Literature DB >> 32826089

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

Gajan Srikumar1, Tim Eglinton2, Andrew D MacCormick3.   

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.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Elective surgery; General surgery; Prioritisation; Scoring tool

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32826089     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  3 in total

1.  A Delphi study to explore clinician and lived experience perspectives on setting priorities in eating disorder services.

Authors:  Katie L Richards; Isabel Woolrych; Ulrike Schmidt; Karina L Allen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 2.908

2.  Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision.

Authors:  Kayla Wiebe; Simon Kelley; Roxanne E Kirsch
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 16.859

3. 

Authors:  Kayla Wiebe; Simon Kelley; Roxanne E Kirsch
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 16.859

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.