Surgical waiting lists and queue management in a Brazilian tertiary public hospital

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3132903/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Surgical waiting lists and queue management in a Brazilian tertiary public hospital

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3132903/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Centralized management of queues helps to reduce the surgical waiting time in the publicly funded healthcare system, but this is not a reality in the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System.

Objectives

To describe the implementation of the "Patients with Surgical Indication" (PSI) in a Brazilian public tertiary hospital; To assess the impact on waiting time and its use in rationing oncological surgeries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Methods

Retrospective observational study of elective surgical requests (2016–2022) in a Brazilian general, public, tertiary university hospital. We recovered information regarding the inflows (indications), outflows and their reasons, the number of patients, and waiting time in queue.

Results

We enrolled 82,844 indications in the PSI (2016–2022). The waiting time (median and interquartile range) in days decreased from 98(48;168) in 2016 to 14(3;152) in 2022 (p < 0.01). The same occurred with the backlog that ranged from 6,884 in 2016 to 844 in 2022 (p < 001). During the Pandemic, there was a reduction in the number of non-oncological surgeries per month (95% confidence interval) of -10.9(-18.0;-3.8) during Phase I (January 2019-March 2020), maintenance in Phase II (April 2020-August 2021) 0.1(-10.0;10.4) and increment in Phase III (September 2021-December 2022) of 23.0(15.3;30.8). In the oncological conditions, these numbers were 0.6(-2.1;3.3) for Phase I, an increase of 3.2(0.7;5.6) in Phase II and 3.9(1 ,4;6,4) in Phase III.

Conclusion

Implementing a centralized list of surgical indications and developing queue management principles proved feasible, with effective rationing. It unprecedentedly demonstrated the decrease in the median waiting time in Brazil.

Hospital Administration

Surgery Department

Hospital

Waiting Lists

Operating Room Information Systems

Universal Access to Health Care Services

Barriers to Access of Health Services

health care

elective surgery

access

waiting time

waiting-list management

scheduling

modeling

The work addresses the strategies for unifying and centralizing the queue, the principles for its management and its use so that the institution could successfully adapt to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It demonstrates the rationing of surgical demand during the pandemic COVID-19, where the institution had to prioritize oncology patients.
It may support other Brazilian institutions and also the national interest in unifying surgical queues recently published in an ordinance of the Ministry of Health (Brazilian GM/MS No. 90, OF FEBRUARY 3, 2023 - Establishes the National Program for Reducing Queues for Elective Surgery, Complementary Examinations and Specialized Consultations).

Hospital surgical production is a complex process that involves several stages, from the organization of surgical teams, the availability of rooms and permanent and consumable material, to the organization of other care resources, such as intensive care beds (ICU). In addition, the complete pathway involves preoperative steps (pre-anesthetic consultation and surgical preparation) and postoperative care that vary according to the severity of the disease, size and nature of the surgical intervention, medical specialty involved, and patient conditions, whether related to health (comorbidities and clinical-functional vulnerability indices), locoregional residence, or socioeconomic factors.

Despite the complexity of the process, surgical procedures imply higher remuneration and a higher revenue volume for hospital entities. Besides, it also implies less variability in production for elective procedures and better control of direct and indirect costs. Elective surgical procedures precisely indicated and timely performed mitigate costs to health systems, decreasing "avoidable" urgencies. Furthermore, the surgical waiting time in Brazil is attracting public attention, who are demanding transparency. Managers should be attentive to all the previous statements to guarantee the quantity and quality of the production of elective surgeries.

Commonly, surgical teams are responsible for managing the flow of elective indication lists. The fragmentation of these lists in different specialties makes it difficult for hospital managers to have a global view. Moreover, centralizing the lists helps overcome this deficiency, including at the state or national level in countries with a public health system, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Spain^1–7. Brazil has a national interest in managing surgical queues, including establishing the National Program to Reduce Queues for Elective Surgery, Complementary Exams, and Specialized Consultations⁸.

