PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10179454

Waiting lists. The wrong target.

Abstract

The numbers now waiting for treatment in the NHS are more than double what they were in 1948 despite huge increases in activity. Increased activity has not reduced the time patients wait. Mean waiting times in the 1990s were 13-14 weeks, the same as in the 1960s and 1970s. An increase in activity to reduce the numbers waiting for treatment may, in fact, increase the number being put on the waiting list. Government targets should concentrate on how long individual patients have to wait, rather than reducing the numbers on the waiting list.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Hamblin, A Harrison, S Boyle. 1998-04-02. Waiting lists. The wrong target.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10179454/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

If the NHS introduced a '50 procedures a year' policy, what proportion of consultant firms would be affected?

BACKGROUND: Governments, insurers, quality assurance agencies and others have used the higher volume = better quality relationship as a basis for health policy. This relationship is probably real enough to justify these policies. However, even if it were not real, there are other reasons why these and other organizations such as the National Health Service (NHS) may favour high-volume providers. This paper attempts to answer the question: 'If, for common elective procedures, the NHS instituted a high-volume purchasing policy that requires consultant firms to perform a minimum of "50 procedures a year", what proportion of consultant firms would be affected?' The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of NHS consultant firms that perform common elective procedures less than 50 times a year and to estimate the proportion of firms that would have to stop providing these procedures if a '50 procedures a year' purchasing policy were introduced. METHOD: A descriptive analysis was carried out and modelling was performed on data stored in an NHS health episode statistics database of patients treated in West Midlands NHS facilities. For each of 12 common elective procedures we assumed that a volume threshold of at least 50 a year were set, and calculated the proportion of NHS consultant firms undertaking each procedure who performed less than 50 of those procedures each year and the proportion of firms who would have had to stop providing each procedure. RESULTS: All firms performing some procedures, e.g. cataract extraction, did so at least 50 times a year. By contrast, no firm repaired more than 50 recurrent inguinal hernias a year. If a volume threshold of at least 50 procedures a year were set for a basket of 12 common elective procedures, then about 40 per cent of firms would no longer be eligible to provide a procedure. Even if a lower 'one a month' threshold were set, about 20 per cent of firms would still not be eligible to provide that procedure. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a high-volume policy would affect a considerable number of firms, as many NHS consultant firms perform some common elective procedures infrequently. Some consultants would see the introduction of a high-volume policy as an opportunity to further specialize and super-specialize. Others would see it as a policy that restricts them to providing a narrower range of procedures, makes their professional practice less interesting, and reduces their professional autonomy. Postgraduate training institutions need to consider the possibility and implications of high-volume policies, as many junior doctors would probably need to learn to provide a narrower range of skills than at present.

Elective Surgical Procedures↗

Separating elective and emergency surgical care (the emergency team).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence on general surgical activity following the separation of elective from emergency surgical care in one large teaching hospital. A prospective audit of elective and emergency general surgical activity between 1994 and 1999 inclusive was carried out. Elective and emergency surgical activity was separated in January 1996, with a dedicated 'Emergency Team' of one consultant for one week, two registrars, two senior house officers and four house officers for two weeks, in addition to a 20 bed acute admission ward and a 24 hour emergency theatre. The consultant cancelled the majority of his/her elective work during the on-call week. A prospective collection was made of all elective and emergency operations carried out between 1994 and 1999 using the Lothian Surgical Audit system. Out of hours operative activity was analysed retrospectively from data collected using the Operating Room Schedule of Surgery (ORSOS) and outpatient clinic and day case activity collected from the Hospital Administration System. Comparisons were made between years 1994/1995 and 1996/7/8/9. Emergency surgical admissions rose by 86% from 1973 patients in 1994 to 3675 in 1999. During the same period, elective in-patient activity remained fairly steady, but there was an increase in day surgery from 469 to 2089 cases per annum. Despite the on-call consultant cancelling his/her outpatient clinics, overall outpatient activity also increased from 9911 to 12,335. However a proportion of this reflects the appointment of two new consultants in April 1998. Emergency operations increased from 941 in 1994 to 1351 in 1999, with a two-fold reduction in operations carried out between 0000-0800 hours from 16% in 1994 to 7.9% in 1999. A separate and dedicated 'Emergency Team' is an efficient method of managing acute general surgical admissions. It permits elective work to carry on uninterrupted, reduces the number of operations performed after midnight, and provides a better environment for teaching and training. This scenario might also be applicable to other medical specialties who have a large emergency commitment.

Elective Surgical Procedures↗