Priority setting in surgery: Improve the process and share the learning

World Journal of Surgery

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 962-966

  Martin, Douglas K ^a   Walton, Nancy ^a   Singer, Peter A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LEARNING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; SURGEON; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TRAINING;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; SURGERY; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 0041825223     PISSN: 03642313     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-003-7100-y     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? J. Econ. Perspect. 1992;6:3-21
2. Giacomini MK. The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J. Health Politics Policy Law 1999;24:715-758
3. Troidl H. Introduction to first edition. In Troidl H, Spitzer W, McKneally MF et al., editors, Principles and Practice of Research: Strategies for Surgeon Investigators, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1998;xxxi
4. McKneally MF, Dickens B, Meslin EM, et al. Bioethics for clinicians: resource allocation. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1997;157:163-167
5. Ham C, McIver S. Contested decisions: priority setting in the NHS, London, King's Fund, 2000
6. Daniels N, Sabin J. Ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998 17:50-64
7. Eddy DM. Principles for making difficult decisions in difficult times. J.A.M.A. 1994;271:792-798
8. Horton R. NICE: a step forward in the quality of NHS care. Lancet 1999;353:1028-1029
9. Daniels N. Four unsolved rationing problems: a challenge. Hastings Cent. Rep. 1994;24:27-29
10. Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998;17:50-64
11. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002
12. Ham C. Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the Child B case. B.M.J. 1999;319:1258-1261
13. Norheim OF. Healthcare rationing: are additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines? B.M.J. 1999;319:1426-1429
14. Ham C, Roberts G, editors. Priority Setting in Health Care, Institutions: Information and "Accountability for Reasonableness," Open University Press, London (in press)
15. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002;170
16. Eddy DM. Benefit language: criteria that will improve quality while reducing costs. J.A.M.A. 1996;275:650-657
17. Deber RB, Goel V. Using explicit decision rules to manage issues of justice, risk, and ethics in decision analysis: when is it not rational to maximize expected utility? Med. Decis. Making 1990;10:181-194
18. Eddy DM. Oregon's methods: did cost-effectiveness analysis fail? J.A.M.A. 1991;266:2135-2141
19. Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority setting and health technology assessment: beyond evidence based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. In Ham C, Coulter A, editors, The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing Buckingham, UK, Open University Press, 2000;135-145
20. Battista RN, Hodge MJ, Vineis P. Medicine, practice and guidelines: the uneasy juncture of science and art. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1995;48:875-880
21. Pauss Jensen AM, Singer PA, Detsky AS. How Ontario's Formulary Committee makes recommendations. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:285-294
22. Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. B.M.J. 1998;317:1000-1002
23. Robinson R. Limits to rationality: economics, economists and priority setting. Health Policy 1999;49:13-26
24. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (brochure), Ottawa, CCOHT, 1995
25. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1999;160:1464-1467
26. Battista RN. Towards a paradigm for technology assessment. In Peckam M, Smith R, editors, Scientific Basis of Health Services, London, BMJ Publishing Group, 1996
27. Daar AS, Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA. 47.9. Surgery with limited resources. In Morris PJ, Wood WC, editors, Oxford Textbook of Surgery, 2nd edition, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2000;3381-3395
28. Devlin HB. Commentary. In Troidl H, Spitzer W, McKneally MF, editors, Principles and Practice of Research: Strategies for Surgeon Investigators, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1998;576
29. Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, et al. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures: Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet 1990;336:310-311
30. Naylor CD, Sykora K, Jaglal SB, et al. Waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery: population-based study of 8517 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada; the Steering Committee of the Adult Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. Lancet 1995;346:1605-1609
31. Hadorn DC, Holmes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. 1. Overview. B.M.J. 1997;314:131-134
32. Hadorn DC, Holmes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. 1. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery. B.M.J. 1997;314:135-138
33. Western Canada Waiting List Project. From Chaos to Order: Making Sense of Waiting Lists in Canada. Final Report, 2001. http://www.wcwl/org/graphics/finalrpt.pdf
34. Naylor CD, Sykora K, Jaglal S, et al. Waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery: population-based study of 8517 consecutive patients in Ontario. Canada. Lancet 1995;346:1605-1609
35. Naylor CD, Morgan CD, Levinton CM, et al. Waiting for coronary revascularization in Toronto: 2 year's experience with a regional referral office. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1993;149:955-962
36. Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, et al. The Revascularization Panel and Consensus Methods Group: assessment of priority for coronary revascularization. Lancet 1990;335:1070-1073
37. Cox JL, Petrie JF, Pollak PT, et al. Managed delay for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the experience at one Canadian centre. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1996;2796:1365-1373
38. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, et al. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: a qualitative case study. B.M.J. 2000;321:1316-1318
39. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs: what rationales are used? Lancet 2001;358:1676-1681
40. D'Souza D, Martin DK, Purdy L, et al. The waiting list for radiation therapy: a case study. B.M.C. Health services Res. 2001;1:3
41. Kazanjian A. How policy informs the evidence. Comprehensive evidence is needed in decision making. B.M.J. 2001;322:1304