Lists and surgical queues, considered synonyms, are rationing mechanisms in the absence of a market or the event of scarcity of resources. The unmet needs, inefficient management, or low productivity result in longer waiting times. For now, there are discussions about the poor distribution of hospital resources, little or no programming based on health needs, low management capacity, and questionable performance in the Brazilian Unified Health System (UHS). Even if we consider that most of the surgical requests waiting in the UHS⁹ are relevant, this interpretation may need reevaluation, at least in part, when one ignores the production and demand in health and does not question its relevance and the interests’ involved¹⁰.

However, one should distinguish the terms list and queue. Queuing theory supports this problematization in Little's Law, whose mathematical formula is "L = λ.W" where 'L' indicates the number of cases in a list, 'λ' the arrival rate (entry speed of cases patients on the list), and 'W' the average waiting time for production or delivery of the product (in the case under discussion, surgeries). Thus, the waiting list would be one of the components of the surgical queue. Managing the lists would be necessary to minimize the waiting time, the incoming flow of patients, and the production of services. The health system would achieve efficiency when acceptable waiting times were reached¹⁰.

In this sense, this article aims to describe the implementation process of a centralized list system for surgical indications and queue management in a Brazilian general, public, university, and tertiary hospital. It deals with a seven-year experience with solid results that helped the hospital institution to face the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We conducted a retrospective observational study on the database of surgical requests performed at Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto (HCFMRP-USP) between 2016 and 2022. The HCFMRP-USP is a state autarchy that is a tertiary reference for a population of 4.5 million inhabitants in the northeast of the State of São Paulo and the field of university education and teaching. The HCFMRP-USP performs highly complex procedures in different surgical areas, being a state and national reference for several procedures. The institution has more than 50 specialties and several highly complex qualifications, with 600 beds and 14 operating rooms, and an annual average of 13,930 surgeries (average for 2016–2019).

Until 2015, managing indications were exclusive to surgical teams, and the institution only evaluated production. As of 2016, the institution unified waiting lists for surgery by specialty in an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) module. The EMR is an in-housing development that allows the institution to update and customize it. The surgical queue module is designated "Patients with Surgical Indication" (PSI). After unifying all surgical lists into the system, a team could only schedule a patient for a surgical procedure if included in the PSI. Mandatory enrollment in the PSI ensured adherence to institutional guidelines. It allowed the centralized management of this list, removing requests that no longer had an indication (change of conduct or death) or those already operated. In this process, we developed queue management mechanisms, with rules for inserting and removing requests and guidelines for the systematic review of the queue management process, which became manuals available to the system user. We present the PSI's management principles in Table 1.

Table 1

–Patients with Surgery Indication (PSI) - System management principles
PIC Management Principles
1	Waiting list
		a) Mandatory - A patient can only have a surgical appointment if registered in the PSI system. b) Inclusion - Registration of surgical indications in the system by residents or attending physicians. c) Validation - Conduct verification process and prioritization carried out by the physician responsible for the specialty (coordinator or preceptor) who becomes the co-manager of the queue with the Administration.
2	Surgical Queue Management
		a) Co-management - Responsibility for controlling indications rests with the person in charge of the surgical specialty. The Administration does not interfere with the technical criteria or the order of surgical indication. It is up to the Administration to monitor the indicators of each specialty, conducting periodic discussions for necessary adjustments to guarantee the feasibility of the inserted demands. b) Monitoring indicators - Each specialty has access to its management level (patients indicated by the specialty), with information relevant to the indication date, the validity of the preoperative evaluation, etc. This mitigates comparisons or misuse of sensitive information across specialties. Based on the indicators, the validating physician can reposition the patient in the queue, advancing or delaying as necessary. Management has an overview and a view of each specialty for decision-making. c) Traceability - The system documents every change made to the list. There is space to insert observations regarding the patient's condition or logistical conditions (material availability, for example) that justify the change. If the patient has the indication removed, one should document the reason. d) Administrative use for offer management - Although the Administration does not interfere in the management of the queue from a technical point of view (pertinence of the indication and prioritization criteria), it is co-manager of the queue by guaranteeing resources that make it possible to carry out what was scheduled and by using the median waiting time for each specialty to offer vacancies to the SUS manager, managing the external demand. As a general rule, if the specialty has more than three times its available surgical capacity committed for the next six months, the offer is suspended.

