PubMed · 10308064
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E J Posavac, R G Carey. 1978. Trading evaluative specificity for statistical power.. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327877800100207
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Why waiting lists arise and how to address them remains unclear, and an improved understanding of these waiting list "dynamics" could lead to better management. The purpose of this study is to understand how the current shortage in radiation therapy in Ontario developed; the implications of prolonged waits; who is held accountable for managing such delays; and short, intermediate, and long-term solutions. METHODS: A case study of the radiation therapy shortage in 1998-99 at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Relevant documents were collected; semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with ten administrators, health care workers, and patients were conducted, audio-taped and transcribed; and relevant meetings were observed. RESULTS: The radiation therapy shortage arose from a complex interplay of factors including: rising cancer incidence rates; broadening indications for radiation therapy; human resources management issues; government funding decisions; and responsiveness to previous planning recommendations. Implications of delays include poorer cancer control rates; patient suffering; and strained doctor-patient relationships. An incompatible relationship exists between moral responsibility, borne by government, and legal liability, borne by physicians. Short-term solutions include re-referral to centers with available resources; long-term solutions include training and recruiting health care workers, improving workload standards, increasing compensation, and making changes to the funding formula. CONCLUSION: Human resource planning plays a critical role in the causes and solutions of waiting lists. Waiting lists have harsh implications for patients. Accountability relationships require realignment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The individual prognosis of a patient with gastrointestinal cancer is determined by a number of clinical and biological factors. The most relevant prognostic factors are those that can be influenced by the surgeon himself. The completeness of tumor resection, the so-called residual tumor status on the level of the primary tumor in all three dimensions and on the level of the lymphatic drainge is the outstanding factor with an independent influence on the survival of the patient. In addition, the principles of blood-saving preparation with avoidance of blood transfutions, the consideration of no-touch isolation and the complication-free postoperative course have been shown to be independent prognostic factors that can be influenced by the surgeon. There is clear evidence that the hospital volume and the experience of the surgeons, expressed by the number of cases (caseload) in a specific field, has a strong impact on the outcome of a surgical treatment in gastrointestinal cancer patients. To optimize the prognosis of a patient with gastrointestinal cancer one should consider all therapy-related prognostic factors, and therapeutic modalities should be scheduled after a consensus conference (tumor board) of all therapeutic fields involved in the treatment of cancer.