Suppr超能文献

白内障优先排序的公平性如何?

How fair is cataract prioritisation?

作者信息

Halliwell T

机构信息

Wellington Hospital.

出版信息

N Z Med J. 1998 Oct 23;111(1076):405-7.

PMID:9830430
Abstract

AIM

The purpose of the study was to examine the reliability of cataract prioritisation assessments.

METHOD

Thirty-nine subjects awaiting cataract surgery were independently assessed by two examiners, each using two different prioritisation forms, to assign priority scores. The scores obtained by the two examiners were analysed for consistency.

RESULTS

The scores awarded to the same subjects by different examiners varied by as much as 26 points (out of a possible 100).

CONCLUSIONS

The current cataract assessment process is inconsistent and of questionable validity for establishing a prioritised list of individuals awaiting cataract surgery. The policy of setting a rigid threshold score, below which patients do not qualify for surgery in the public sector, is inequitable and must be reviewed in the interests of fair delivery of health care. Prioritisation methods for other disorders should be reviewed to determine their validity.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在检验白内障优先次序评估的可靠性。

方法

39名等待白内障手术的受试者由两名检查人员独立评估,每人使用两种不同的优先次序评估表来分配优先分数。分析两名检查人员获得的分数的一致性。

结果

不同检查人员给同一受试者的分数差异高达26分(满分100分)。

结论

目前的白内障评估过程不一致,对于确定等待白内障手术的患者优先名单的有效性存在疑问。设定严格的阈值分数(低于该分数患者在公共部门无资格接受手术)的政策不公平,必须从公平提供医疗保健的角度进行审查。应审查其他疾病的优先排序方法以确定其有效性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验