Abstract
Background: Policies assigning low-priority patients treatment delays for care, in order to make room for patients of higher priority arriving later, are common in secondary healthcare services today. Alternatively, each new patient could be granted the first available appointment. We aimed to investigate whether prioritisation can be part of the reason why waiting times for care are often long, and to describe how departments can improve their waiting situation by changing away from prioritisation. Methods: We used patient flow data from 2015 at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. In Dynaplan Smia, Dynaplan AS, dynamic simulations were used to compare how waiting time, size and shape of the waiting list, and capacity utilisation developed with and without prioritisation. Simulations were started from the actual waiting list at the beginning of 2015, and from an empty waiting list (simulating a new department with no initial patient backlog). Results: From an empty waiting list and with capacity equal to demand, waiting times were built 7 times longer when prioritising than when not. Prioritisation also led to poor resource utilisation and short-lived effects of extra capacity. Departments where prioritisation is causing long waits can improve their situation by temporarily bringing capacity above demand and introducing "first come, first served" instead of prioritisation. Conclusion: A poor appointment allocation policy can build long waiting times, even when capacity is sufficient to meet demand. By bringing waiting times down and going away from prioritisation, the waiting list size and average waiting times at the studied department could be maintained almost 90% below the current level – without requiring permanent change in the capacity/demand ratio.
Highlights
At the end of 2015, 229 000 patients (4.4% of the population of about 5 million) were waiting for care in secondary health services in Norway.[1]
Our results indicate that the concept of ideal size and shape of the waiting list could be useful as the basis for target setting and incentives for waiting list management in secondary healthcare
For each method we investigated how appointment allocation policies that assign appointments based on priority (PRI) perform compared to not prioritising with regards to (i) size of waiting list, (ii) cumulative patient waiting time, (iii) cumulative unused capacity, and (iv) shape of waiting list
Summary
At the end of 2015, 229 000 patients (4.4% of the population of about 5 million) were waiting for care in secondary health services in Norway.[1]. Shorter waiting times could save patients from suffering and health loss, and society from loss of production and costs related to sickness benefits
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.