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.

'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 = 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.

Willingness of patients to change surgeons for a shorter waiting time for joint arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: To improve access to care, many jurisdictions have proposed waiting-time benchmarks and guarantees. We assessed the willingness of patients to consider changing their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting time for arthroplasty. METHODS: We mailed a questionnaire to 2 random samples of patients who either were awaiting hip or knee replacement arthroplasty or had had one of these procedures within the preceding 3-12 months. We used logistic regression to assess the determinants of patients' likelihood to consider changing surgeons. RESULTS: Of 1200 responses from a sample of 2000, 557 (46%) were from patients awaiting surgery and 643 (54%) were from people who had undergone surgery. The mean age of respondents was 69.9 years (standard deviation 10.8), and 682 (57%) were women. The median waiting time for surgery was 8 months. Overall, 753 (63%) of the patients were unlikely to consider changing surgeons. Increased likelihood of changing surgeons was associated with male sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-2.02), a high school education or higher (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15-2.62) and having already undergone surgery (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.19-2.46). Decreased likelihood was associated with preference for a particular surgeon before referral (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.79), a better score on the EuroQol (EQ-5D) index (a measure of health-related quality of life) (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.66), perception that the waiting time to see the surgeon was acceptable (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36-0.70), perception that the waiting time to surgery was acceptable (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.91) and perceived fairness of treatment (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78). INTERPRETATION: Despite long waits for surgery, most patients, if given the choice, would be unlikely to change their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting time.

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.

A systematic literature review of the evidence on benchmarks for cataract surgery waiting time.

BACKGROUND: This review offered critical input to the work of Canadian federal-provincial-territorial Deputy Ministers of Health on establishing evidence-based benchmarks for waiting times (WTs) for cataract surgery. The study purpose was to synthesize the evidence regarding the relations among patient characteristics, WT, and health outcomes for patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Cochrane methodology. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were considered. The studies varied in their quality, study design, sample characteristics, and outcome measures. Because of the heterogeneity in studies, a qualitative analysis was used. Key findings were: individuals with cataracts are at an increased risk of falls, hip fractures, and motor vehicle crashes, the absence of pre-existing eye disease, and better baseline visual acuity and visual function are associated with better outcomes, and average WTs of 6-12 months are associated with a decline in visual acuity in patients while waiting. INTERPRETATION: Although the evidence does not indicate a precise benchmark, it does support timely access to surgery for individuals undergoing cataract surgery. In December 2005, health ministers set a goal to provide cataract surgery within 16 weeks for patients at high risk.

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. METHODS: A questionnaire with both open- and close-ended items was mailed to 432 consecutive patients who had hip or knee replacement surgery 3-12 months previously in Saskatchewan, Canada. A content analysis was used to analyse the text data from the open-ended questions. RESULTS: The sample of 303 (response rate 70%) was 59% female with a mean age of 70 years (SD 11). The median waiting time from the decision date to surgery was 17 weeks. Individuals who rated their waiting time very acceptable (48%) had a median waiting time of 13 weeks compared with a median waiting time of 22 weeks for those who rated it unacceptable (23%). The two most common determinants of acceptability were patient expectations and pain and its impact on patient quality of life. The median maximum acceptable waiting time was 13 weeks and median ideal waiting time, 8.6 weeks. Seventy-nine per cent felt that those in greater need (higher severity) should go before them on the waiting list. Patient ratings of maximum acceptable waiting time were based on: pain and loss of mobility, time needed to prepare for surgery, and severity at the time of seeing the surgeon. In consideration of changing their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting list, 68% would not. CONCLUSIONS: Patient views on waiting times are not only related to quality of life issues, but also to prior expectations and notions of fairness and priority. Understanding patient views on waiting for surgery has implications for better management of waiting times and experiences for joint replacement.

The Western Canada Waiting List Project: development of a priority referral score for hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the concerns about long waiting times to see some specialists in Canada, and the burden this places on both primary care and specialist clinicians, the Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) undertook the Primary Care Project. The goal was to develop a valid, reliable, standardized prioritization tool for use by primary care providers in making referrals to specialists. WCWL is a 20-partner collaboration committed to addressing long waiting times to access scheduled health care services. METHODS: A previously developed prioritization tool for hip and knee replacement was adapted for use by family doctors, based on expert feedback from a clinical panel of primary care providers and from orthopaedic surgeons. Rater assessments of standardized paper cases were used to generate weights for criteria items in the Priority Referral Score (PRS). Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to assess reproducibility, and weights were estimated using a mixed-effects model. The weights and criteria items were modified following feedback of these results to the panel. The resulting PRS was reliability-tested with a different set of standardized case descriptions. RESULTS: One item was removed from the Hip and Knee Surgery tool and two items more pertinent to family medicine (mobility and medications) were added. The resulting eight-item PRS had a test-retest ICC of 0.84. The mean intrarater ICC was 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: An eight-item priority-setting tool has been developed to assist in queuing patients in order of urgency when they are referred to an orthopaedic surgeon for possible hip or knee arthroplasty. The tool had excellent inter- and intrarater reliability and was seen to have face validity by a panel of primary care providers who advised on the project.

