Clinicians' reported use of clinical priority assessment criteria and their attitudes to prioritization for elective surgery: A cross-sectional survey
posted by Research Admin on 20 April 2010
Year of Publication
ANZ Journal of Surgery, 74(11), 1003-1009
Journal article (peer reviewed)
This cross-sectional study used a postal questionnaire to explore the attitudes of clinicians working in New Zealand publicly funded hospitals towards prioritising patients for elective surgery, and their reported use of clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC). Three hundred and thirty-two clinicians (cardiologists, cardiac, general and orthopaedic surgeons, and registrars) responded to the survey (74.1%). Respondents generally agreed that a nationally consistent method of prioritising patients for surgery was required but felt their clinical judgement was the most effective way of prioritising patients. Current CPAC were considered to be administrative tools, with marked variation in their reported use. Clinicians recognised the need for a nationally consistent method of prioritising 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, the authors note that further development is problematic in the absence of objective measures of need and ability to benefit.
Type of Study