John McGurran

Appropriateness of healthcare interventions: Concepts and scoping of the published literature

OBJECTIVES This report is a scoping review of the literature with the objective of identifying definitions, conceptual models and frameworks, as well as the methods and range of perspectives, for determining appropriateness in the context of healthcare delivery. METHODS To lay groundwork for future, intervention-specific research on appropriateness, this work was carried out as a scoping review of published literature since 1966. Two reviewers, with two screens using inclusion/exclusion criteria based on the objective, focused the research and articles chosen for review. RESULTS The first screen examined 2,829 abstracts/titles, with the second screen examining 124 full articles, leaving 37 articles deemed highly relevant for data extraction and interpretation. Appropriateness is defined largely in terms of net clinical benefit to the average patient and varies by service and setting. The most widely used method to assess appropriateness of healthcare services is the RAND/UCLA Model. There are many related concepts such as medical necessity and small-areas variation. CONCLUSIONS A broader approach to determining appropriateness for healthcare interventions is possible and would involve clinical, patient and societal perspectives.

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 Cronbachs 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. Cronbachs 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.

The importance of patient expectations as a determinant of satisfaction with waiting times for hip and knee replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES The disconfirmation model hypothesizes that satisfaction is a function of a perceived discrepancy from an initial expectation. Our objectives were: (1) to test the disconfirmation model as it applies to patient satisfaction with waiting time (WT) and (2) to build an explanatory model of the determinants of satisfaction with WT for hip and knee replacement. METHODS We mailed 1000 questionnaires to 2 random samples: patients waiting or those who had received a joint replacement within the preceding 3-12 months. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to build an explanatory model of the determinants of satisfaction. RESULTS Of the 1330 returned surveys, 1240 contained patient satisfaction data. The sample was 57% female; mean age was 70 years (SD 11). Consistent with the disconfirmation model, when their WTs were longer than expected, both waiting (OR 5.77, 95% CI 3.57-9.32) and post-surgery patients (OR 6.57, 95% CI 4.21-10.26) had greater odds of dissatisfaction, adjusting for the other variables in the model. Compared to those who waited 3 months or less, post-surgery patients who waited 6 to 12 months (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.27-5.27) and over 12 months (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.65-6.58) had greater odds of being dissatisfied with their waiting time. Patients who felt they were treated unfairly had greater odds of being dissatisfied (OR 4.74, 95% CI 2.60-8.62). CONCLUSIONS In patients on waiting lists and post-surgery for hip and knee replacement, satisfaction with waiting times is related to fulfillment of expectations about waiting, as well as a perception of fairness. Measures to modify expectations and increase perceived fairness, such as informing patients of a realistic WT and communication during the waiting period, may increase satisfaction with WTs.

Patient and physician perspectives of maximum acceptable waiting times for cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND Lengthy waiting times for cataract surgery are an important issue in countries with publicly funded health care systems. To improve the fairness, timeliness, and certainty of waiting-time management, the Western Canada Waiting List Project has developed priority criteria scores (PCSs) related to urgency and linked to maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWTs). The purpose of our study was to compare patient and physician perspectives of MAWT for different levels of urgency. A second aim was to assess the determinants of patient and surgeon perspectives on MAWT. METHODS Ophthalmologists assessed consecutive patients waitlisted for cataract surgery. Data included a MAWT, a visual analogue scale of urgency (VAS urgency), and the cataract PCS. Patients were mailed questionnaires to assess their perspectives of MAWT and VAS urgency. They were also sent a measure of visual function called the Visual Function Assessment. We used hierarchical linear regression to assess the determinants of MAWT. RESULTS The mean age of the 213 patients was 73.9 years; 56.8% were female and 71.8% were booked for first eye surgery. Physician-rated MAWT was significantly longer than patient-rated MAWT (mean 15.1 vs. 9.9 weeks). Median physician MAWTs ranged from 12 (most urgent) to 20 (least urgent) weeks, and patient MAWTs, from 4 to 8 weeks. A 3-step hierarchical linear regression model showed that, after adjusting for age and sex, the priority criteria added significantly to the surgeon model (R2 change = 0.22). Significant predictors were ocular comorbidity, impairment in visual function, and ability to work or live independently or care for dependents. After the addition of VAS urgency, the final model explained 42% of the variance in surgeon MAWT. Significant predictors were age-related macular degeneration and VAS urgency. A 4-step hierarchical regression model for patient MAWT showed that after step 2, sex and visual acuity in the nonsurgery eye were significant predictors. The final model accounted for 11% of the variance in patient MAWT. Significant predictors were sex (males had lower MAWT) and VAS urgency. INTERPRETATION Patient and physician views on MAWT differ, yet both are critical to a fair process for developing standardized waiting times related to levels of urgency. Results from this study provide initial inputs to the formulation of benchmark waiting times for different levels of the cataract PCS.

A bird can't fly on one wing: patient views on waiting for hip and knee replacement surgery.

Objectives  To obtain patients’ perspectives on acceptable waiting times for hip or knee replacement surgery.

The prioritization of patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery: validation of the Western Canada waiting list project cataract priority criteria tool.

Purpose: To assess the validity of the Cataract Priority Criteria Score (PCS), developed by the Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) Project to determine patient prioritization for cataract surgery. Methods: Ophthalmologists assessed consecutive patients with the PCS and a visual analogue scale of urgency (VAS Urgency). Patients were mailed questionnaires pre- and post-surgery. Outcome measures were the Visual Function Assessment (VFA), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and best-corrected visual acuity. Results: The sample of 253 patients was 58% female (mean age, 73.7 years); 166 completed pre-and post-surgery VFA. The correlation of the PCS and VAS Urgency was 0.65 (p = 0.000). Adjusting for age, first or second eye surgery, and post-operative complication, the PCS predicted improvement in the VFA and visual acuity (p < .05). Conclusions: These data provide some evidence to support the convergent and predictive validity of the PCS. Multiple patient outcomes should be used in the evaluation of the validity of priority scores. Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project*

'There are too many of us to fix.' Patients' views of acceptable waiting times for hip and knee replacement.

Objectives: To assess patients’ views of maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWT) for hip and knee replacement, associated factors and the accuracy of self-reported waiting times. Methods: We mailed 1000 questionnaires each to two random samples of patients either waiting for or who had received an arthroplasty within the preceding 3-12 months. We used linear regression to assess the determinants of patient MAWT, and content analysis to assess reasons for MAWT and ideal waiting time. Results: Of the 1330 responses, 1127 had MAWT data. The sample was 57% women; mean age was 70+11 years. Median self-reported and actual waiting time was eight months (Spearman correlation 5 0.70). Median MAWT was four months and ideal waiting time was two months. The most frequent reasons for MAWT were pain, quality of life and needing time to prepare for surgery. A longer MAWT was associated with younger age, group (waiting), a longer self-reported waiting time, better EQ-5D index, an acceptable waiting time, a perception of fairness and a view that others worse off on the list should go ahead. Conclusions: Patients’ views of acceptable waiting times are important for a fair process of establishing waiting time benchmarks for joint replacement.