Table 1

– Number of surgical indications (A), departures (B), and patients remaining (C) and waiting (D) with the median (interquartile range) of the length of stay in the queue in days according to the year.
		2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022
Indicated(A)		8830		16469		17303		15110		8376		10529		8534
Outflow (B)	Operated on	1714	88%	12846	77%	13443	83%	12280	79%	7254	85%	8969	73%	6489	84%
	Patient	31	2%	1165	7%	872	5%	945	6%	287	3%	849	7%	352	5%
	Team	37	2%	1565	9%	1027	6%	1199	8%	500	6%	1475	12%	532	7%
	Administrative	1	0%	121	1%	183	1%	186	1%	51	1%	97	1%	25	0%
	Duplicated	20	1%	236	1%	252	2%	230	1%	107	1%	266	2%	82	1%
	Previously operated	59	3%	586	3%	134	1%	421	3%	98	1%	255	2%	25	0%
	Death	84	4%	266	2%	296	2%	284	2%	258	3%	350	3%	185	2%
	Subtotal	1946		16785		16207		15545		8555		12261		7690
Backlog (C = A-B)		6884		-316		1096		-435		-179		-1732		844
Waiting in line (D = C (previous year) + C (Current year)		6884		6568		7664		7229		7050		5318		6162
Queuing time in days - median (interquartile range)		98(48;168)		58(6;195)		41(5;144)		44(4;175)		10(2;96)		13(3;393)		14(3;152)

Notes: Indications removed from the waiting list classified by reason – operated (surgery in the same year), patient (did not have conditions for the procedure on the day of surgery), team (interventions by the team responsible for cleaning the list), administrative ( central administration interventions), duplicate (patient had more than one indication in the queue), previously operated (without having been withdrawn in the relevant year) and death. Remaining ("Backlog") corresponds to the difference between those indicated and those who left the queue. Waiting corresponds to the sum of the backlog of the previous year with those indicated in the current year minus the patients withdrawn from the queue in that year.

The enrollment of patients in the system begins with the registration of the surgical request by the responsible medical professional (Applicant). By inserting patient identification in the solicitation form, demographic data are retrieved (gender, age, address), and the PSI provides information if the patient has already had a previous indication, if it has already been completed (surgery performed or indication suspended), or remains valid. If there is a pending indication, the requesting physician can decide whether to include the surgical procedure. Subsequently, the PSI requests data regarding the type of procedure indicated – International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10 code, necessary resources (image intensifier, special prostheses, etc.), and whether there is a need for postoperative care in the ICU. The applicant can assign immediate priority or a scale from 1 (highest) to 4 (lowest) for elective conditions. The "Immediate" condition refers only to conditions scheduled as elective, which became urgent during the waiting list. The institution deals with urgent referrals in another building unit of the HCFMRP-USP, located seven kilometers from the main structure. After insertion, there is a need for validation by the person in charge of the specialty (Validator), making him the queue manager in that specialty and co-responsible for managing the queues at the institution with the Administration.

The PSI has hierarchical indicators by prioritization level according to surgical specialty, allowing the Validator and the Administration to consult the queue condition by any variable of the registration form. It presents a queue organized by order of inclusion and prioritization by default. The validator can change the patient's order in the queue or remove the indication. The Administration can consult indicators and hold periodic meetings for adjustments with the queue manager (Validator) in their respective specialties to guarantee that the waiting time for surgery remains within the limit of up to 3 times the surgical capacity of each specialty. This goal resulted from the experience of 7 years in managing elective surgical queues at HCFMRP-USP. Furthermore, the PSI automatically deletes any request if the patient dies.

We merged PSI information with other EMR databases - surgical production data (surgery performance date, date, and reason for cancellation) and in-hospital outcomes (discharge, transfer, or death). With this unified database, we obtained information regarding inflows (indications), outflows and their reasons, the number of patients, and waiting time in the queue. It was possible to evaluate the behavior of these variables during the Pandemic.

