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

Impact of clinical urgency, physician supply and procedural capacity on regional variations in wait times for coronary angiography

Background

Despite universal health care, there continues to be regional access disparities to coronary angiography in Canada. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which demand-side factors such as clinical urgency/need, and supply-side factors, as reflected by differences in physician and procedural supply account for these inequalities.

Methods

Our cohort consisted of 74,254 consecutive patients referred for coronary angiography in Ontario, Canada between April 1^st 2005 and March 31^st 2006, divided into three urgency strata based on a clinical urgency scale. Cox-proportional hazard models were developed, adjusting for age, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), region, and urgency score, with greater hazard ratios (HR) indicating shorter wait times. To evaluate mediators of any residual wait-time differences, we examined the influence of the regional supply of cath lab facilities, invasive cardiologists and general practitioners (GP).

Results

We found that the urgency score was a significant predictor of wait time in all three strata (urgent patients: HR 1.61 for each unit increase in patient urgency (95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.55-1.67); semi-urgent patients: HR 1.55 (95% CI 1.44-1.68); elective patients: HR 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.18)). After accounting for clinical need/urgency, regional wait time differences persisted; these were most consistently associated with variation in cath lab supply. The impact of invasive cardiologist supply was restricted to urgent patients while that of GP supply was confined to semi-urgent and elective patients.

Conclusion

We found that there remained significant regional disparities in access to coronary angiography after accounting for clinical need. These disparities are partially explained by variations in supply of both procedural capacity and physician services, most notably in elective and semi-urgent patients.

Do case-generic measures of queue performance for bypass surgery accurately reflect the waiting-list experiences of those most urgent?

BACKGROUND

Queue performance is typically assessed using generic measures, which capture the queue in aggregate. The objective of this study was to examine whether case-generic measures of queue performance appropriately reflected the waiting-list experiences of those patients with greatest disease severity.

METHODS

We examined the queue for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in Ontario between April 1993 and March 2000 using data obtained from the Cardiac Care Network. Our primary measure of queue performance was the proportion of patients who received their bypass surgery within their recommended maximum waiting times (%RMWTs) in any given month. We compared case-generic measures of queue performance to case-specific measures of queue performance stratified by urgency level.

RESULTS

The queue was largely comprised of elective cases ranging from 73% (1993) to 57%(1999). Urgent patients comprised the minority of the queue ranging from 14% (1993) to 20% (1999). Case-generic month-to-month variations in the percentage of cases completed within RMWTs (an aggregated waiting list measure encompassing the characteristics of all patients in the queue) closely resembled the experiences of elective patients (R2 = 0.81), but conversely, bore little relationship to the waiting-list experiences of those most urgent (R2 = 0.15).

INTERPRETATION

Case-generic measures of queue performance for bypass surgery in Ontario were not reflective of the waiting-list experiences of those most urgent. Our results reinforce the concept that urgency-specific waiting list monitoring systems are required to best evaluate and appropriately respond to fluctuations in queue performance.

Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Priority scoring tools are moot as means for dealing with burgeoning elective surgical waiting lists. There is ongoing development work in New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This emerging international perspective is invaluable in determining the application of these tools and addressing any pitfalls.

METHODS

A systematic electronic literature review was performed. Information was also retrieved using a search of reference lists of all papers included in the review and contact with those who were involved in the development of such criteria.

RESULTS

The ethical basis of prioritization differed among priority scoring tools and in a number was not stated. The majority of tools covered criteria for specific procedures. Delphi consensus methods and regression were the predominant methods for -deter-mining -specific criteria. Authors' opinions were the main source of generic criteria. Linear and non-linear models or matrices sum-mated criteria.

CONCLUSION

There is debate over the ethical basis for prioritization. It is a concern that it is not addressed in many studies. The development of generic criteria showed a dearth of consensus approaches that represents a significant gap in our knowledge. On the aspects of summation and weighting, the impact of assumptions on the prioritization of patients may not have been fully explored.

Gender and socioeconomic status as determinants of waiting time for inpatient surgery in a system with implicit queue management

OBJECTIVE

In a system with implicit queue management, to examine gender and socioeconomic status as determinants of waiting time for inpatient surgery, after adjusting for other potential predictors.

METHODS

A cohort of 452 subjects was examined in outpatient clinics of a general hospital and referred to inpatient surgery. They were followed until scheduled hospital admission (n=396) or until the requested procedure no longer was relevant (n=56). We compared waiting time between groups from referral date until hospital admission, using Kaplan-Meier estimates of waiting times and log rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for assessing the risk ratio (RR) of hospital admission for scheduled surgery.

RESULTS

Gender and socioeconomic status could not explain variations in waiting time. However, patients with suspected/verified neoplastic disease or a risk of serious deterioration without treatment had markedly shorter waiting times than the reference groups, with adjusted RR (95% confidence intervals (95%CI)) of time to receiving in-patient surgery of 2.3 (1.7-3.0) and 2.0 (1.3-3.0), respectively. Being on sick leave was associated with shorter waiting time, adjusted RR of 1.7 (1.2-2.5). Referrals from within the hospital or other hospitals had also shorter waiting times than referrals from primary health care physicians, adjusted RR=1.4 (1.1-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of bias against women or people in lower socioeconomic classes in this implicit queue management system. However, patients' access to inpatient surgery was associated with malignancy, prognosis, sick leave status, physician experience, referral pattern and the major diagnosis category.