Patient and surgeon views on maximum acceptable waiting times for joint replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient and surgeon views on maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWT) for hip and knee replacement, their determinants and their relationship to levels of urgency based on the Western Canada Waiting List Priority Criteria Score (PCS). METHODS: At the decision date for surgery, orthopaedic surgeons assessed consecutive patients with the PCS and MAWT. Patients were surveyed 3-12 months post-surgery for MAWT and potential determinants. RESULTS: The patient sample of 208 was 56% female, mean age 69 years (SD 11). Mean MAWT for patients was 18 weeks (SD 11) and for surgeons, 17 weeks (SD 11). Median MAWT for three levels of urgency (PCS) ranged from 13-17 weeks (patients) and 9-26 weeks (surgeons). Patient MAWT was unrelated to the surgeon-rated measures: MAWT (r=.05) and the PCS (r=-.10). Multiple regression analysis showed that males, knee vs. hip replacement, a longer waiting time and a perception of fairness in regard to waiting time were significant predictors of longer patient MAWT. Knee replacement, a better ability to walk without significant pain and less potential for progression of the disease were significant predictors of longer surgeon MAWT. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and surgeon perspectives on MAWT are important to the development of waiting time benchmarks. Benchmarks based on levels of urgency ensure a more transparent and fair process for waiting time management. Knowledge of determinants of MAWT should inform better management of waiting time and access, by understanding the basis of patient and physician views on acceptable waiting times.

Priority-setting for children's mental health: clinical usefulness and validity of the priority criteria score.

OBJECTIVE: The 17-item PCS was designed for priority-setting and queue management of children and adolescents referred for mental health services. Here we assess aspects of the validity of the Children's Mental Health (CMH) Priority Criteria Score (PCS), developed by the Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWL). The PCS was evaluated across clinical settings of increasing acuity and in terms of its relationship to two variables reflecting criteria-related validity and actual wait times. METHOD: Intake workers completed PCS forms for 497 referrals enrolled for treatment in three clinical areas over approximately two fiscal years. The completion time of the PCS form was estimated in relation to the total referral and screening process. Intake workers completed the PCS items and did not use the total score at the time of intake and form completion to triage or place clients; hence, the PCS was independent of enrollment and placement within the continuum of care. Furthermore, clinicians in the receiving programs had to accept the triage decisions for the PCS to be used in the study analysis. RESULTS: The PCS score was meaningfully related to the measures of criteria-related validity (e.g., clinician perceived urgency, clinician perceived maximum acceptable waiting times) and triage to clinical settings of increasing acuity. There was a significant mean difference in the PCS for those accepted to community, day, or inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: The PCS appears to be a useful, efficient measure of clinical urgency adequate for use in priority-setting for children waiting for mental health services.

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.

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.

Determinants of patient and surgeon perspectives on maximum acceptable waiting times for hip and knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Lengthy waiting times for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised concerns about equitable and timely access to care. The Western Canada Waiting List project has developed priority criteria scores linked to maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWT) for different levels of priority. Our study purpose was to assess the determinants of patient- and surgeon-rated MAWT, and to test whether the anticipated waiting time has an independent influence after adjusting for age, sex and patient urgency. A second aim was to compare MAWT, waiting time and anticipated waiting time for different levels of urgency assessed using the priority criteria score. METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons assessed 233 consecutive patients waiting for arthroplasty in terms of their urgency (assessed using the priority criteria score and a visual analogue scale), MAWT and anticipated waiting time. Patient data included urgency (assessed by a visual analogue scale), MAWT and the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis index. We used hierarchical linear regression to test the models. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and sex, urgency (assessed by priority criteria score and visual analogue scale) and anticipated waiting time accounted for 40% of the variance in surgeon MAWT. The patient model accounted for 30% of the variance in patient MAWT. Older patients preferred signficantly shorter MAWTs (P <0.05). Anticipated waiting time added significantly to both the surgeon and patient MAWT models (R(2) change 0.11 and 0.07, respectively). Actual waiting time was weakly correlated with urgency assessed using the priority criteria score (r = -0.25, P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' and surgeons' views are critical to a fair process of establishing MAWT for elective procedures. Anticipated waiting time may influence the perspectives on MAWT and must be considered in their interpretation.

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 Cronbach's 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. Cronbach's 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.

Prioritization of patients on scheduled waiting lists: validation of a scoring system for hip and knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The hip and knee replacement priority criteria tool (HKPT) is 1 of 5 tools developed by the Western Canada Waiting List Project for setting priorities among patients awaiting elective procedures. We set out to assess the validity of the HKPT priority criteria score (PCS) and map the maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWTs) for patients to levels of urgency. METHODS: Two studies were used to assess convergent and discriminant validity. In study 1, consecutive patients on a waiting list for hip or knee arthroplasty were assessed by orthopedic surgeons from the 4 provinces in Western Canada, using the HKPT and data on patient age, gender, joint site, type of surgery (primary or revision), 2 measures of surgeon-rated patient urgency, and diagnosis. In study 2, 6 patients were videotaped during a consultation interview with the surgeon and were assessed by a group of experts. We measured function with the PCS and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: In study 1, we assessed 394 patients, and in study 2, 19 raters assessed the 6 patients. Correlations between the PCS and other measures of physician-rated urgency were strong, ranging from 0.78 to 0.89. For a subgroup of 60 patients, correlation between the PCS and function as measured with the WOMAC was 0.48, and correlation was greater (0.45-0.56) between items measuring similar constructs (e.g., pain at rest) than those measuring different constructs (0.21-0.40). In study 2, median MAWTs ranged from 4 to 24 weeks for 5 levels of urgency based on PCS percentiles. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study support the validity of the PCS as a measure of surgeon-rated urgency for hip or knee arthroplasty. Evaluative studies are needed to assess the validity and acceptability of the tools and the establishment of MAWTs in clinical practice.

Improving the management of waiting lists for elective healthcare services: public perspectives on proposed solutions.

An innovative approach to managing waiting lists and access to elective care, and one that is more fair and consistent with the 'guarantee of access' as stipulated in the Canada Health Act, has been developed by a partnership of medical associations, provincial ministries of health, regional health authorities and research centres. Operating as the Western Canada Waiting List Project, this group has developed beta versions of waiting list prioritization tools in five problematic clinical areas: hip and knee joint replacement; cataract removal surgery; general surgery; children's mental health services; and MRI scanning.