We calculated the average waiting time in the queue as the difference between the indication date (inclusion in the PSI) and the exit date. We grouped the outflow reasons – surgery (surgery performed in the same year), patient (lack of conditions for the procedure on the day of surgery), team (change in conduct, interventions by the team responsible for managing the queue), administrative (central administration interventions), duplicate (patient had more than one indication on the list for the same procedure), previously operated (without having been withdrawn in the relevant year or referred to another institution) and death. We calculated the Backlog group as the difference between those remaining and those who left the queue according to the year. The number of waiting indications corresponds to the sum of the backlog from the previous year and those indicated in the current year minus the patients withdrawn from the queue.

We used STATA 15 for data analysis and figure construction. We used interrupt time series with Newey-West regression to analyze the impact of rationing oncology surgeries during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The institution´s Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (CAE 57670122.1.0000.5440).

We enrolled 82,844 requests in the PSI between 2016 and 2022. Of those, 8,830 (10.6%) indications were requested before 2016 and added to the PSI when it started.

Table 2 presents the results of the inflow, outflow, and number in the queue. The number in queuing resulted from the previous year's backlog to those requested in the current year minus those leaving the queue. For example, it started in 2016 with 8,830 requests, of which 1,946 were withdrawn from the queue (88% due to previously performed surgery). The backlog consisted of 6,884, which at that first moment corresponded to the number of patients in line. In 2017, the number of people in the queue was added to the indications (16,469) and subtracted from the exits (16,785; 12,846 operated), leaving 6,568 people in the queue. This process takes place progressively.

The length of stay in days (median and interquartile range) in the queue decreased from 98(48;168) days in 2016 to 14(3;152) days in 2022(p < 0.01) (Table 2). The centralized list and queue management allowed for a negative backlog in four of the seven years evaluated, three consecutive (2019–2021). In 2018, there was a positive backlog. However, from that year onwards, the offer of vacancies for surgery became restricted by the time spent in the queue, exemplifying the use of the queue to manage the offer to the UHS manager. In 2022, there was an increase in the number of remaining patients due to the need for screening for a surgeries campaign promoted by the São Paulo State Health Department. When we look at the 75% percentile of the interquartile range for the time spent in line, we see the same trend throughout the analyzed period, ranging from around 3 to 6 months, except for 2021 (393 days; 13 months).

Table 2 details the outflow reasons, mainly due to the proposed surgery (ranging from 73 to 88%). The reasons related to the patient (ranging from 2 to 7%) and the team (ranging from 2 to 12%) reached the highest percentages after the surgery being executed. The proportion of patients excluded for various reasons tended to remain constant. Figure 1 illustrates three queue sanitation promotion periods promoted by the Administration that increased the proportion of queue removal without surgery.

The management of the surgical queue allowed the institution to ration oncological surgeries during the most critical period of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure 2 illustrates surgical production in the first wave (Phase I – January 2019-March 2020), in the second wave (Phase II – April 2020-July 2021), and in the post-pandemic recovery (Phase III – August 2021-December 2022). When we observe the behavior of non-oncological surgeries, there was a reduction in the number of surgeries per month (95% confidence interval) of the order of -10.9(-18.0;-3.8) during Phase I, maintenance of the number of surgeries in Phase II 0.1(-10.0;10.4) and increment in Phase III 23.0(15.3;30.8). In the oncological conditions, these numbers were 0.6(-2.1;3.3) for Phase I, an increase of 3.2(0.7;5.6) in Phase II and 3.9(1 ,4;6,4) in Phase III (Fig. 2).

The central hypothesis for surgical queue generation is the imbalance between demand and capacity. Nevertheless, observation of the behavior of queues raises other hypotheses. If the demand were continuously greater than the capacity, the queues would grow exponentially, but one observes stability when a certain number of patients is reached in most queues¹¹. So, other hypotheses were proposed, such as the "Backlog" Theory, a period in which there was a marked imbalance between demand and capacity above expectation. This theory would support the proposal of corrective measures to adjust the waiting time in queues with a transient increase in capacity¹¹. In the present work, we observed the behavior of the backlog as described and the importance of interventions to limit its growth and adjust the waiting time in the queue.

