Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:58:37.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Waiting-list prioritization in the National Health Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2006

S. Prasad
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington, UK.
P. K. D. Kapoor
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington, UK.
Aneesh Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Lane, Wigan,UK.
K. T. V. Reddy
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington, UK.
B. N. Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Lane, Wigan,UK.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to find out whether there is a consensus of opinion among healthcare providers and different sections of the public on the relative prioritization of common otolaryngological conditions for outpatient consultations and inpatient treatment. ENT consultants, general practitioners, administrators, NHS employees, non-ENT patients and members of the general public were given common scenarios of otolaryngological conditions and asked to prioritize them in order of importance. All the groups gave top priority for patients with suspected cancer of the larynx (outpatients) and for surgical treatment of cancer. Children with hearing problems were more commonly ranked in the top three categories than children requiring treatment for sore throats. All groups assigned those requiring rhinoplasty, treatment for snoring or hearing aids to the last three ranks. This study shows that there is a remarkable uniformity of opinion in determining clinical priorities which is similar to the traditional policies practised by UK ENT consultants.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)