty-four per cent were treated earlier than their ischaemic risk indicated, and 28% with high ischaemic risk were delayed. Actual waiting time was associated with a patient's sex and smoking status but not with the other factors studied. The current system of prioritizing patients awaiting CABG is not concordant with a measure of appropriate waiting time. This could have arisen due to a number of factors, including the contracting process, waiting list initiatives, and methods of waiting list administration and patient pressures. The use of a standard method for prioritizing patients would enable a more appropriate use of resources.

Waiting list dynamics and the impact of earmarked funding

OBJECTIVE

To determine how changes in the number of admissions from waiting lists and changes in the number of additions to the lists are related to list size and waiting times, in the context of local waiting list initiatives.

DESIGN

Review of national and Körner statistics.

SETTING

England (1987-94) and districts of the former Oxford region (1987-91).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Correlation of quarterly changes in the number of admissions from waiting lists in England with changes in total list size, numbers of patients waiting one to two, or over two years, and number of additions to the lists; examination of changes in waiting list statistics for individual district specialties in one region in relation to funding for waiting list initiatives.

RESULTS

Nationally, changes in the number of admissions to hospital from lists closely correlated with changes in the number of additions to lists (r = 0.84; P < 0.01). After adjusting for changes in the number of additions to lists, changes in the number of admissions correlated inversely with changes in list size (r = -0.62; P < 0.001). Decreases in the number of patients waiting from one to two years were significantly associated with increases in the number of admissions (r = -0.52; P < 0.01); locally, only six of 44 waiting list initiatives were followed by an increase in admissions and a fall in list size, although a further 11 were followed by a fall in list size without a corresponding increase in admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in admissions improved waiting times but did not reduce list size because additions to the list tended to increase at the same time. The appropriateness of waiting list initiatives as a method of funding elective surgery should be reviewed.

NHS internal market 1991-2: towards a balance sheet

The first year of the internal market in the NHS has been claimed to have resulted in increased efficiency. These claims, however, are hard to substantiate because the systems for operating the market are not fully in place. Examination of data on tax relief for private health insurance premiums for over 60s, general practice fundholding, and implementation and transaction costs suggest that much of the increased efficiency is not due to the reforms but to increased funding. Furthermore, some of the changes seem to be decreasing market forces and reducing efficiency.