Loss of surgical schedules due to patient non-attendance, lack of clinical conditions for surgery, or lack of ICU or ward beds for postoperative care could also be confounders¹². The factors arising from the patients were around 3 to 7% in the present study, consistent with what was observed by Hovlid et al.¹³. We reduced the impact of the lack of intensive care and ward beds through the intervention of the institution's Internal Regulation Nucleus (IRN)¹⁴.

The co-management of the queue with the elaborated criteria allowed the gradual reduction of the refractoriness of surgical specialties to list centralization and queue management. Teams can use long queues as an argument to get more appointments for their specialty². Procedures considered less challenging or less "urgent" are postponed by list managers¹. This phenomenon became known as "the inverse burden law of specialists"¹¹. We minimized these factors helping to obtain the resources for the procedures for those requests in the centralized list, and the specialties began to appreciate the proactive management mechanisms implemented by the Administration.

Although surgical queues have a negative connotation, they ensure transparency of the system's liability to solve and enable planning interventions. Although the disproportion between production capacity and demand recognition is very variable between healthcare systems and regions of the same system, as is the case of the UHS, all are susceptible to rationing periods. We demonstrated how effective prioritization helped manage priorities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Another advantage of surgical queues is scheduling according to the availability of resources, reducing the loss of surgical schedules due to lack of material, and better scheduling to ensure teaching. The opposition to these arguments is that a long surgical queue could cause harm to patients, in addition to anxiety and uncertainty about when the scheduling of the procedure.

The centralized queue management observed in this study showed an objective reduction in waiting time. Although the waiting time may be adequate for a given situation, the perception of time and acceptance of the waiting condition can generate dissatisfaction on the part of patients, leading to the search for internal or external administrative interventions or the search for the media. With the advent of information technology and social networks, some institutions seek to make the waiting process transparent by making the lists available on their websites. However, there is evidence that comparing queues made available by the institutions is difficult to interpret, as the management is peculiar to each institution¹⁵. Although data transparency is desirable, this process must consider Brazil's recently enforced General Data Protection Law.

Queue management must ensure the removal from the list of already operated patients or who no longer have an indication¹⁶. The internal audit has a proactive role, such as confirming the attendance of patients on the day of surgery, assessing whether the surgeries performed involved removing the patient from the queue, and relocating the surgical grid to avoid loss of schedules in case of unexpected cancellations.

In addition to these already implemented activities, there are other possibilities, such as establishing a pattern of acceptable queuing for each specialty and using artificial intelligence to identify predictors of this condition, allowing preventive action. Levy et al. point out the need to modify the paradigm of a list for managing waiting time to a tool that accompanies the preparation of patients for the surgical procedure¹⁷. It is noteworthy that the existence of a centralized queue management mechanism must have execution tools represented by the IRN or by case managers in order to guarantee the interventions.

The definition of an adequate waiting time for each type of surgery is still being determined. In the original conceptions of the British NHS, up to one year was accepted². Currently, the waiting time between the referral of the patient and the beginning of his treatment for elective circumstances is 18 months. For Canada, there is a recommendation of 4 to 17 weeks⁴. The waiting time in the queue can and should be variable for each condition. With the development of waiting lists, several specialties, and their societies recommend the average waiting time considered acceptable^18,19. Ballini et al. performed a systematic review to evaluate different strategies to reduce the waiting time for surgical procedures. The high heterogeneity of the collected data prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. However, the conclusions presented may help compare the individual conditions of each situation, even though they do not allow generalization²⁰. However, there are no data for all types of surgery, and no established standard for the Brazilian reality.

