Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 11/2016

06-06-2016

Patient-reported outcomes and surgical triage: A gap in patient-centered care?

Auteurs: R. Trafford Crump, Guiping Liu, Mark Chase, Jason M. Sutherland

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To help address wait times for elective surgery, British Columbia has implemented a triaging system that assigns priority levels to patients based on their diagnoses. The extent to which these priority levels concords with patients’ assessment of their health status is not known. The purpose of this study was to measure the association between the priority levels assigned to patients and their patient-reported outcomes data collected at the time of being enrolled on the surgical wait list.

Methods

Patients waiting for elective surgery in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority were sampled. Participants completed a set of generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome instruments, including: the EQ-5D(3L) (general health), PEG (pain), and the PHQ-9 (depression). A multivariate ordered logistic model was used to regress patient-reported outcome values on the priority level assigned at the time of wait list registration.

Results

A total of 2725 participants completed the survey package (response rate 49 %). Using the EQ-5D(3L), 63 % reported having problems with pain or discomfort, 41 % problems performing usual activities, 36 % problems with depression or anxiety, 28 % problems with mobility, and 8 % a problem with self-care. The results from the ordered logistic model indicated very little association between the patient-reported outcomes and wait list priority levels, when adjusted for patient factors.

Conclusions

This study observed no relationship between patients’ self-reported health status and their assigned priority level for elective surgery. A more patient-centered approach to triaging patients for surgical treatment would incorporate patients’ perspective in surgical wait list prioritization systems.
vorige artikel The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES
volgende artikel Phenotypic and molecular characteristics associated with various domains of quality of life in oncology patients and their family caregivers
Literatuur
1.
Siciliani, L., Borowitz, M., & Moran, V. (Eds.) (2013). Waiting time policies in the health sector: What works? OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing.
2.
Western Canada Waiting List Project. (2004). Colloquium on the ethical aspects of priority setting and access to healthcare Western Canada waiting. In T. Noseworthy (Ed.), Proceedings of the joint Western Canada waiting list project and canadian bioethics society. Calgary: Western Canada Waiting List Project.
3.
Siciliani, L., & Hurst, J. (2005). Tackling excessive waiting times for elective surgery: A comparative analysis of policies in 12 OECD countries. Health Policy, 72(2), 201–215.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sutherland, J. M., Barer, M. L., Evans, R. G., & Crump, R. T. (2011). Will paying the piper change the tune? Healthcare Policy, 6(4), 14–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
MacCormick, A. D., Plank, L. D., Robinson, E. M., & Parry, B. R. (2002). Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: Clinical judgement summarized by a linear analogue scale. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 72(9), 613–617.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Noseworthy, T. W., McGurran, J. J., & Hadorn, D. C. (2003). Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: Development of priority-setting scoring systems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9(1), 23–31.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Solans-Domènech, M., Adam, P., Tebé, C., & Espallargues, M. (2013). Developing a universal tool for the prioritization of patients waiting for elective surgery. Health Policy, 113(1–2), 118–126.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Oudhoff, J. P., Timmermans, D. R. M., Knol, D. L., Bijnen, A. B., & Van der Wal, G. (2007). Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: A conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners. Social Science and Medicine, 64(9), 1863–1875.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
BC Ministry of Health, & Provincial Surgical Executive Committee. (2015). Future directions for surgical services in British Columbia. Victoria, BC.
11.
Nikolova, S., Harrison, M., & Sutton, M. (2015). The impact of waiting time on health gains from surgery: Evidence from a national patient-reported outcome dataset. Health Economics, (Online)
12.
13.
Goebel, S., Steinert, A., Vierheilig, C., & Faller, H. (2013). Correlation between depressive symptoms and perioperative pain: A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 29(5), 392–399.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Rosenberger, P. H., Jokl, P., & Ickovics, J. (2006). Psychosocial factors and surgical outcomes: An evidence-based literature review. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 14(7), 397–405.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principals of biomedical ethics (Fifth.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
Jensen, R. E., Rothrock, N. E., Dewitt, E. M., Spiegel, B., Tucker, C. A., Crane, H. M., et al. (2015). The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Medical Care, 53(2), 153–159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Long, M. J., McQueen, D. A., Lescoe-Long, M., & Schurman, J. R. (2005). Capturing the full measure of patient outcome improvement using a self-assessed health adjustment. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 11(5), 484–488.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Canadian Institute For Health Information. (2015). PROMs forum proceedings. In PROMs forum. Ottawa, Canada: CIHI.
19.
20.
EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
21.
Krebs, E., Lorenz, K., Bair, M., Damush, T., Wu, J., Sutherland, J., et al. (2009). Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24(6), 733–738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Miller, K., Combs, S., van Puymbroeck, M., Alternberger, P., Kean, J., Dierks, T., & Schmidt, A. (2013). Fatigue and pain: Relationships with physical performance and patient beliefs after stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 20(4), 347–355.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Anis, A. (2012). Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: Preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e31115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Davis, K., Stremikis, K., Squires, D., & Schoen, C. (2014). Mirror, mirror on the wall: How the performance of the US health care system compares internationally. New York, NY.
27.
BC Ministry of Health. (2014). Ministry of health 2014/15–2016/17 service plan. Victoria, BC.
28.
Siciliani, L., Borowitz, M., & Moran, V. (Eds.). (2013). Waiting time policies in the health sector: What works? OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing.
29.
MacCormick, A. D., Collecutt, W. G., & Parry, B. R. (2003). Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: A systematic review. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 73(8), 633–642.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Patient-reported outcomes and surgical triage: A gap in patient-centered care?
Auteurs
R. Trafford Crump
Guiping Liu
Mark Chase
Jason M. Sutherland
Publicatiedatum
06-06-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1301-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2016

Quality of Life Research 11/2016 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES

OriginalPaper

Using the ICF’s environmental factors framework to develop an item bank measuring built and natural environmental features affecting persons with disabilities

Review

Interventions that improve health-related quality of life in patients with myocardial infarction

OriginalPaper

Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with conservatively managed stage 5 chronic kidney disease: limitations of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36: SF-36

OriginalPaper

Adaptation and validation of the “tolerability and quality of life” (TOOL) questionnaire in Chinese bipolar patients

OriginalPaper

Food preferences, personality and parental rearing styles: analysis of factors influencing health of left-behind children