» Articles » PMID: 18248668

Geographical Variations in the Benefit of Applying a Prioritization System for Cataract Surgery in Different Regions of Spain

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2008 Feb 6
PMID 18248668
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In Spain, there are substantial variations in the utilization of health resources among regions. Because the need for surgery differs in patients with appropriate surgical indication, introducing a prioritization system might be beneficial. Our objective was to assess geographical variations in the impact of applying a prioritization system in patients on the waiting list for cataract surgery in different regions of Spain by using a discrete-event simulation model.

Methods: A discrete-event simulation model to evaluate demand and waiting time for cataract surgery was constructed. The model was reproduced and validated in five regions of Spain and was fed administrative data (population census, surgery rates, waiting list information) and data from research studies (incidence of cataract). The benefit of introducing a prioritization system was contrasted with the usual first-in, first-out (FIFO) discipline. The prioritization system included clinical, functional and social criteria. Priority scores ranged between 0 and 100, with greater values indicating higher priority. The measure of results was the waiting time weighted by the priority score of each patient who had passed through the waiting list. Benefit was calculated as the difference in time weighted by priority score between operating according to waiting time or to priority.

Results: The mean waiting time for patients undergoing surgery according to the FIFO discipline varied from 1.97 months (95% CI 1.85; 2.09) in the Basque Country to 10.02 months (95% CI 9.91; 10.12) in the Canary Islands. When the prioritization system was applied, the mean waiting time was reduced to a minimum of 0.73 months weighted by priority score (95% CI 0.68; 0.78) in the Basque Country and a maximum of 5.63 months (95% CI 5.57; 5.69) in the Canary Islands. The waiting time weighted by priority score saved by the prioritization system varied from 1.12 months (95% CI 1.07; 1.16) in Andalusia to 2.73 months (95% CI 2.67; 2.80) in Aragon.

Conclusion: The prioritization system reduced the impact of the variations found among the regions studied, thus improving equity. Prioritization allocates the available resources within each region more efficiently and reduces the waiting time of patients with greater need. Prioritization was more beneficial than allocating surgery by waiting time alone.

Citing Articles

Cataract Services in Greek Public Hospitals through and after the Austerity Period.

Tsaousis K Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2021; 11(3):192-194.

PMID: 34458124 PMC: 8360217. DOI: 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_674_20.


Prioritization criteria of patients on scheduled waiting lists for abdominal wall hernia surgery: a cross-sectional study.

Lopez-Cano M, Rodrigues-Goncalves V, Verdaguer-Tremolosa M, Petrola-Chacon C, Rossello-Jimenez D, Saludes-Serra J Hernia. 2021; 25(6):1659-1666.

PMID: 33599898 PMC: 7889706. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-021-02378-9.


Real-Time Remote-Health Monitoring Systems: a Review on Patients Prioritisation for Multiple-Chronic Diseases, Taxonomy Analysis, Concerns and Solution Procedure.

Mohammed K, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Albahri O, Alsalem M, Albahri A J Med Syst. 2019; 43(7):223.

PMID: 31187288 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-019-1362-x.


Based Real Time Remote Health Monitoring Systems: A Review on Patients Prioritization and Related "Big Data" Using Body Sensors information and Communication Technology.

Kalid N, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Salman O, Hashim M, Muzammil H J Med Syst. 2017; 42(2):30.

PMID: 29288419 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0883-4.


Indication for cataract surgery. Do we have evidence of who will benefit from surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kessel L, Andresen J, Erngaard D, Flesner P, Tendal B, Hjortdal J Acta Ophthalmol. 2015; 94(1):10-20.

PMID: 26036605 PMC: 4744664. DOI: 10.1111/aos.12758.


References
1.
LACK A, Edwards R, Boland A . Weights for waits: lessons from Salisbury. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000; 5(2):83-8. DOI: 10.1177/135581960000500205. View

2.
Hadorn D, Holmes A . The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview. BMJ. 1997; 314(7074):131-4. PMC: 2125609. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7074.131. View

3.
Fantini M, Negro A, Accorsi S, Cisbani L, Taroni F, Grilli R . Development and assessment of a priority score for cataract surgery. Can J Ophthalmol. 2004; 39(1):48-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0008-4182(04)80052-8. View

4.
Fisher E, Wennberg D, Stukel T, Gottlieb D, Lucas F, Pinder E . The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(4):273-87. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-4-200302180-00006. View

5.
Rutkow I . Surgical operations in the United States. Then (1983) and now (1994). Arch Surg. 1997; 132(9):983-90. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1997.01430330049007. View