Rebekah A Zee1, Aisling A Clancy1, Hisham Khalil2. 1. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ottawa Hospital, 1967 Riverside Dr, Ottawa, ON, K1H 1A2, Canada. 2. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ottawa Hospital, 1967 Riverside Dr, Ottawa, ON, K1H 1A2, Canada. hkhalil@toh.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pooled surgical waitlists are used to maximize the use of surgical resources; however, patients' views of this strategy are poorly understood. We sought to evaluate patients' attitudes toward a pooled waitlist for urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. METHODS: Patient and provider focus groups were used to inform the design of a survey that was distributed to patients at the time of consent for female pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. All responses were collected anonymously. Patient attitudes toward surgical wait times and the potential for a pooled surgical waitlist were explored. Grouped responses by age, procedure type, and perceived disease severity were examined. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six patients were surveyed. Thirty-four percent were amenable to the option of a pooled surgical waitlist; 86% agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred to have their surgery performed by their own care provider. Only 18% would agree to be on a pooled surgical waitlist if it shortened their wait time. Older women (≥ 65 years) were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that they "would like the option of having surgery done by the next available skilled surgeon" (56.2% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.028). Self-perceived severe disease and mid-urethral sling surgery were not associated with a higher acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists among urogynecology patients was overall low, irrespective of disease severity. Improving our understanding of urogynecology patients' concerns and potentially negative perceptions of surgical waitlists is needed to ensure patient comfort and satisfaction are not compromised if this strategy is adopted.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pooled surgical waitlists are used to maximize the use of surgical resources; however, patients' views of this strategy are poorly understood. We sought to evaluate patients' attitudes toward a pooled waitlist for urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. METHODS:Patient and provider focus groups were used to inform the design of a survey that was distributed to patients at the time of consent for female pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. All responses were collected anonymously. Patient attitudes toward surgical wait times and the potential for a pooled surgical waitlist were explored. Grouped responses by age, procedure type, and perceived disease severity were examined. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six patients were surveyed. Thirty-four percent were amenable to the option of a pooled surgical waitlist; 86% agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred to have their surgery performed by their own care provider. Only 18% would agree to be on a pooled surgical waitlist if it shortened their wait time. Older women (≥ 65 years) were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that they "would like the option of having surgery done by the next available skilled surgeon" (56.2% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.028). Self-perceived severe disease and mid-urethral sling surgery were not associated with a higher acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists among urogynecology patients was overall low, irrespective of disease severity. Improving our understanding of urogynecology patients' concerns and potentially negative perceptions of surgical waitlists is needed to ensure patient comfort and satisfaction are not compromised if this strategy is adopted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health services administration; Pelvic organ prolapse; Urinary incontinence; Waiting lists
Authors: T M Johnson; J E Kincade; S L Bernard; J Busby-Whitehead; I Hertz-Picciotto; G H DeFriese Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 5.562