IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v124y2020i10p1043-1049.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of the General surgery prioritisation tool implemented in New Zealand in 2018

Author

Listed:
  • Srikumar, Gajan
  • Eglinton, Tim
  • MacCormick, Andrew D.

Abstract

Patients waitlisted for elective general surgery in New Zealand used to be prioritised by multiple tools that were inconsistent, did not reflect clinical judgement and were not validated. We describe the development and implementation of a national prioritisation tool for elective general surgery in New Zealand, which could be applicable to other OECD countries. The tool aims to achieve equity of access, transparency, reliability and should be aligned with clinical judgement. The General Surgery Prioritisation Tool Working Group commenced development of a prioritisation tool in 2014 which showed strong correlation with clinical judgement (r = 0.89), excellent test-retest reliability (r = 0.98) and significantly lower variability (p < 0.001). Preliminary findings showed no significant difference in scores attributable to age, gender or ethnicity. General Surgeons were in favour of the tool criteria and agreed on the importance of prioritisation; however a minority opposed its introduction. Health organisations and general practitioner groups were in favour, however, along with many surgeons, expressed apprehensions regarding subjectivity, manipulation, equity of access and degree of benefit. Despite reservations, the majority of stakeholders were supportive and through collaboration between clinicians and the government, the tool was implemented in 2018 in New Zealand. Overall, the prioritisation tool is a reliable method of assessing priority, demonstrating transparency and reflecting clinical judgement, with equity of access to be further assessed by evaluation in clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Srikumar, Gajan & Eglinton, Tim & MacCormick, Andrew D., 2020. "Development of the General surgery prioritisation tool implemented in New Zealand in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1043-1049.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:124:y:2020:i:10:p:1043-1049
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851020302001
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vivienne C. Bachelet & Matías Goyenechea & Víctor A. Carrasco, 2019. "Policy strategies to reduce waiting times for elective surgery: A scoping review and evidence synthesis," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 995-1015, April.
    2. Solans-Domènech, Maite & Adam, Paula & Tebé, Cristian & Espallargues, Mireia, 2013. "Developing a universal tool for the prioritization of patients waiting for elective surgery," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 118-126.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guo, Michael Y. & Crump, R. Trafford & Karimuddin, Ahmer A & Liu, Guiping & Bair, Matthew J. & Sutherland, Jason M., 2022. "Prioritization and surgical wait lists: A cross-sectional survey of patient's health-related quality of life," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 99-105.
    2. Jack Powers & James M. McGree & David Grieve & Ratna Aseervatham & Suzanne Ryan & Paul Corry, 2023. "Managing surgical waiting lists through dynamic priority scoring," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 533-557, September.
    3. Babashahi, Saeideh & Hansen, Paul & Sullivan, Trudy, 2021. "Creating a priority list of non-communicable diseases to support health research funding decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 221-228.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dehanne, Fabian & Lejeune, Kevin & Libert, Benoit, 2022. "Methodology for restarting hospital activities after a pandemic: COVID-19 experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1075-1080.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:124:y:2020:i:10:p:1043-1049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.