The COVID-19 Pandemic had overwhelming implications for the world and Brazil, with a significant increase in directly related mortality²¹. In addition, the redirection of the hospitals' capacity to face the enormous challenge had the reduction of the installed surgical capacity. Undoubtedly, the need of health professionals to compose additional intensive care teams was the main reason, but there was also fear of patients undergoing elective procedures, amplified by the association of COVID-19 with higher perioperative mortality²².

Regardless of the most significant factor, the reduction in surgical capacity increased the backlog of surgeries²³. Several institutions have described the most significant impact on surgeries whose delay implied less risk of life or loss of function^24–26. Among these initiatives, the implementation of surgical lists or priority changes are cited as strategies^27–29. We confirmed the prioritization of oncological surgeries as an efficient strategy when the institution faced a decrease in its general surgical capacity to cover all the Pandemic's demands.

This work is limited because external referral urgent surgeries were managed in another hospital, which does not occur in other services³⁰. However, during the Pandemic, several elective surgeries on hold became emergencies, and there was a need to balance the demand daily. This could have mimicked in a fashion the competition between the programmed and the urgent in walk-in institutions.

The unified management of the surgical queue at a tertiary public hospital proved feasible and required the development of co-management principles. These principles allowed for reducing the median waiting time in the queue and prioritizing patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic to achieve institutional goals.

This is the first study of a centralized list and management of the surgical waiting queue in Brazil. The guidelines developed open the possibility of replication for other services and may contribute to national centralization, as observed in other countries.

Although the results are specific to the institution, they certify that the centralization of the list and queue management are essential strategies for managing surgical teams, internal auditing, and improving the performance of hospital institutions. Efforts to implement the list and the queue simultaneously affected the organization of resources and the provision and programming of services to the UHS manager, improving institutional results and, consequently, the region. In this sense, its constancy and improvement actively contribute to ensuring equity in the SUS.

