Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp 492–498 | Cite as

Placing patients in the queue for coronary surgery

Do age and work status alter canadian specialists’ decisions?
  • C. David Naylor
  • Carey M. Levinton
  • Ronald S. Baigrie
  • Bernard S. Goldman
Original Articles

Abstract

Objective:To determine the effects of age and work status on whether and where cardiovascular specialists would place hypothetical patients in the queue for coronary surgery.

Materials and methods:Mailed survey presenting a set of clinical scenarios either to be rated on a scale with 7 time frames for urgency of need or to be designated as questionable/inappropriate for intervention. The basic scenario was a patient with mild-moderate stable angina, good left ventricular function, and limited coronary disease; operative risks and stress test results were varied. Three identifiers were used: “45-year-old civil servant gainfully employed”; “45-year-old laborer disabled by angina, faces job loss”; and “75-year-old retiree, angina limits golf.”

Participants:Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons practicing in five Ontario medical centers (n=120).

Results:There was a 59% response rate (120 usable responses). Large shifts in willingness to intervene occurred in favor of the disabled laborer (p<0.0001) and against the retiree (p-value ranges from 0.04 to <0.0001, depending on operative risk and stress test results), but not for the employed civil servant. Striking effects (p<0.0001) were also evident in ratings of waiting time, with the order of priority being the disabled laborer first, the civil servant second, and the retiree last. The overall mean shift due to work status or age was equal to, or larger than, the mean shift due to clinical factors, such as stress test results, changes in severity of stable angina, and extent of coronary disease.

Conclusion:Cardiovascular specialists may place considerable weight on age and work status in determining urgency and appropriateness of coronary revascularization. Risk-benefit concerns may partly explain shifting thresholds for intervention, but not differential waiting times. The influence of these factors should be sought in utilization audits and addressed from an ethical perspective.

Key words

rationing waiting lists appropriateness coronary artery bypass grafting health policy coronary revascularization decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kaminski VL, Sibbald WJ, Davis EM. Investigation of cardiac surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario: final report (appendix 11). Mimeo, 15 February 1989:24–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, Basinski A, Revascularization Panel, Consensus Methods Group. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularization procedures. Lancet. 1990;335:1070–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Naylor CD, Basinski A, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, Lomas J. Placing patients in the queue for coronary revascularization: evidence for practice variations from an expert panel process. Am J Public Health. 1990;80:1246–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 1986;2:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986;76:766–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chassin MR, Park RE, Fink A, et al. Indications for selected medical and surgical procedures—a literature review and ratings of appropriateness: coronary artery bypass graft surgery (RAND R-3204/2CWF/HF/PMT/RWJ). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naylor CD. A different view of queues in Ontario. Health Aff (Millwood). 1991;10:110–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naylor CD, Levinton CM, Baigrie RS. Adapting to waiting lists for coronary revascularization: do Canadian specialists agree on which patients come first? Chest. 1992;101:715–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris [letter]. Circulation. 1976;54:522–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris AL, Roos LL, Brazauskas R, Bedard D. Managing scarce services. A waiting list approach to cardiac catheterization. Med Care. 1990;28:784–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naylor CD, Linton AL. Allocation of health care resources: a challenge for the medical profession. Can Med Assoc J. 1986;134:333–40.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aaron H, Schwartz WB. Rationing health care: the choice before us. Science. 1990;247:418–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American College of Physicians. Access to health care. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:641–61.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brook RH, Kosecoff JB, Park RE, Chassin MR, Winslow CM, Hampton JR. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: comparison of doctors’ attitudes in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 1988;1:750–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gray D, Hampton JR, Bernstein SJ, Kosecoff JB, Brook RH. An audit of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass surgery in the Trent region based on ratings of appropriateness. Lancet. 1990;335:1317–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. David Naylor
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Carey M. Levinton
    • 1
  • Ronald S. Baigrie
    • 3
  • Bernard S. Goldman
    • 4
  1. 1.the Clinical Epidemiology UnitSunnybrook Health Science Centre and the University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.the Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal MedicineSunnybrook Health Science Centre and the University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.the Department of Medicine, Division of CardiologySunnybrook Health Science Centre and the University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.the Department of Surgery, Cardiovascular DivisionSunnybrook Health Science Centre and the University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations