Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Pooled surgical waitlists are used to maximize the use of surgical resources; however, patients’ views of this strategy are poorly understood. We sought to evaluate patients’ attitudes toward a pooled waitlist for urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures.
Methods
Patient and provider focus groups were used to inform the design of a survey that was distributed to patients at the time of consent for female pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. All responses were collected anonymously. Patient attitudes toward surgical wait times and the potential for a pooled surgical waitlist were explored. Grouped responses by age, procedure type, and perceived disease severity were examined.
Results
One hundred seventy-six patients were surveyed. Thirty-four percent were amenable to the option of a pooled surgical waitlist; 86% agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred to have their surgery performed by their own care provider. Only 18% would agree to be on a pooled surgical waitlist if it shortened their wait time. Older women (≥ 65 years) were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that they “would like the option of having surgery done by the next available skilled surgeon” (56.2% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.028). Self-perceived severe disease and mid-urethral sling surgery were not associated with a higher acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists.
Conclusions
Acceptance of pooled surgical waitlists among urogynecology patients was overall low, irrespective of disease severity. Improving our understanding of urogynecology patients’ concerns and potentially negative perceptions of surgical waitlists is needed to ensure patient comfort and satisfaction are not compromised if this strategy is adopted.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
07 December 2019
Table 3 in the originally published article contains layout error. Corrected Table 3 shown below.
References
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6.
Hudon T, Milan A. Canadian Electronic Library (Firm) Women in Canada: a gender-based statistical report: senior women. https://login.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/login?url=http://books.scholarsportal.info/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_cppc-chrc/2017-10-02/7/10088699. https://login.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/login?url=http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10088699. http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000399.pdf. Accessed 10088699 CaOOCEL.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Surgical Wait Times. Ontario Ministry of Health and long-term care. 2019. http://www.ontariowaittimes.com. Accessed 3 March 2019.
Kirby M, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Review of Ontario’s Wait Time Information System a report commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. 2007.
Ramchandani M, Mirza S, Sharma A, Kirkby G. Pooled cataract waiting lists: views of hospital consultants, general practitioners and patients. J R Soc Med. 2002;95(12):598–600.
Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative. Pooled referrals: implementation guide for specialists. 2013. http://www.sasksurgery.ca/pdf/pooled-referrals-implentation-guide-feb-2013.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2016.
Damani Z, Conner-Spady B, Nash T, Tom Stelfox H, Noseworthy TW, Marshall DA. What is the influence of single-entry models on access to elective surgical procedures? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012225.
Tincello DG, Owen RK, Slack MC, Abrams KR. Validation of the patient global impression scales for use in detrusor overactivity: secondary analysis of the RELAX study. BJOG. 2013;120(2):212–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12069.
Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.
Halliday J, Holsgrove D. Pooling and patient satisfaction in non-instrumented lumbar decompressive surgery. Br J Neurosurg. 2019;33(1):8–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2018.1527014.
Conner-Spady B, Sanmartin C, Johnston G, McGurran J, Kehler M, Noseworthy T. Willingness of patients to change surgeons for a shorter waiting time for joint arthroplasty. CMAJ. 2008;179(4):327–32. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071659.
Anell A, Rosen P, Hjortsberg C. Choice and participation in the health services: a survey of preferences among Swedish residents. Health Policy. 1997;40(2):157–68.
Conner-Spady BL, Johnston GH, Sanmartin C, McGurran JJ, Noseworthy TW, Gr SWREW. A bird can’t fly on one wing: patient views on waiting for hip and knee replacement surgery. Health Expect. 2007;10(2):108–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00425.x.
Kalda R, Polluste K, Lember M. Patient satisfaction with care is associated with personal choice of physician. Health Policy. 2003;64(1):55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00160-4.
Siproudhis L, Vilotte J. Who suffers from fecal incontinence? Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2006;30(1):7–8.
Buckley BS, Lapitan MC. Prevalence of urinary and faecal incontinence and nocturnal enuresis and attitudes to treatment and help-seeking amongst a community-based representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63(4):568–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01974.x.
Fritel X, Panjo H, Varnoux N, Ringa V. The individual determinants of care-seeking among middle-aged women reporting urinary incontinence: analysis of a 2273-woman cohort. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(7):1116–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22461.
Farage MA, Miller KW, Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Psychosocial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged population: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277(4):285–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0505-3.
Johnson TM 2nd, Kincade JE, Bernard SL, Busby-Whitehead J, Hertz-Picciotto I, DeFriese GH. The association of urinary incontinence with poor self-rated health. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(6):693–9.
Desseauve D, Proust S, Carlier-Guerin C, Rutten C, Pierre F, Fritel X. Evaluation of long-term pelvic floor symptoms after an obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) at least one year after delivery: a retrospective cohort study of 159 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2016;44(7–8):385–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.05.007.
Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N. Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56(531):743–8.
Lehman M, Jacob S, Delaney G, Papadatos G, Jalaludin B, Cail S, et al. Waiting times for radiotherapy—a survey of patients’ attitudes. Radiother Oncol. 2004;70(3):283–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2004.01.012.
Collinson A, Furst J. Vaginal mesh ban can be lifted with changes, NICE says. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47735253 Accessed April 20 2019.
Scutti S. FDA bans sales of transvaginal mesh amid safety concerns. 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/health/transvaginal-pelvic-mesh-fda-bn/index.html.
Zafar A, Ouellet V. Women with pelvic mesh complications face higher depression risk. Canadian Broadcasting Agency. 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pelvic-mesh-depression-1.4971951. Accessed 20 April 2019.
Karmakar D, Hayward L. What can we learn from the vaginal mesh story? Climacteric. 2019;22(3):277–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2019.1575355.
Koo K, Gormley EA. Transvaginal mesh in the media following the 2011 US food and drug administration public health notification update. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(2):329–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22923.
Service NH. Surgical never events: learning from 38 cases occurring in English hospitals between April 2016 and March 2017. 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
Khalil: speaker’s honoraria from Pfizer, Allergan, Astellas, and Duchesnay.
Clancy and Zee have no disclosures of conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original version of this article was revised: Table 3 in the originally published article contains layout error. Corrected Table 3 is shown in the Correction article.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 16 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zee, R.A., Clancy, A.A. & Khalil, H. Patient attitudes toward pooled surgical waitlists in urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J 31, 311–317 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04050-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04050-4