PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10115535

Dissecting a waiting list.

Abstract

This study examines a list of 1,283 patients waiting for general and orthopaedic surgery in an outer London borough. In general surgery varicose vein and hernia surgery accounted for 60% of those waiting more than one year. Of those who had waited more than a year on the orthopaedic list 25% were waiting for knee replacement surgery. The average length of time spent waiting was 10 months, with some people waiting over 5 years. The impact of the numbers waiting a long time on aggregate waiting time was highlighted by weighting the numbers waiting by the months spent waiting. Analysis of urgency codes indicates that although there was a statistically significant relationship between urgency and the length of waiting time there were some anomalies. There was considerable inter-consultant variation in list size, waiting times and the case mix. Analysis of the flows onto the list and work done in one month showed that it would take a considerable time to clear some lists at present rates of activity. Disaggregated information such as this which explores the flows of patients on to and off of the lists is essential for the management of waiting lists and will become increasingly important as waiting lists become a feature of--'contracts'--service agreements, in the reformed NHS.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C J Pope, J A Roberts, N A Black. 1991. Dissecting a waiting list.. https://doi.org/10.1177/095148489100400204

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Probability estimation when some observations are grouped.

This paper considers the use of additional questions for decreasing survey non-response rates and an approach for estimating a probability based on the results obtained. In a survey, the respondents are asked to answer an original question and follow-up questions, where the answers for the follow-up questions are grouped answers for the original question. For example, respondents are asked to provide an exact number of incidents, but in cases of 'Do not know' or 'Refuse' responses, they are subsequently asked to pick an answer from a less specific categorical scale. The new estimator obtains smaller variance asymptotically and does not depend on a distribution family. This method is applied to income questions in a survey regarding injury prevention and behaviours. Another application is survey data on intimate partner violence, where some amendments were applied for incorporating post-stratification weights and for using non-random grouping. For additional illustration, an example of parameter estimation on artificially generated data is presented.

Data Collection↗