Suppr超能文献

等候名单管理:优先标准还是先到先得?全关节置换的案例

Waiting list management: priority criteria or first-in first-out? A case for total joint replacement.

作者信息

Escobar Antonio, Quintana José M, González Marta, Bilbao Amaia, Ibañez Berta

机构信息

Research Unit, Hospital de Basurto, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Aug;15(4):595-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01056.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Total joint replacements are interventions with large waiting times from indication to the surgery management. These patients can be managed in two ways; first-in first-out or through a priority tool. The aim of this study was to compare real time on waiting list (TWL) with a priority criteria score, developed by our team, in patients awaiting joint replacement due to osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients placed on waiting list were eligible. Patients fulfilled a questionnaire which included items of our priority tool and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) specific questionnaire. Other priority items were extracted from the clinical history. The priority tool gives a score from 0 to 100 points, and three categories (urgent, preferent and ordinary). We studied the differences among categories and TWL by means of one-way analysis of variance. Correlational analysis was used to evaluate association among priority score and TWL and WOMAC baseline and gains at 6 months with priority score and TWL.

RESULTS

We have studied 684 patients. Women represented 62% of sample. The mean age was 70 years. There were not association between the categories of priority score and TWL (P = 0.12). The rho correlation coefficient between TWL and priority score was -0.11. Among baseline WOMAC scores and priority score, the rho coefficients were 0.79, 0.7 and 0.52 with function, pain and stiffness dimensions, respectively. There were differences in the mean scores of WOMAC dimensions according to the three priority categories (P < 0.001) but no with TWL categories. Data of gains in both health-related quality of life dimensions at 6 months were similar, with differences according to priority categories but no regarding TWL.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study support the necessity of implementing a prioritization system instead of the actual system if we want to manage the waiting list for joint replacement with clinical equity.

摘要

背景

全关节置换术是从适应症确定到手术管理等待时间较长的干预措施。这些患者可以通过两种方式进行管理:先到先得或通过优先工具。本研究的目的是比较骨关节炎患者等待关节置换时的实际等待时间(TWL)与我们团队开发的优先标准评分。

方法

连续列入等待名单的患者符合条件。患者填写一份问卷,其中包括我们优先工具的项目以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)特定问卷。其他优先项目从临床病史中提取。优先工具给出0至100分的评分以及三个类别(紧急、优先和普通)。我们通过单因素方差分析研究类别与TWL之间的差异。相关分析用于评估优先评分与TWL之间的关联以及WOMAC基线与6个月时优先评分和TWL的改善情况。

结果

我们研究了684例患者。女性占样本的62%。平均年龄为70岁。优先评分类别与TWL之间无关联(P = 0.12)。TWL与优先评分之间的rho相关系数为-0.11。在基线WOMAC评分与优先评分之间,功能、疼痛和僵硬维度的rho系数分别为0.79、0.7和0.52。根据三个优先类别,WOMAC维度的平均评分存在差异(P < 0.001),但与TWL类别无关。6个月时两个健康相关生活质量维度的改善数据相似,根据优先类别存在差异,但与TWL无关。

结论

研究结果支持,如果我们想以临床公平性管理关节置换等待名单,实施优先排序系统而非现行系统的必要性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验