Search

To explore the attitudes of clinicians working in New Zealand publicly funded hospitals towards prioritizing patients for elective surgery, and their reported use of clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC).A cross-sectional study using a postal questionnaire. The questionnaire drew on themes identified from an earlier qualitative study. Questions were closed and information was sought about perceptions of the need to prioritize patients, effective ways of doing so and the use of CPAC.New ZealandA national sample of cardiologists, cardiac, general and orthopaedic surgeons, and registrars.Three hundred and thirty-two clinicians responded to the survey (74.1%). Respondents generally agreed that a nationally consistent method of prioritizing patients for surgery was required but felt their clinical judgement was the most effective way of prioritizing patients. Current CPAC were considered to be administrative tools and there was marked variation in their reported use. Consistent use of CPAC using the constructs provided was more likely to be reported by cardiac specialists than general or orthopaedic surgeons. Other features of the hospital system in which surgeons worked also had a major impact on access to elective surgery.Clinicians recognized the need for a nationally consistent method of prioritizing patients. Although most did not consider current CPAC were effective in achieving this, many felt there was some potential in further development of tools. However, further development is problematic in the absence of objective measures of need and ability to benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore factors potentially influencing equitable access to elective surgery in New Zealand by describing clinicians' perceptions of equity and the factors they consider when prioritising patients for elective surgery. Methods: A qualitative study in selected New Zealand localities. A purposive sample of 49 general practitioners, specialists and registrars were interviewed. Data were analysed thematically. Results: General practitioners described unequal opportunities for patients to access primary and secondary care and, in particular, private sector elective surgery. They felt that socio-economically disadvantaged patients were less able to advocate for themselves and were more vulnerable to being lost to the elective surgical booking system as well as being less able to access private care. Both GPs and secondary care clinicians described situations where they would personally advocate for individual patients to improve their access. Advocacy was related to clinicians' perceptions of the 'value' that patients would receive from the surgery and patients' needs for public sector funding. Conclusions: The structure of the health system contributes to inequities in access to elective care in New Zealand. Subjective decision making by clinicians has the potential to advantage or disadvantage patients through the weighting clinicians place on socio-demographic factors when making rationing decisions. Review of the potential structural barriers to equitable access, further public debate and guidance for clinicians on the relative importance of socio-demographic factors in deciding access to rationed services are required for allocation of services to be fair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe the ways patients access elective surgery in New Zealand, and to understand the use of, and attitudes to, clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC) in determining access to publicly funded elective surgery. Methods: A qualitative study in selected New Zealand localities. A purposive sample of general practitioners, surgeons and administrators in publicly funded hospitals were interviewed. Data were analysed by a process of thematic analysis. Results: Sixty-five interviews were completed. General practitioners had a key role in determining which patients were seen in the public sector and, by utilising strategies to actively advocate for patients, influenced both waiting times for first assessment by surgeons and for surgery. CPAC had been developed as decision support guides with the intention that they would provide transparency and equity in determining access. However, there was variation in the way CPAC were being used both in score construction and in the influence of the score on access to surgery. The management of the hospital system also limited the extent to which CPAC could be used to prioritise patients for surgery. Conclusions: Variability in the use of CPAC tools meant that at the time of the study they did not provide a transparent and equitable method of determining access to surgery. This highlights the difficulties in developing and implementing CPAC and suggests that further development is difficult in the absence of evidence to identify patients who will benefit the most from surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]