Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patient attitudes toward pooled surgical waitlists in urogynecology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 07 December 2019

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

  1. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siproudhis L, Vilotte J. Who suffers from fecal incontinence? Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2006;30(1):7–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Service NH. Surgical never events: learning from 38 cases occurring in English hospitals between April 2016 and March 2017. 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hisham Khalil.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04050-4

Keywords

Navigation