Rheumatology 2000; 39: 369-376
© 2000 British Society for Rheumatology
Does waiting matter? A randomized controlled trial of new non-urgent rheumatology out-patient referrals
Rheumatology Unit, Western General Hospital NHS Trust, Crewe Road, Edinburgh EH4 2XU,
1 Department of Public Health Sciences, Teviot Place, University of Edinburgh and
2 Ayrshire & Arran Health Board, Boswell House, 10 Arthur Street, Ayr KA7 1QJ, UK
Objective. To examine the effect of waiting times on the health status of patients referred for a non-urgent rheumatology opinion.
Methods. The study was a randomized controlled clinical study evaluating a ‘fast track’ appointment with a 6-week target waiting time against an ‘ordinary’ appointment in the main city out-patient clinic of the rheumatology service for the Lothian and Borders region (population ~1 million). Health status was measured using the SF12 physical and mental summary component T-scores and pain was measured with a 100 mm visual analogue pain scale. Secondary outcomes were health utility and perceived health both measured with the EuroQol instrument, mental health measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, disability with the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire and economic costs measured from a societal perspective.
Results. Mean waiting times were 43 days (
= ±16) and 105 days ( = ±51) for ‘fast track’ and ‘ordinary’ appointments, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements in mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] scores for pain: 11 (7, 16)(P < 0.001); physical health status: 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.001); mental health status: 2 (0.1, 4) (P < 0.02); and health utility: 0.11 (0.07, 0.16) (P < 0.001) by the end of the 15-month period of the study, but there was no significant difference between either arm of the study.
Conclusions. Rationing by delay was not detrimental to either mental or physical health and patients in both arms of the study showed significant and similar improvement in health by 15 months. Expenditure of resources on waiting times without regard to clinical outcomes is likely to be wasteful and additional resources should be directed at achieving the greatest clinical benefit. More research into effective methods of controlling demand and better identification of those who would benefit from access to specialist care is needed.
KEY WORDS: Rationing, Waiting list, Arthritis, Health status, Health outcome, Economic cost.
Correspondence to: N. P. Hurst.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Sathi, E. Whitehead, and D. Grennan Can a rheumatologist accurately prioritize patients on the basis of information in the general practitioner referral letter? Rheumatology, October 1, 2003; 42(10): 1270 - 1271. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Roberts, E. A. Dolman, A. O. Adebajo, and M. Underwood A national qualitative survey of community-based musculoskeletal services in the UK Rheumatology, September 1, 2003; 42(9): 1074 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Roberts, A. O. Adebajo, and S. Long Improving the quality of care of musculoskeletal conditions in primary care Rheumatology, May 1, 2002; 41(5): 503 - 508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|