Patient prioritisation methods to shorten waiting times for elective surgery: a systematic review of how to improve access to surgery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Background Concern about long waiting times for elective surgeries is not a recent phenomenon, but it has been heightened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated measures. One way to alleviate the problem might be to use prioritisation methods for patients on the waiting list and a wide range of research is available on such methods. However, significant variations and inconsistencies have been reported in prioritisation protocols from various specialties, institutions, and health systems. To bridge the evidence gap in existing literature, this comprehensive systematic review will synthesise global evidence on policy strategies with a unique insight to patient prioritisation methods to reduce waiting times for elective surgeries. This will provide evidence that might help with the tremendous burden of surgical disease that is now apparent in many countries because of operations that were delayed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform policy for sustainable healthcare management systems. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with our most recent searches in January 2020. Articles published after 2013 on major elective surgery lists of adult patients were eligible, but cancer and cancer-related surgeries were excluded. Both randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible and the quality of studies was assessed with ROBINS-I and CASP tools. We registered the review in PROSPERO (CRD42019158455) and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Results The electronic search in five bibliographic databases yielded 7543 records (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane) and 17 eligible articles were identified in the screening. There were four quasi-experimental studies, 11 observational studies and two systematic reviews. These demonstrated moderate to low risk of bias in their research methods. Three studies tested generic approaches using common prioritisation systems for all elective surgeries in common. The other studies assessed specific prioritisation approaches for re-ordering the waiting list for a particular surgical specialty. Conclusions Explicit prioritisation tools with a standardised scoring system based on clear evidence-based criteria are likely to reduce waiting times and improve equitable access to health care. Multiple attributes need to be considered in defining a fair prioritisation system to overcome limitations with local variations and discriminations. Collating evidence from a diverse body of research provides a single framework to improve the quality and efficiency of elective surgical care provision in a variety of health settings. Universal prioritisation tools with vertical and horizontal equity would help with re-ordering patients on waiting lists for elective surgery and reduce waiting times.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,077 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».