Acknowledgments – None to disclaim

Funding – None to disclaim

Conflict of Interest Statement – All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Jennett B. WAITING LISTS: A SURGEON’S RESPONSE. The Lancet. 1987,329(8536):796-797. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92813-3
Mills RP, Heaton JM. Waiting List Initiatives: Crisis Management or Targeting of Resources? J R Soc Med. 1991,84(7):405-407. doi:10.1177/014107689108400709
Pope CJ, Roberts JA, Black NA. Dissecting a Waiting List. Health Serv Manage Res. 1991,4(2):112-119. doi:10.1177/095148489100400204
Amoko DHA, Modrow RE, Tan JKH. Surgical Waiting Lists I: Definition, Desired Characteristics and Uses. Healthc Manage Forum. 1992,5(2):17-22. doi:10.1016/S0840-4704(10)61201-X
Amoko DHA, Modrow RE, Tan JKH. Surgical Waiting Lists II: Current Practices and Future Directions Using the Province of British Columbia as a Test Study. Healthc Manage Forum. 1992,5(4):34-39. doi:10.1016/S0840-4704(10)61316-6
Curtis AJ, Stoelwinder JU, McNeil JJ. Management of waiting lists needs sound data. Medical Journal of Australia. 2009,191(8):423-424. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02875.x
Julián AMP. Real Decreto 605/2003, de 23 de mayo, por el que se establecen medidas para el tratamiento homogéneo de la información sobre las listas de espera en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Published online April 23, 2003. Accessed March 2, 2023. https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2003/BOE-A-2003-11266-consolidado.pdf
Lima NT. PORTARIA GM/MS N^o 90, DE 3 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2023 - Institui o Programa Nacional de Redução das Filas de Cirurgias Eletivas, Exames Complementares e Consultas Especializadas. Published online February 6, 2023. Accessed March 2, 2023. https://www.netoferreira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PORTARIA-GM_MS-No-90-DE-3-DE-FEVEREIRO-DE-2023.pdf
Campos FCC de, Canabrava CM. O Brasil na UTI: atenção hospitalar em tempos de pandemia. Saúde debate. 2020,44(spe4):146-160. doi:10.1590/0103-11042020e409
Bernal E, López-Valcárcel BG, Peiró S, Pinilla J. Revisitando las listas de espera sanitarias (1): el retorno de un problema crónico. Revisitando las listas de espera sanitarias (1): el retorno de un problema crónico. Published February 28, 2023. Accessed March 2, 2023. https://nadaesgratis.es/beatriz-gonzalez-lopez-valcarcel/77801
Mullen PM. Waiting Lists in the Post-Review NHS. Health Serv Manage Res. 1994,7(2):131-145. doi:10.1177/095148489400700206
Cregan PC. The easiest cut: managing elective surgery in the public sector. Medical Journal of Australia. 2005,182(12):605-606. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06842.x
Hovlid E, Bukve O, Haug K, Aslaksen AB, von Plessen C. A new pathway for elective surgery to reduce cancellation rates. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012,12(1):154. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-154
Ferreira AJ, Laurindo MC, Moraes A de A, et al. A implantação do Núcleo Interno de Regulação em Hospital Público Terciário. RMRP. 2019,52(1):16-23. doi:10.11606/issn.2176-7262.v52i1p16-23
Cromwell D, Griffiths D. Waiting time information services: what are the implications of waiting list behaviour for their design? Aust Health Review. 2002,25(4):40. doi:10.1071/AH020040a
Mason A. The emerging role of clinical audit. Clin Med. 2002,2(4):294-296. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.2-4-294
Levy N, Selwyn DA, Lobo DN. Turning ‘waiting lists’ for elective surgery into ‘preparation lists.’ British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2021,126(1):1-5. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.08.021
Mascarenhas R. The Manitoba arthroplasty waiting list: impact on health-related quality of life and initiatives to remedy the problem. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2009,15(1):208-211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00985.x
Sobolev B. Modeling and Analysis of Multistate Access to Elective Surgery. Health Care Management Science. 2001,4:125-132.
Ballini L, Negro A, Maltoni S, et al. Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015:CD005610.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005610.pub2
Ranzani OT, Bastos LSL, Gelli JGM, et al. Characterisation of the first 250 000 hospital admissions for COVID-19 in Brazil: a retrospective analysis of nationwide data. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2021,9(4):407-418. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30560-9
Brown WA, Moore EM, Watters DA. Mortality of patients with COVID-19 who undergo an elective or emergency surgical procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2021,91(1-2):33-41. doi:10.1111/ans.16500
Carr A, Smith JA, Camaradou J, Prieto-Alhambra D. Growing backlog of planned surgery due to covid-19. BMJ. Published online February 9, 2021:n339. doi:10.1136/bmj.n339
Lin PF, Naveed H, Eleftheriadou M, Purbrick R, Zarei Ghanavati M, Liu C. Cataract service redesign in the post-COVID-19 era. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021,105(6):745-750. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316917
Chang J, Wignadasan W, Kontoghiorghe C, et al. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020,1(6):5.
Dirie J, Mahesan T, Hart E, et al. Delivering safe and timely cancer care during COVID‐19: lessons and successes from the transition period. BJU Int. 2021,127(6):633-635. doi:10.1111/bju.15343
Rathnayake D, Clarke M, Jayasinghe VI. Health system performance and health system preparedness for the post-pandemic impact of COVID-19: A review. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2021,14(1):250-254. doi:10.1080/20479700.2020.1836732
Valente R, Di Domenico S, Mascherini M, et al. A new model to prioritize waiting lists for elective surgery under the COVID-19 pandemic pressure. British Journal of Surgery. 2021,108(1):e12-e14. doi:10.1093/bjs/znaa028
O’Rielly C, Ng-Kamstra J, Kania-Richmond A, et al. Surgery and COVID-19: a rapid scoping review of the impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on surgical services. BMJ Open. 2021,11(6):e043966. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043966
Nasr A, Reichardt K, Fitzgerald K, Arumugusamy M, Keeling P, Walsh TN. Impact of emergency admissions on elective surgical workload. Ir J Med Sci. 2004,173(3):133-135. doi:10.1007/BF03167926

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Surgical waiting lists and queue management in a Brazilian tertiary public hospital

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Highlights

BACKGROUND

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1