Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre, City Hospital NHS Trust, Dudley Rd, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK
Correspondence to: Mr Graham Kirkby
| SUMMARY |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of consultants, 30% favoured pooled lists and 67% were against. Of patients, 82% favoured pooled lists and 18% were against. Of GPs, 92% favoured pooled lists and 8% were against. Some consultants thought that pooled lists were suitable for routine cases but not for more complex cases. 82% of patients expressed willingness to change consultant in order to get an earlier operation.
In units with surgeons whose cataract-surgery practices are similar, pooled lists are one way to maximize theatre use and equalize waiting times for routine cases. The model could be applied to other routine surgical procedures such as hip replacement, herniorrhaphy and prostatectomy.
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Every tenth GP from a list of 501 in Birmingham was contacted to participate in a telephone interview. In 6 instances the designated GP was unable to participate, and the eleventh for that position on the list was taken instead.
85 consecutive patients were interviewed prospectively by a nurse at listing for cataract surgery and all agreed to participate in the survey. They were recruited from general ophthalmology outpatient clinics rather than specialist clinics and were thus representative of general ophthalmology patients undergoing cataract surgery at the Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre. The questions were asked before they were given any information regarding their waiting time.
The full questionnaires are available on request. None of the participants were identifiable by the authors.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
40% of GPs referred cataract patients to a named consultant and 56% to the department in general; the remaining 4% might do either. 92% of GPs were happy for their patients to be transferred to an equally experienced surgeon if the operation would be done sooner. If the hypothetical waiting time was seven months and waiting time would be cut by one month, 88% would favour transfer; 4% would not switch unless the waiting time would come down by two or three months; and the remaining 8% would wish their patient to stay with the same surgeon whatever the wait (citing continuity of care, doctorpatient relationship and variation in surgical skills).
Of the 85 patients 55 were women and 30 men, mean age 75.7 years (range 50-93). 51 were Caucasian, 27 Asian and 7 African-Caribbean. When asked whether they would want their operation to be done sooner if performed by a surgeon of equal ability, 82% of patients said yes. If the waiting time was seven months then 79% would change consultant for a month's reduction in waiting time. 18% would not wish to change consultant at all. It is noteworthy that 73% of patients did not know the name of their designated consultant.
Table 2 summarizes opinions for and against pooling.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A limitation of this study is the small sample sizes for patients and GPs, but a national survey would have been logistically very difficult. The views of inner-city GPs and patients may not represent those in more rural locations with less busy hospitals. Another weakness is the low response rate (64%) in the consultant survey: we cannot know whether the views of non-responders were similar or different. This incomplete sample, however, seems to us preferable to a local survey of the 23 consultants who serve our centre.
Despite its limitations this survey does suggest that most consultant ophthalmologists are against pooling whereas most GPs favour it. Why the discrepancy? From comments appended to the questionnaire it seems that consultants, once they have seen a patient, feel strongly that their team should complete the treatment episode. Not to do so, they think, likens them to a technician on a production line. Also some reckon that if they have worked hard to reduce their own waiting list, pooling could paradoxically encourage lazy surgeons. For most patients, as for GPs, the main considerations are that the operation should be good and done soon. Most patients did not know their consultant's nameprobably because, for cataract surgery, contact with the consultant is short term. Consultants could find themselves isolated if they opposed pooling of waiting lists, as management drives forward greater throughput and efficiency. What we have found with cataract surgery could well be true of other routine operations such as hip replacement, herniorrhaphy and prostatectomy.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. Hodge, T. Horsley, D. Albiani, J. Baryla, M. Belliveau, R. Buhrmann, M. O'Connor, J. Blair, and E. Lowcock The consequences of waiting for cataract surgery: a systematic review Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 24, 2007; 176(9): 1285 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Black Surgical waiting lists are inevitable: time to focus on work undertaken J R Soc Med, April 1, 2004; 97(4): 159 - 160. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P Leach, S. Rutherford, A. King, and J. Leggate Generic waiting lists for routine spinal surgery J R Soc Med, March 1, 2004; 97(3): 119 - 120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Jones Pooled waiting lists J R Soc Med, February 1, 2003; 96(2): 102 - 102. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
How much do doctors know about consent and capacity? J R Soc Med, January 1, 2003; 96(1): 54 - 54. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||