BMJ 1995;311:783-785 (23 September)

Papers

Waiting list dynamics and the impact of earmarked funding

John N Newton, consultant epidemiologist,a Jane Henderson, research officer,a Michael J Goldacre, director a

a Unit of Health Care Epidemiology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX 37LF

Correspondence to: Dr Newton.

Abstract

Objective: To determine how changes in the number of admissions from waiting lists and changes in the number of additions to the lists are related to list size and waiting times, in the context of local waiting list initiatives.
Design: Review of national and Korner statistics.
Setting: England (1987-94) and districts of the former Oxford region (1987-91).
Main outcome measures: Correlation of quarterly changes in the number of admissions from waiting lists in England with changes in total list size, numbers of patients waiting one to two, or over two years, and number of additions to the lists; examination of changes in waiting list statistics for individual district specialties in one region in relation to funding for waiting list initiatives.
Results: Nationally, changes in the number of admissions to hospital from lists closely correlated with changes in the number of additions to lists (r=0.84; P<0.01). After adjusting for changes in the number of additions to lists, changes in the number of admissions correlated inversely with changes in list size (r=-0.62; P<0.001). Decreases in the number of patients waiting from one to two years were significantly associated with increases in the number of admissions (r=-0.52; P<0.01); locally, only six of 44 waiting list initiatives were followed by an increase in admissions and a fall in list size, although a further 11 were followed by a fall in list size without a corresponding increase in admissions.
Conclusions: An increase in admissions improved waiting times but did not reduce list size because additions to the list tended to increase at the same time. The appropriateness of waiting list initiatives as a method of funding elective surgery should be reviewed.

Key messages

  • Key messages

  • Increasing the numbers of admissions improves waiting times but not list size

  • Targeted funding often fails to achieve its objectives

  • Use of waiting list initiatives should be reviewed


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Smethurst, D P, Williams, H C (2002). Self-regulation in hospital waiting lists. JRSM 95: 287-289 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Devlin, N., Harrison, A., Derrett, S. (2002). Waiting in the NHS: Part 1--a diagnosis. JRSM 95: 223-226 [Full text]  
  • Lewis, S., Barer, M. L., Sanmartin, C., Sheps, S., Shortt, S. E.D., McDonald, P. W. (2000). Ending waiting-list mismanagement: principles and practice. CMAJ 162: 1297-1300 [Full text]  
  • Hurst, N. P., Lambert, C. M., Forbes, J., Lochhead, A., Major, K., Lock, P. (2000). Does waiting matter? A randomized controlled trial of new non-urgent rheumatology out-patient referrals. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39: 369-376 [Abstract] [Full text]  



Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student 

BMJ